Commodities & Energy Sector

Special Report

Highlights Investors should expect little policy initiative out of the U.S. Congress after tax cuts; Polarization is likely to rise substantively in 2018, gridlocking Congress; Chinese policymakers are experimenting with growth-constraining reforms; Global growth has peaked; underweight emerging markets in 2018; Go long energy stocks relative to metal and mining equities. Feature Last week we published Part I of our 2018 Key Views.1 In it, we presented our five "Black Swans" for 2018: Lame Duck Trump: President Trump realizes his time in the White House is going to be short and seeks relevance abroad. He finds it in jingoism towards Iran - throwing the Middle East into chaos - and protectionism against China. A Coup In North Korea: Chinese economic pressure overshoots its mark and throws Pyongyang into a crisis. Kim Jong-un is replaced, but markets struggle to ascertain whether the successor is a moderate or a hawk. Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn: Markets cheer the higher probability of "Bremain" and then remember that Corbyn is a genuine socialist. Italian Election Troubles: Markets are fully pricing in the sanguine scenario of "much ado about nothing," which is our view as well. But is there really anything to cheer in Italy? If not, then why is the Italian market the best performing in all of DM? Bloodbath In Latin America: Emerging markets stall next year as Chinese policymakers tighten financial regulations. As the tide pulls back, Mexico and Brazil are caught swimming naked. These are not our core views. As black swans, they are low-probability events that may disturb markets in 2018. Our core view remains that geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017 and will be understated in 2018 (Charts 1 & 2). Most importantly, U.S. politics will be a tailwind to global growth while Chinese politics will be a headwind to global growth. While the overall effect may be neutral, the combination will be bullish for the U.S. dollar and bearish for emerging markets.2 Chart 12018 Will See Risks Dominate... Chart 2...As Global Growth Concerns Reemerge This week, we turn to the three questions that we believe will define the year for investors: Is A Civil War Coming To America? Is The Ghost Of Deng Xiaoping Haunting China? Will Geopolitical Risk Shift To The Middle East? Is A Civil War Coming To America? On a recent visit to Boston and New York we were caught off guard by how alarmed several large institutional clients were about the risk of severe social unrest in the U.S. We share this concern about the level of polarization in the U.S. and expect social instability to rise over the coming years (Chart 3).3 When roughly 40% of both Democrats and Republicans believe that their political competitors pose a "threat to the nation's well-being," we have entered a new paradigm (Chart 4). Chart 3Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 4"A Threat To The Nation's Well-Being?" Really?! Where we differ from some of our clients is in assessing the likely trigger for the unrest and its investment implications over the next 12 months. If the Democrats take the House of Representatives in the November 6 midterm election, as is our low-conviction view at this early point, then we would expect them eventually to impeach President Trump in 2019.4 Even then, it is not clear that the Senate would have the necessary 67 votes to convict Trump of the articles of impeachment (whatever they prove to be) and hence remove him from power. Republicans are likely to increase their majority in the Senate, even if they lose the House, because more Democratic senators are up for re-election in 2018. Therefore well over a dozen Republican senators would have to vote to remove a Republican president from power. For that to happen, Trump's popularity with Republican voters would have to go into a free fall, diving well below 60% (Chart 5). Meanwhile, we do not buy the argument that hordes of gun-wielding "deplorables" would descend upon the liberal coasts in case of impeachment. There may well be significant acts of domestic terrorism, particularly in the wake of any removal of Trump from office, but they would likely be isolated and unable to galvanize broader support. Our clients should remember, however, that ultra-right-wing militant groups are not the only perpetrators of domestic terrorism.5 Any acts of violence or social unrest are likely to draw press coverage and analytical hyperbole. But our left-leaning clients in the Northeast are likely overstating the sincerity of support for President Trump. President Trump won 44.9% of the Republican primary votes, but he averaged only 35% of the vote in the early days when the races were the most competitive. Given that only 25% of Americans identify as Republicans (Chart 6), it is fair to say that only about a third of that figure - 8%-10% of all U.S. voters - are Trump loyalists. Many conservative voters simply wanted change and were willing to give an outsider a chance (much as their liberal counterparts did in 2008!). Of that small percentage of genuine Trump fans, it is highly unlikely that a large share would seriously contemplate taking arms against the state in order to keep their leader in power against the constitutional impeachment process. Especially given that President Trump would be replaced by a genuine conservative, Vice President Mike Pence.6 Chart 5We Are A Long Way Away##BR##From Trump's Demise Chart 6Party Identifications##BR##Are Shrinking As such, we believe that it is premature to speak of a total breakdown of social order in America. It is notable that such a conversation is taking place, but other forms of polarization and social unrest are far more likely to be relevant at the moment. In terms of policy, we would expect gridlock in Congress if Democrats take the House and begin focusing on impeachment. In fact, gridlock may already be upon us, as we see little agreement between the Trump administration, its loyalists in Congress, and establishment Republican Senators like Dan Sullivan (R, Alaska), Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), Ben Sasse (R, Nebraska), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). These six Senators are all facing reelection in 2020 and are likely to evolve into Democrats-in-all-but-name. If President Trump's overall popularity continues to decline, we would not be surprised if one or two (starting with Collins) even take the dramatic step of leaving the Republican Party for the 2020 election. Essentially, establishment Republicans will become effective Democrats ahead of the midterms. Post-midterm election, with Democrats potentially taking over the House, the legislative process will grind to a complete halt. Government shutdowns, debt ceiling fights, failure of proactive policymaking to deal with crises and natural disasters, will all rise in probability. As President Trump faces greater constraints in Congress, we can see him becoming increasingly reliant on his executive authority to create policy. He would not be unique in this way, as President Obama did the same. While Trump's executive policy will be pro-business, unlike Obama's, uncertainty will rise regardless. The business community will not be able to take White House policies seriously amidst impeachment and a potential Democratic wave-election in 2020. Whatever executive orders Trump signs into power over the next three years, chances are that they will be immediately reversed in 2020. What about the markets? The Mueller investigation and heightened level of polarization could create drawdowns in equity markets throughout the year. However, impeachment proceedings are not likely to begin in 2018 and have never carried more weight with investors than market fundamentals (Chart 7).7 True, the Watergate scandal under President Richard Nixon triggered a spike in volatility and a fall in equities. However, the scandal alone did not cause the correction, rather it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, massive insurance fraud, recession, and a global oil shock.8 Chart 7AFundamentals, Not Impeachment,##BR##Drive Markets Chart 7BFundamentals, Not Impeachment,##BR##Drive Markets What about the impact on the U.S. dollar? Does Trump-related political instability threaten the dollar's status as the chief global reserve currency and a major financial safe haven? The data suggest not. We put together a list of events in 2017 that could be categorized as "unorthodox, Trump-related, political risk" (Table 1). We specifically left out geopolitical events, such as the North Korean nuclear crisis, so as not to dilute our dataset's focus on domestic intrigue. As Chart 8 illustrates, the U.S. dollar rose slightly, on average, a week after each event relative to its average weekly return prior to the crisis. While this may not be a resounding vote of confidence for the greenback (gold performed better), there is no evidence that investors are betting on a paradigm shift away from the dollar as the global reserve currency. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of Trump Presidency Chart 8Trump Is Not A U.S. Dollar Paradigm Shift If investors should not worry about investment-relevant social strife in the U.S. in 2018, then when should they worry? Well, if Trump is actually removed from office, a first in U.S. history, at a time of extreme polarization, and in a country with easy access to arms and at least a strain of domestic terrorism, then 2019-20 will at least be a time for concern. Even without Trump's removal, we worry about unrest beyond 2018. We expect the ideological pendulum to shift to the left by the 2020 election. If our sister service - BCA's Global Investment Strategy - is correct, then a recession is likely to begin in late 2019.9 A combination of low popularity, market turbulence, and economic recession would doom Trump's chances of returning to the White House. But they would also be toxic for the candidacy of a moderate Democrat and would possibly propel a left-wing candidate to the presidency. Four years under a left-wing, socially progressive firebrand may be too much for many far-right voters to tolerate. Given America's demographic trends (Chart 9), these voters will realize that the writing is on the wall, that the window of opportunity to lock in their preferred policies has been firmly shut. The international context teaches us that disenchanted groups contemplate "exit" when the strategy of "voice" no longer works. How this will look in the U.S. is unclear at this point. Bottom Line: Investors should continue to fade impeachment-related, and Mueller investigation-related, pullbacks in the markets or the U.S. dollar in 2018. Our fears of U.S. social instability are mostly for the medium and long term. Fundamentals drive the markets and U.S. fundamentals remain solid for now. As our colleague Peter Berezin has pointed out, there is no imminent risk of a U.S. recession (Chart 10) and the cyclical picture remains bright (Chart 11).10 Chart 9A Changing America Chart 10No Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession Chart 11U.S. Cyclical Picture Is Bright Where BCA's Geopolitical Strategy diverges from the BCA House View, however, is in terms of the global growth picture. While we recognize that there are no imminent risks of a global recession, we do believe that the policy trajectory in China is being obfuscated by positive global economic projections. To this risk we now turn. Is The Ghost Of Deng Xiaoping Haunting China? Our view that Chinese President Xi Jinping would reboot his reform agenda after the nineteenth National Party Congress this October is beginning to bear fruit. Investors are starting to realize that the policy tightening of 2017 was not a one-off event but a harbinger of what to expect in 2018. China's economic activity is slowing down and the policy outlook is getting less accommodative (Chart 12).11 To be clear, we never bought into the 2013 Third Plenum "reform" hype, which sought to resurrect the ghost of Deng Xiaoping and his decision to open China's economy at the Third Plenum in 1978.12 Nor will we buy into any similar hype around the upcoming Third Plenum in 2018. Instead, we focus on policymaker constraints. And it seems to us that the constraints to reform in China have fallen since 2013. The severity of China's financial and economic imbalances, the positive external economic backdrop, the desire to avoid confrontation with Trump, and the Xi administration's advantageous moment in the Chinese domestic political cycle, all suggest to us that Xi will be driven to accelerate his agenda in 2018. Broadly, this agenda consists of revitalizing the Communist Party regime at home and elevating China's national power and prestige abroad. More specifically it entails: Re-centralizing power after a perceived lack of leadership from roughly 2004-12; Improving governance, to rebuild the legitimacy and popular support of the single-party state, namely by fighting corruption; Restructuring the economy to phase out the existing growth model, which relies excessively on resource-intensive investment while suppressing private consumption (Chart 13). Chart 12China's Economic Prospects Are Dimming Chart 13Excess Investment Is A Real Problem The October party congress showed that this framework remains intact.13 First, Xi was elevated to Mao Zedong's status in the party constitution, which makes it much riskier for vested interests to flout his policies. Second, he declared the creation of a "National Supervision Commission," which will expand the anti-corruption campaign from the Communist Party to the administrative bureaucracy at all levels. Third, he recommitted to his economic agenda of improving the quality of economic growth at the expense of its pace and capital intensity. What does this mean for the economy in 2018? We expect government policy to become a headwind, after having been a tailwind in 2016-17. As Xi and the top-decision-making Politburo officially stated on December 9, the coming year will be a "crucial year" for advancing the most difficult aspects of the agenda: Financial risk: Financial regulation will continue to tighten, not only on banks and shadow lenders but also on the property sector, which Chinese officials claim will see a new "long-term regulatory mechanism" begin to be enacted (perhaps a nationwide property tax) (Chart 14). Local governments will face greater central discipline over bad investments, excessive debt, and corruption. The new leadership of the People's Bank of China, and of the just-created "Financial Stability and Development Commission," will attempt to establish their credibility in the face of banks that will be clamoring for less readily available liquidity.14 Green industrial restructuring: State-owned enterprises (SOEs) will continue to face stricter environmental regulations and cuts to overcapacity. This is in addition to tighter financial conditions, SOE restructuring initiatives, and an anti-corruption campaign that puts top managers under the microscope. SOEs that have not been identified as national champions, or otherwise as leading firms, will get squeezed.15 What are the market implications? First and foremost, the status quo in China is shifting, which is at least marginally negative for China's GDP growth, fixed investment, capital spending, import volumes, and resource-intensity. Real GDP should fall to around 6%, if not below, rather than today's 7%, while the Li Keqiang index should fall beneath the 2013-14 average rate of 7.3%. Second, a smooth and seamless conclusion of the 2016-17 upcycle cannot be assumed. The government's heightened effectiveness in economic policy will stem in part from an increase in political risk: the expansion of the anti-corruption campaign and Xi Jinping's personal power.16 The linking of anti-corruption probes with general policy enforcement means that any lack of compliance could result in top officials being ostracized, imprisoned, or even executed. Xi's measures will have sharper teeth than the market currently expects. Local economic actors (small banks, shadow lenders, local governments, provincial SOEs) will behave more cautiously. This will create negative growth surprises not currently being predicted by leading economic indicators (Chart 15). Chart 14Property Tightening##BR##Continues Chart 15Our Composite LKI Indicator Suggests##BR##A Benign Slowdown In Growth Chinese economic policy uncertainty, credit default swaps, and equity volatility should trend upward, as investors become accustomed to sectors disrupted by government scrutiny and a government with a higher tolerance for economic pain (Chart 16). How should investors play this scenario? Despite the volatility, we still expect Chinese equities, particularly H-shares, to outperform the EM benchmark, assuming the economy does not spiral out of control and cause a global rout. Reforms will improve China's long-term potential even as they weigh on EM exports, currencies, corporate profits and share prices. On a sectoral basis, BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown that China's health care, tech, and consumer staples sectors (and arguably energy) all outperformed China's other sectors in the wake of the party congress, as one would expect of a reinvigorated reform agenda (Chart 17). These sectors should continue to outperform. Going long the MSCI Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Leaders index, relative to the broad market, is one way to bet on more sustainable growth.17 Chart 16Stability Continues##BR##After Party Congress? Chart 17China's Reforms Will Create##BR##Some Winners And Losers More broadly, investors should prefer DM over EM equities, since emerging markets (especially Latin America) will suffer from a slower-growing and less commodity-hungry China (Chart 18). Within the commodities complex, investors should expect crosswinds, with energy diverging upward from base metals that are weighed down by China.18 Chart 18Who Is Exposed To China? What are the risks to this view? How and when will we find out if we are wrong? Chart 19All Signs Pointing To Headwinds Ahead First, the best leading indicators of China's economy are indicators of money and credit, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy and China Investment Strategy have shown.19 The credit and broad money (M3) impulses have finally begun to tick back up after a deep dip, suggesting that in six-to-nine months the economy, which has only just begun to slow, will receive some necessary relief (Chart 19). The question is how much relief? Strong spikes in these impulses, or in the monetary conditions index or housing prices, would indicate that stimulus is still taking precedence over reform. Second, our checklist for a reform reboot, which we have maintained since April and is so far on track, offers some critical political signposts for H1 2018 (Table 2).20 For instance, if China is serious about deleveraging, then authorities will restrain bank lending at the beginning of the year. A sharp increase in credit growth in Q1 would greatly undermine our thesis (while likely encouraging exuberance globally).21 Also, in March, the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber-stamp parliament, will hold its annual meeting. NPC sessions can serve to launch new reform initiatives (as in 1998 and 2008) or new stimulus efforts (as in 2009 and 2016). This year's legislative session is more important than usual because it will formally launch Xi Jinping's second term. The event should provide more detail on at least a few concrete reform initiatives. If the only solid takeaways are short-term growth measures and more infrastructure investment, then the status quo will prevail. Table 2China Reform Checklist By the end of May, an assessment of the concrete NPC initiatives and the post-NPC economic data should indicate whether China's threshold for economic pain has truly gone up. If not, then any reforms that the Xi administration takes will have limited effect. It is important to note that our view does not hinge on China's refraining from stimulus altogether. We do not expect Beijing to self-impose a recession. Rather, we expect stimulus to be of a smaller magnitude than in 2015-16. We also expect the complexion of fiscal spending to continue to become less capital intensive as it is directed toward building a social safety net (Chart 20). Massive old-style stimulus should only return if the economy starts to collapse, or closer to the sensitive 2020-21 economic targets timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Communist Party.22 Chart 20China's Fiscal Spending Is Becoming Less Capital Intensive Bottom Line: The Xi administration has identified financial instability, environmental degradation, and poverty as persistent threats to the regime and is moving to address them. The consequences are, on the whole, likely to be negative for growth in the short term but positive in the long term. We expect China to see greater volatility but to benefit from better long-term prospects. Meanwhile China-exposed, commodity-reliant EMs will suffer negative side-effects. Will Geopolitical Risk Shift To The Middle East? The U.S. geopolitical "pivot to Asia" has been a central theme of our service since its launch in 2012.23 The decision to geopolitically deleverage from the Middle East and shift to Asia was undertaken by the Obama administration (Chart 21). Not because President Obama was a dove with no stomach to fight it out in the Middle East, but because the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment sees containing China as America's premier twenty-first century challenge. Chart 21U.S. Has Deleveraged From The Middle East The grand strategy of containing China has underpinned several crucial decisions by the U.S. since 2011. First, the U.S. has become a lot more aggressive about challenging China's military expansion in the South China Sea. Second, the U.S. has begun to reposition military hardware into East Asia. Third, Washington concluded a nuclear deal with Tehran in 2015 - referred to as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - in order to extricate itself from the Middle East and focus on China.24 President Trump, however, while maintaining the pivot, has re-focused his rhetoric back on the Middle East. The decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, while largely accepting a fait accompli, is an unorthodox move that suggests that this administration's threshold for accepting chaos in the Middle East is a lot lower. Our concern is that the Trump administration may set its sights on Iran next. President Trump appears to believe that the U.S. can contain China, coerce North Korea into nuclear negotiations, and reverse Iranian gains in the Middle East at the same time. In our view, he cannot. The U.S. military is stretched, public war weariness remains a political constraint, regional allies are weak, and without ground-troop commitments to the Middle East Trump is unlikely to change the balance of power against Iran. All that the abrogation of the JCPA would do is provoke Iran, which could lash out across the Middle East, particularly in Iraq where Tehran-supported Shia militias remain entrenched. Investors should carefully watch whether Trump approves another six-month waiver for the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (IFCA) of 2012. This act imposes sanctions against all entities - whether U.S., Iranian, or others - doing business with the country (Table 3). In essence, IFCA is the congressional act that imposed sanctions against Iran. The original 2015 nuclear deal did not abrogate IFCA. Instead, Obama simply waived its provisions every six months, as provided under the original act. Table 3U.S. Sanctions Have Global Reach BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy remains overweight oil. As our energy strategists point out, the last two years have been remarkably benign regarding unplanned production outages. Iran, Libya, and Nigeria all returned production to near-full potential, adding over 1.5 million b/d of supply back to the world markets (Chart 22). This supply increase is unlikely to repeat itself in 2018, particularly as geopolitical risks are likely to return in Iraq, Libya, and Nigeria, and already have in Venezuela (Chart 23). Chart 22Unplanned Production Outages Are At The Lowest Level In Years Nigeria is on the map once again with the Niger Delta Avengers vowing to renew hostilities with the government. Nigeria's production has been recovering since pipeline saboteurs knocked it down to 1.4 million b/d in the period from May 2016 to June 2017, but rising tensions could threaten output anew. And Venezuela remains in a state of near-collapse.25 Iraq is key, and three risks loom large. First, as we have pointed out since early 2016, the destruction of the Islamic State is exposing fault lines between the Kurds - who have benefited the most from the vacuum created by the Islamic State's defeat - and their Arab neighbors.26 Second, remnants of the Islamic State may turn into saboteurs since their dream of controlling a Caliphate is dead. Third, investors need to watch renewed tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Shia-Sunni tensions could reignite if Tehran decides to retaliate against any re-imposition of economic sanctions by Washington. Not only could Tehran retaliate against Sunnis in Iraq, throwing the country into another civil war, but it could even go back to its favorite tactic from 2011: threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz. Another critical issue to consider is how the rest of the world would respond to the re-imposition of sanctions against Iran. Under IFCA, the Trump administration would be able to sanction any bank, shipping, or energy company that does business with the country, including companies belonging to European and Asian allies. If the administration pursued such policy, however, we would expect a major break between the U.S. and Europe. It took Obama four years of cajoling, threatening, and strategizing to convince Europe, China, India, Russia, and Asian allies to impose sanctions against Iran. For many economies this was a tough decision given reliance on Iran for energy supplies. A move by the U.S. to re-open the front against Iran, with no evidence that Tehran has failed to uphold the nuclear deal itself, would throw U.S. alliances into a flux. The implications of such a decision could therefore go beyond merely increasing the geopolitical risk premium. Chart 23Iraq, Libya, And Venezuela Are##BR##At Risk Of Production Disruptions In 2018 Chart 24Buy Energy,##BR##Short Metals Bottom Line: BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy has set the average oil price forecast at $67 per barrel for 2018.27 We believe that the upside risk to this view is considerable. As a way to parlay our relatively bearish view on the Chinese economy with the bullish oil view of our commodity colleagues, we would recommend that our clients go long global energy stocks relative to metal and mining equities (Chart 24). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "2018 Key Views, Part I: Five Black Swans," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 On June 14, James Hodkinson, a left-wing activist, attacked Republican members of Congress while practicing baseball for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. 6 A very sophisticated client in New York asked us whether we believed that National Guard units, who are staffed from the neighborhoods they would have to pacify in case of unrest, would remain loyal to the federal government in case of impeachment-related unrest. Our high-conviction view is that they would. First, the U.S. has a highly professionalized military with a strong history of robust civil-military relations. Second, if the Alabama National Guard remained loyal to President Kennedy in the 1963 University of Alabama integration protests - the so-called "Stand in the Schoolhouse Door" incident - then we certainly would expect "Red State" National Guard units to remain loyal to their chain-of-command in 2017. That said, the very fact that we do not consider the premise of the question to be ludicrous suggests that we are in a genuine paradigm shift. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 The "Saturday Night Massacre," which escalated the crisis in the White House, occurred in October, the same month that OPEC launched an oil embargo and caused the oil shock. The U.S. economy was already sliding into recession, which technically began in November. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, and Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013, and Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 For instance, the decision to stack the country's chief bank regulator (the CBRC) with some of the country's toughest anti-corruption officials is significant and will bode ill not only for corrupt regulators but also for banks that have benefited from cozy relationships with them. This is not a neutral development with regard to bank lending. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Note that these eco-reforms will reduce supply, which could offset - at least in part - the lower demand from within China. Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals," dated November 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. The status of China's supply-side reforms suggests that steel, coking coal, and iron ore prices are most likely to decline from current levels; please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 It is primarily credit excesses that a reform-oriented government would seek to rein in, while fiscal spending may have to increase to try to compensate for slower credit growth. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, and "Brewing Tensions In The South China Sea: Implications," dated June 13, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Energy Sector Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, "Key Themes For Energy Markets In 2018," dated December 7, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

As we near the end of an impressive year for equities, the relationship between price growth and earnings growth and how to best position a portfolio for 2018 bears some reflection. The purpose of this report, rather than take a position on inflation or growth, is to create a roadmap such that investors can allocate according to their expectations for both and also avoid potential pitfalls and embrace likely winners. Diagram 1Four Quadrants Of Earnings And Inflation In framing our analysis, we will focus on the top half of a well-known growth/inflation matrix presented in Diagram 1 below (stay tuned for a follow-up Special Report when we examine the sector impacts of deflation). We have used S&P 500 earnings as our measure of growth for two reasons: first, they lead GDP and IP growth and second, they are most relevant in a discussion of S&P 500 sector allocations. While inflation and earnings growth tend to move together, this has not always been the case. We have identified six time periods in which inflation has been visibly rising (shaded in Chart 1) and compared it with S&P 500 EPS growth. The mean reverting nature of S&P 500 earnings growth makes discerning a pattern difficult but, more often than not, there is a positive correlation with rising inflation. Over the last 60 years S&P 500 earnings growth has averaged 7.6%, while core PCE prices increased on average by 3.3%. As shown in Table 1 below, S&P 500 earnings outpaced core inflation in four periods (indeed, they grew much faster) and fell behind in two periods. We thus place 1965-1971 and 1998-2002 in the top-left quadrant of our matrix (Stagflation) and 1973-1975, 1976-1981, 1987-1989 and 2003-2006 in the top-right (Boom Times). It is important to qualify that, for the purposes of this report, we are considering all periods in which inflation is increasing, not necessarily periods when it is elevated on an absolute basis. Chart 1Earnings And Inflation Usually Move Together... Table 1...But Not Always In our examination of inflation and sector winners last year1, we presented Table 2 below, now modified to tie sector earnings growth to relative share price performance. Breaking down sector performance in boom and bust periods is revealing. The first and most obvious observation is that stock performance tracks earnings growth in all periods, implying that fundamentals lead valuation, as they should. The second observation is that empirical evidence supports sector allocation theory in inflationary boom/bust periods. Table 2Sector Performance When Inflation Rises In theory, the best performing stocks in a stagflation environment would have low economic sensitivity but high pricing power. This is borne out with S&P health care being the top performing sector both from an earnings growth and, predictably, relative stock performance perspective. By contrast, the top performing boom time stocks should be the most economically sensitive yet still stores of value. In these periods, the top overall performer was energy which checks all the boxes. This year, we are expanding our analysis to the GICS2 sectors which have shared the same cyclical return profile as their GICS1 peers (Table 3). In the inflationary busts, defensive stocks including healthcare equipment and food & beverage outperformed. As expected, the inflationary booms saw traditional cyclical indices including energy and transportation outperform. Table 3GICS2 Sector Performance When Inflation Rises In the next section, we will take a deeper look at three of the GICS2 top and two bottom quartile performers when inflation is rising. Energy - (Currently Overweight) The S&P energy index has been a stellar performer in all six high inflation periods we have examined and has the highest average return of all GICS2 sectors. This is logical, considering the sector's revenue, profit and share price leverage to the underlying commodity. During periods of high inflation, all stores of value tend to increase and oil is no exception. An additional tailwind for energy prices with inflation is the associated elevated industrial production; the current synchronized global growth backdrop should sustain a healthy level of demand for energy. Keep in mind oil prices are an excellent gauge of global growth. In the context of a falling rig count and contracting oil stocks (Chart 2), energy prices and stocks seem likely to remain well bid, underpinning our overweight recommendation on the S&P energy index. Transportation - (Currently Overweight) Transportation can largely be summarized as S&P railroads (currently overweight) and S&P air freight & logistics (currently overweight) which together comprise 75% of the index. The index has been a very strong performer in periods of rising inflation, driven by coincident accelerating global trade volumes (Chart 3). Historically, global industrial production and both rail and air freight EPS have moved in tandem as relatively fixed supply drives pricing power firmly on the side of logistics providers (Chart 3). This pricing power allows the transportation to mitigate the usually coincidentally highly volatile energy price via oil surcharges, offsetting what is typically the largest input cost. Together, firming volumes and pricing gains support an outsized earnings outlook and our overweight recommendation in transportation. Chart 2Inflation, IP And Oil Prices Move Together Chart 3Rising Inflation Is A Boon To Global Trade Volume Health Care Equipment - (Currently Neutral) The S&P health care equipment index has consistently been an outperformer in each of the six high inflation impulse periods we analyzed. This is all the more interesting, considering it is the least cyclical of the top quartile relative performers. Health care equipment sales are largely driven by new facility construction which is, in turn, driven at least in part by consumer spending on health care. Consumer health care expenditure has a demonstrated propensity to follow (with significantly greater amplitude) overall inflation (Chart 4). Further, health care equipment is highly levered to global demand; the latter clearly rises hand in hand with inflation and should be EPS accretive to the former. Elevated relative valuations offsetting the positive operating environment keep us on the sidelines. Chart 4Health Care Spending Tracks Inflation Automotive - (Currently Underweight) Returns in the S&P automotive index are by far the most consistently negative when inflation is rising. Rising interest rates driving the costs of ownership higher, combined with the rational avoidance of a depreciating asset when stores of value are preferable, have historically impaired light vehicle sales as inflation climbs. In fact, the two have a tight negative correlation (Chart 5). In an industry where margins are razor thin at the best of times and fixed costs are relatively high, a shrinking top line implies significant profit contraction. Add on a highly geared balance sheet in a rising rate environment and the ingredients are all in place for underperformance. The current environment echoes this analysis; inventories are still elevated despite manufacturer incentives hitting their highest level in history and seven-year auto loans becoming the norm, something unheard of in previous cycles. Chart 5Inflation And Auto Sales Are Inversely Correlated Utilities - (Currently Underweight) Utilities, as the prototypical defensive sector, have unsurprisingly performed poorly as inflation is rising. Rising inflation expectations go hand in hand with rising bond yields (Chart 6); as a fixed-income proxy, utilities are likely to be subject to the same drubbing as the bond market when yields rise. Further, surging global trade is a notable boon to the three outperformers previously highlighted with their exceptional international exposure; utilities are a domestic-only investment and are bound to underperform. Overall, we recommend an underweight position in utilities. Chart 6Inflation Is A Headwind To Fixed Income Proxies Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Equity Sector Winners And Losers When Inflation Climbs," dated December 5, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Watching The Warning Signals Recommended Allocation Two of the three indicators we have focused on all year as reliable signals of recession (and, therefore, of the timing for reducing exposure to risk assets) have wobbled in the past month. But, for now, we are not too concerned about this, and continue to argue that the current bull market has maybe another year to run, until a possible 2019 recession starts to get priced in. Global growth indicators are showing no signs of slowdown, with the Global Manufacturing PMI at 53.5, and 26 of the 29 markets for which Markit runs its survey returning a PMI above 50 - close to the highest percentage on record (Chart 1). However, the flattening yield curve in the U.S. has raised concerns: the gap between the yield on two-year and 10-year Treasuries has fallen to less than 60 bps (Chart 2). But a flattening yield curve is not unusual when the Fed is tightening policy, and historically the curve has needed to invert before it became a recession signal. Also of concern was a jump in early November in high-yield spreads, which have also been a good lead indicator for recession (Chart 3). The rise was caused by poor earnings from lowly-rated telecoms companies, which triggered a sell-off in junk bond ETFs. But the rise in spreads remains insignificant, and has mostly reversed since. Chart 1Global Growth Looks Fine... Chart 2But Should We Worry About The Yield Curve... Chart 3...And Rising Credit Spreads? BCA's macro view, as laid out in detail in our recent 2018 Outlook,1 is that the strong growth that has been a positive for risk assets this year will slowly become a negative next year as it is increasingly accompanied by rising inflation. Two-thirds of countries globally now have unemployment below the NAIRU (Chart 4). In the U.S., employment has reached a level at which the Philips Curve has historically been "kinky", associated with an acceleration in wage growth (Chart 5). Upside surprises in inflation will mean that the Fed will hike three or four times next year (compared to the market's expectation of only 1½ hikes), 10-year bond yields will rise to above 3%, and the dollar will appreciate. Chart 4Unemployment Is Below Nairu In Most Places Chart 5The 'Kinky' U.S. Philips Curve What are the implications of this scenario for portfolio construction? We continue to recommend an overweight on risk assets on the 12-month time horizon, as we would expect equities to outperform bonds until Fed policy tightens above the neutral level (which is still about five rate hikes away, as long as core PCE inflation picks up to 2%, as we expect - Chart 6). However, the risks to this scenario are rising. The Fed could stubbornly push ahead with rate hikes even if inflation remains subdued. Chinese growth could slow if the authorities misjudge the timing of structural reforms. Our geopolitical strategists argue that, while investors overestimated political risks at the start of 2017, now they are underestimating the risks (North Korea, NAFTA renegotiation, China trade issues, Italian elections).2 With valuations stretched, small shocks could trigger a disproportionate negative market reaction. More risk-averse investors, therefore, might choose to reduce exposure now, at the risk of leaving some money on the table. Equities: If global equities have further upside, as we believe, higher beta markets such as the euro zone (average beta to global equities over the past 20 years: 1.2) and Japan (beta: 0.9) are likely to continue to outperform. Both have central banks that remain accommodative, our models suggest further upside for earnings growth into next year (Chart 7), and valuations are less stretched than in the U.S. While EM equities are also high beta, we think they are likely to lag next year: higher U.S. interest rates, a stronger U.S. dollar, potential slowdown in China, and sluggish domestic demand in most major emerging economies all represent significant headwinds. Chart 6How Long Until Rates Above Neutral? Chart 7Euro and Japan Earnings Have Upside Fixed Income: A combination of higher inflation and a more aggressive Fed is not a positive environment for government bonds. We expect the yield curve to steepen over the next six months, as the market prices in higher inflation and fiscal deficits (after the U.S. tax cut), but to resume flattening mid next year, as the Fed pushes ahead with rates hikes, and worries about the risk of a policy error emerge. For now, we remain underweight duration, and prefer inflation-linked over nominal bonds. For spread product, while valuations are stretched, we see some attractiveness. As long as the global expansion continues, U.S. investment grade bonds should see a carry pickup over Treasuries of around 100 bps, and high-yield bonds one of around 250 bps (adjusting for likely defaults) - even if we don't assume further spread contraction. In a world of continuing low rates, that remains alluring. Currencies will continue to be driven by relative monetary policy. While we see the Fed tightening more than the market expects, the ECB will not raise rates until late 2019, since underlying inflationary pressures in the euro zone are much weaker. This is largely in line with what the futures market is pricing in. Interest rate differentials (and an unwind of the current large speculative long-euro positions) should cause some weakness of the euro versus the dollar. We expect the Bank of Japan to stick to its 0% target for 10-year JGBs, which means that the yen will also weaken, to below 120 to the dollar, if U.S. interest rates rise in line with our forecasts (Chart 8). Emerging market currencies have already fallen by 1.3% since early September as U.S. rates rose, and amid signs of economic weakness in some emerging economies. We expect this to continue. Chart 8Yen Is Driven By U.S. Rates Chart 9China Is What Matter For Metals Commodities: Our energy strategists recently raised their target for Brent and WTI crude to an average over the next two years of $65 and $63 respectively, with risk of upside surprises in the event of geopolitical disruptions (Venezuela, Kurdistan etc.). They see the OPEC agreement being extended possibly to December 2018, and argue that backwardation of the oil curve (futures prices lower than spot) and rising extraction costs will delay the response of shale oil producers to the higher price. The outlook for industrial commodities depends, as always, on China, which now comprises greater demand for base metals than the rest of the world put together (Chart 9). The risk of a slowdown in Chinese infrastructure spending next year makes us wary on metals such as iron ore, and markets such as Australia and Brazil. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets On A Collision Course," dated 20 November 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated 22 November 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Agricultural markets are informationally efficient for the most part, which is to say that at any given time, prices already reflect most public information available to traders, and a lot of private information as well. Even so, we believe markets are underestimating the Fed's resolve in normalizing interest-rate policy next year - particularly when it comes to the number of rate hikes we are likely to see - and thus are underestimating the likelihood of lower grain prices in 2018. Energy: Overweight. Oil markets will emerge from their suspended animation following OPEC 2.0's Vienna meeting today. Our Brent and WTI call spreads in May, July and December 2018 - long $55/bbl calls vs. short $60/bbl calls - are up an average 50.2%. Our long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI trade anticipating steepening backwardation is up 13.3%. Base Metals: Neutral. China's refined zinc imports were up 145% yoy to 61,355 MT in October, based on customs data. Metal Bulletin noted tight domestic supplies accounted for the increase. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is breaking away from its attachment to $1,280/oz., as the USD weakens. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 5.2% since inception May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Global financial conditions will become increasingly important to grain prices going forward, a trend we explore below. Feature Record output and ending stocks will ensure that ag markets remain well supplied globally next year. While we see risks as balanced in the upcoming year, and remain neutral ags generally, we believe markets are underestimating the Fed's resolve when it comes to normalizing interest rates, and thus underestimate upside USD potential. This means the likelihood of lower grain prices also is being underestimated. Weather will add volatility to the mix, as well. We believe the fundamentals supporting the assessment of record output and season-ending stocks-to-use ratios are fully reflected in prices. However, financial conditions - particularly USD strength next year - are not being fully priced by markets. This makes grains, in particular, vulnerable to the downside. Financial conditions driving ag markets: Fed policy & real rates: we expect U.S. financial conditions to tighten, and for the Fed to hike rates once more this year, and up to three more times in 2018.1 FX rates: With higher U.S. policy rates next year, the USD is likely to strengthen. This will weaken grain prices generally. Wheat, in particular, is most vulnerable to a strengthening USD and a weakening of the currencies of some of the commodity's top exporters - the European Union, Russia, and Australia. We've narrowed down the fundamental factors to look out for in 2018 as follows: Strong demand amid an extension of supply cuts by the OPEC 2.0 coalition will support oil prices in 2018. Higher energy prices will increase profit-margin pressure in ag markets through input and shipping costs. Weather risks from La Nina threaten to curb yields this winter, especially in Argentina and Brazil, which will add volatility to prices. Policy shifts in Argentina, China, and Brazil will influence farmers' planting decisions in the upcoming crop year. A Look Back At 2017 Chart of the WeekGrains Outperformed Softs This Year As predicted in our 2017 outlook, grains reversed their 2016 underperformance vis-à-vis softs this year, and outperformed them.2 While prices for sugar, coffee, and cotton were up 28%, 8%, and 12% in 2016, they have since declined by 21%, 8%, and 2%, respectively. In fact, sugar - our top ag in 2016 - took the biggest hit this year (Chart of the Week). On the other hand, as a complex, grains currently stand at largely the same level as the beginning of last year. However, there are some idiosyncrasies within the class. The two worst performing grains last year - rice and wheat - have been the strongest performers so far this year. Rice rallied 30% year-to-date (ytd) on the back of tighter supplies, completely reversing its 19% decline in 2016. Similarly, wheat, which lost 13% of its value last year, is up a modest 3% ytd. On the other hand, soybeans surrendered its title as the most profitable grain in 2016. After gaining 14% last year, its fate turned and it fell 3% ytd. Finally, out of the lot, corn is the only ag we cover that has fallen in both years consecutively, by a minor 1.9% in 2016, and an additional 4.4% so far this year. A Recap Of Long Term Trends According to the International Grains Council's November estimates, grains production is projected to come down this crop year. With an increase in consumption, this will ultimately lead to a 5.2% decline in ending stocks - the first drawdown in five years. Despite the year-on-year (y-o-y) decline, grain inventories are expected to stand at their second highest level on record (Table 1). Table 1Grain Production Down While Consumption Inches Higher The decline in expected grain ending stocks is mainly driven by corn, which - despite a large upwards revision to U.S. yields in the most recent WASDE - is expected to experience a 3.6% decline in production. This, together with a boost in consumption, leads to a 13.6% fall in ending stocks - the first drawdown since the 2010/11 crop year. The decline in corn expectations reflects a shift in the planting preferences of some of the major producers. The U.S., Brazil, Argentina, and China are the top soybean and corn exporters - accounting for 78% and 49% of global soybean and corn area harvested in the 2016/17 crop year, respectively. What is significant in the current cycle is that farmers in these countries are moving away from planting corn and towards more soybeans (Chart 2). China, which accounted for 19% of global corn area harvested and 6% of global soybean area harvested in 2016/17, is leading this change. While corn area harvested fell by an average 4.2% in the 2015 and 2016 crop years, soybean area harvested gained 9.8% during that period. Similarly, in Brazil, which accounted for 10% and 28% of global corn and soybean area harvested in 2016/17, respectively, corn area harvested by farmers has been growing at a much slower rate than soybean area harvested, with the former expanding by 16.4% and the latter by 39.6% since 2010/11. Likewise, harvested area in the U.S., which accounted for 18% and 29% of global corn and soybean area harvested, respectively, shrunk by 0.9% in the case of corn, and expanded by 21.3% in the case of soybeans since 2010/11. The exception to this rule is Argentina. Argentine farmland accounted for 3% and 15% of global corn and soybean area harvested in 2016/17, respectively. Since 2010/11, both corn area harvested as well as soybean area harvested increased by roughly the same level - 1.6 Mn Ha for the former and 1.5 Mn Ha for the latter - representing a 44.4% and 8.6% increase in area harvested for corn and soybeans, respectively. However, this is due to export policies, which in effect, encourage corn production over soybeans. As we discuss below, soybean export tariffs will be phased out in the coming years, likely changing the incentives structure for Argentine farmers. This trend is mirrored in production data, with global soybean output gaining 32% since 2010/11, compared to a 25% increase in global corn production. However, this shift is in large part due to demand patterns which also favor soybeans to corn. Over the same period, global soybean consumption increased by 36%, compared to 24% in the case of corn (Chart 3). Chart 2Farmers Favor Soybeans Over Corn... Chart 3...As Do Consumers In fact, at 28%, global soybean stock-to-use ratios are significantly more elevated than that of corn, which stand at 19%. Furthermore, while soybeans are expected to record a 3.9mm MT surplus by the end of the current crop year, corn is projected to experience a 17.7mm MT deficit. Powell's Fed And Dollar Movements Our modelling of ags reveals that U.S. financial factors are important determinants of agriculture commodity price developments.3 Fed policy decisions and their impact on real rates have a direct effect on ag commodity prices, as well as an indirect effect through the exchange rate channel (Chart 4). Chart 4Fed Policy Drives Ag Markets While U.S. inflation has remained stubbornly low, forcing the Fed to slow down their interest rate normalization process, the anticipation - and eventual acceleration - of the Fed tightening cycle will weigh on ag prices. However, thanks in part to softer-than-expected inflation readings coming out of the U.S. this year, the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) has weakened by 6.8% since the beginning of the year. In terms of the impact of real rates, monetary policy impacts agriculture markets through the following channels: The Fed's interest-rate normalization process will, all else equal, increase borrowing costs for farmers, and discourage investments in general - impacting both agricultural investments as well as outlays in research and development. Tighter credit also leads to a slowdown in growth which - ceteris paribus - depresses consumption and demand for goods and services generally, and agricultural commodities specifically. Finally, real rates have an indirect effect on agricultural commodity prices through its effect on the U.S. dollar. Higher U.S. rates encourage investment in U.S. bonds and entail a strengthening of the U.S. dollar making U.S. exports less competitive vis-à-vis those of its international competitors. Since commodities are priced in U.S. dollars while costs are priced in local currencies, a weakening of the domestic currency vis-à-vis the dollar would increase profitability for farmers selling in international markets. This can incentivize farmers to plant more, despite depressed global ag prices, which increases supply. As our modelling reveals, the net effect is an inverse relationship, whereby easier monetary policy is generally more favorable for agriculture markets. The Fed Will Remain Behind The Inflation Curve Our U.S. Bond Strategy team expects the Fed to remain behind inflation, in which case the USD will remain weak in the beginning of next year. The 2/10 Treasury curve is flat highlighting the market's belief that the Fed will continue with interest rate normalization despite below target levels of inflation.4 Since this would be a huge error on the part of new Chairman Powell, our U.S. bond strategists believe that the Fed will avoid such a policy mistake. Consequently, if inflation does not pick up soon, the Fed will be forced to turn dovish. In any case, U.S. monetary policy will "fall behind the curve." This means that the U.S. dollar will remain weak until inflation starts to tick higher, and the Fed can resume its interest rate normalization process. In fact, our bond strategists find that there is a resemblance between the current cycle and that of the late 1990s where the unemployment rate significantly undershot its natural level before inflation started to accelerate. Thus, they find it significant that most of the indicators that predicted the 1999 increase in inflation are now positive. This reinforces our faith that inflation will soon rebound, allowing the Fed to fall behind the curve and simultaneously hike rates at a pace of one more hike this year, and three more in 2018.5 In terms of the future path of the U.S. dollar, our foreign exchange strategists argue interest rate differentials will be a more significant determinant of dollar dynamics going forward. They expect inflation will start its ascent sometime before the end of 1H2018, which would lift the interest rate curve and the dollar. Our expectation is that inflation will bottom towards the end of this year/beginning of next, giving room for the Fed to proceed with its anticipated rate-hiking cycle, resulting in two to three hikes next year. Markets are pricing one to two rate hikes next year, which means our out-of-consensus rates call could cause the USD to rally far more than what markets have priced in to the USD TWIB. Following a 4.4% appreciation in trade weighted terms in 2016, the U.S. dollar has depreciated by 6.8% so far this year. The U.S. accounts for a larger share of global exports of corn and soybeans than rice and wheat, which means a strengthening of the USD TWIB will likely have a bigger impact on wheat and rice, in which the U.S. faces greater international competition for market share (Table 2). Table 2Wheat & Rice Vulnerable To USD Dynamics This is, in fact, in line with the price behavior that we have observed. Wheat and rice prices fell the most in 2016 as the U.S. dollar appreciated, and have outperformed soybeans and corn so far this year, as the U.S. dollar depreciated. Thus, in the absence of supply shocks that affect a particular grain, changes in the U.S. dollar going forward will have a greater impact on rice and wheat than on corn and soybeans. Keep An Eye On The Brazilian Real Of the major ag exporters, Brazil is most vulnerable to USD depreciation risk. Poor productivity trends have made our foreign exchange strategists single out the Brazilian Real (BRL) as one of the most expensive currencies they track. While they expect the BRL to depreciate over a one- to two-year horizon, the current strength in EM asset prices means that the BRL is likely to remain at its current level in the near term. However, given that the BRL provides an high carry, it will likely move sideways until U.S. interest rate expectations adjust to a rebound in inflation - which we expect toward the end of this year, or beginning of next. Brazil is a major ag producer - making up 45%, 44%, 27%, 23% and 12% share of the global export pies for soybeans, sugar, coffee, corn and cotton, respectively. Thus, a weaker BRL vis-à-vis the USD is a major downside risk to these commodity prices. Downside FX Risks Will Keep Wheat Prices Depressed Chart 5Downside FX Risks For Wheat Exporters In addition to the risks from an overvalued BRL, our foreign exchange strategists have highlighted the EUR, RUB, and AUD as currencies that are at risk of falling back to their fair value in the near term. Given that these regions are major wheat exporters, this would weigh on the grain's price as exports increase (Chart 5).6 On the back of expectations that the European Central Bank will adopt a significantly less aggressive monetary policy than the Fed, our foreign exchange strategists expect the EUR to weaken toward the end of the year and beginning of next. Given that Europe is a major wheat exporter - making up ~20% of global exports - a weaker EUR would make European wheat more attractive, weighing on prices in 2018. The currencies of other major exporters could be drawn in different directions in the near term. Our FX strategists see the Russian Rouble (RUB) as overvalued and at risk of weakening when U.S. inflation starts accelerating late this year or early next. However, higher oil prices would push up the ruble's fair value, correcting some of its overvaluation. As with the EUR, the wheat market is most vulnerable to a weaker RUB since Russia accounts for 14% of global wheat exports. Likewise, Australia - another major wheat exporter which accounts for 10% of world exports - has been identified as having an expensive currency. It is at risk of a depreciation over the next 24 months, but could rally if iron ore markets turn higher. Some Additional (Potential) Fundamental Forces Among the news and noise in the ags sphere, we see higher oil prices and La Nina as the most significant near-term risks to current supply/demand dynamics. Longer term, shifting policies in China, Argentina, and Brazil will become more relevant in determining the trajectory of ag markets. Our Out-Of-Consensus Call On Oil Is Bullish For Ags Chart 6Higher Energy Prices Upside Risk We expect oil prices will tread higher next year - averaging $65/bbl for Brent and $63/bbl for WTI - on the back of stronger demand and an extension of the OPEC 2.0 coalition's supply restrictions.7 This will support ag commodity prices. Higher oil prices affect ags by increasing input costs and global shipping prices. In addition, the supply of ocean-going transport for grains is tight. The Baltic Dry index, a measure of the global cost of shipping dry goods, and has been on the uptrend this year, as freight costs have more than doubled since mid-February, mostly on the back of a slowdown in shipping transportation supply (Chart 6). La Nina: A Literal Tailwind? Against a backdrop of falling stocks-to-use ratios in the corn and soybean markets, weather will add volatility to prices into 1H2018. In the near term La Nina, which is predicted to continue through the 2017-18 Northern Hemisphere winter, threatens to curb agricultural output. This phenomenon affects weather and rainfall, causing floods and droughts, by cooling the Pacific Ocean. Australia's Bureau of Meteorology recently pegged the chance of a La Nina at 70%, expecting it to last from December to at least February. However, this season's La Nina is forecast to be weak and weather conditions are expected to neutralize in 1Q2018.8 In the case of ags, the greatest threat from La Nina is the risk of droughts in Brazil and Argentina which could hurt the regions soybean, corn, sugar, and cotton harvests. Furthermore, excess rainfall in Australia and Colombia threaten wheat, cotton, and sugar yields in the former and coffee output in the latter. Furthermore, the weather phenomenon raises chances of a potential drought in the U.S. Midwest.9 However, it is noteworthy that by the time La Nina hits, much of the harvest in the Northern Hemisphere will have been completed. So the main risk will be to harvests in the Southern Hemisphere. Gradualismo In Argentina, Stockpiling In China, And Ethanol In Brazil 1. Since taking office late 2015, Argentine President Mauricio Macri has reversed his predecessor's unfavorable agricultural policies - allowing the Argentine peso to float, and eliminating export taxes on wheat and corn. Marci's Gradualismo reforms have been successful - incentivizing plantings and leading to record harvests (Chart 7). While a 30% export tax remains on soybeans - Argentina's main cash crop - it is down from 35% under the presidency of Macri's predecessor. Further cuts to soybean export taxes have been delayed in order to finance the country's fiscal deficit, however they are expected to resume next year with a 0.5pp reduction/month for the next two years. This would stimulate soybean plantings, if it materializes. Argentine farmers produce 18% of global soybean output, and account for 9% of global soybean exports. The change in export policy, as it unfolds, will thus weigh on soybean prices as Argentine farmers increase their soybean acreage in the coming crop years. 2. Although we will likely get more clarity regarding Chinese ag policies with the release of China's Number 1 Central document - which for the past 14 years has focused on agriculture - in February, we expect Beijing to continue incentivizing soybean farming over corn. China's soybean inventory levels stand significantly lower than its notoriously massive stocks of corn, wheat, and cotton (Chart 8). Chart 7Argentine Reforms Will Raise Soybean Exports Chart 8China's Soybean Stocks Are Relatively Low As such, China's top corn producing province - Heilongjian - cut the subsidy for corn farmers by 13 percent this year. Farmers there now receive 8.90 yuan/hectare of corn, down from the 10.26 yuan/hectare they received last year. This compares with subsidies for soybean farmers which at 11.56 yuan/hectare is much higher. According to the China National Grain and Oils Information Center, corn acreage in Heilongjiang is down 9.3 percent in 2016/17. However, with corn prices in China increasing, the higher subsidy for soybeans may not be sufficient. Nonetheless, according to a report by the Brazilian state Mato Grosso's official news agency, over the next five years the Chinese commodities trader COFCO intends to almost double its soybean imports from the Brazilian grains state. This means that China's demand for soybeans will drive the market in the near term as they look to buildup soybean reserves and bring down their corn stocks.10 Chart 9Higher Oil Prices Incentivize Ethanol Over Sugar 3. Ethanol Demand will raise the opportunity costs of bringing sugar and corn to market. In addition to the direct effect of higher oil prices on ag commodities in general, our forecast of increasing prices will pressure sugar prices indirectly through the ethanol channel in Brazil. Since July, Brazil's state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, has shifted its pricing policy allowing gasoline and diesel prices to follow those of international oil markets. As a result, the gasoline-ethanol price gap is widening.11 This will revive demand for the biofuel, which will cause mills to divert sugarcane away from the sweetener in favor of producing more ethanol (Chart 9). In fact, according to UNICA - the Brazilian sugarcane industry association - mills in the country's center-south region - from which 90% of Brazil's sugar output is derived - are favoring ethanol production over sugar. Data for the first half of October shows that 46.5% of sugarcane was diverted to producing sugar, down from 49.6% in the same period last year. However, in the near term, increased production from the EU amid their scrapping of domestic sugar production quotas will likely keep the global market in balance.12 Global sugar supply is forecast to remain strong on the back of supplies from Thailand, Europe and India. There are reports that ethanol producers in Brazil are evaluating the adoption of "corn-cane flex" ethanol plants.13 However this is a longer run risk which would increase demand for corn, and reduce demand for sugar. Bottom Line: Financial conditions will drive ag prices in 2018. The Fed's resolve to normalize interest rates - more so than markets expect - will keep a lid on prices. This will offset risks from higher energy prices. Nonetheless, some weather induced volatility is likely into 1Q2018. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 In fact, our Global Investment Strategists expect the Fed to hike rates in December 2017, and again four more times in 2018. Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "A Timeline For the Next Five Years: Part I," dated November 24, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "2017 Commodity Outlook: Grains & Softs," dated December 22, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 A 1% move in the USD TWI is associated with a 1.4% change in the CCI Grains & Oilseed Index, in the opposite direction. Similarly, a 1pp move in 5-year real rates is associated with a 18% change in the CCI Grains & Oilseed Index, in the opposite direction. The adjusted R2 is 0.84. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary titled "Into The Fire," dated November 7, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report titled "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve," dated October 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models," dated September 15, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Oil Balances Continue To Point To Higher Prices," dated November 23, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) alternates between warm ("El Nino") and cool ("La Nina") phases, impacting global precipitation and temperatures. These episodes are identified by looking at temperatures in the "Nino region 3.4" whereby readings of at least 0.5 degrees Celsius above or below seasonal average for several months would qualify as an El Nino or La Nina. 9 La Nina is often associated with wet conditions in eastern Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and South Asia. It usually leads to increased rainfall in northeastern Brazil, Colombia, and other northern parts of South America, and drier than normal conditions in Uruguay, parts of Argentina, coastal Ecuador and northwestern Peru. The effect on the U.S. and Canada tends to be milder since they are located further away from the heart of ENSO, on the other hand it has the greatest impact on countries around the Pacific and Indian Oceans. 10 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Ags in 2017/18: Move To Neutral," dated October 5, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11 Flex-fuel vehicles in Brazil means that ethanol demand is not constrained by a "blending wall". Thus ethanol is a substitute for gasoline- rather than a complement to, as in the U.S. 12 France, Belgium, Germany and Poland reportedly have the capacity to ramp up sugar beet production. 13 Please see "Brazil mills eye corn-cane flex plant to extend production cycle," dated November 7, 2017, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q17 Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights China stands out as the most likely candidate to send negative shock waves through EM and commodities in 2018. Granted the ongoing policy tightening in China will likely dampen money growth further, the only way mainland nominal GDP growth can hold up is if the velocity of money rises meaningfully, offsetting the drop in money growth. Assigning equal probabilities to various scenarios of velocity of money, the outcome is as follows: one-third probability of robust nominal growth (continuation of the rally in China-related plays) and two-third odds of a non-trivial slowdown in nominal growth with negative ramifications for China-related plays. Hence, we reiterate our negative stance on EM risk assets Feature The key question for emerging markets (EM) in 2018 is whether a slowdown in Chinese money growth will translate into a meaningful growth deceleration in this economy, and in turn produce a reversal in EM risk assets. This week we address the above question in detail elaborating on what could make China's business cycle defy the slowdown in its monetary aggregates and how investors should approach such uncertainty. Before this, we review the status of financial markets going into 2018. Priced To Perfection Or A New Paradigm? Several financial markets are at extremes. Our chart on the history of financial market manias reveals that some parts of technology/new concept stocks may be entering uncharted territory (Chart I-1). Tencent's share price, for instance, has surged 11-fold since January 2010. Chart I-1History Of Financial Markets Manias: They Lasted A Decade This is roughly on par with the prior manias' average 10-year gains. As this chart indicates, the manias of previous decades run wild until the turn of the decade. It is impossible to know whether technology/new concept stocks will peak in 2018 or run for another two years. Regardless whether or not the mania in tech/new concept stocks endures up until 2020, some sort of mean reversion in their share prices is likely next year. This has relevance to EM because the magnitude of the EM equity rally in 2017 has been enormously boosted by four large tech/concept stocks in Asia. Our measure of the cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for the U.S. market suggests that equity valuations are reaching their 2000 overvaluation levels (Chart I-2, top panel). The difference between our measure and Shiller's measure of CAPE is that Shiller's CAPE is derived by dividing share prices by the 10-year moving average of EPS in real terms (deflated by consumer price inflation). Our measure is calculated by dividing equity prices by the time trend in real EPS (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Our CAPE measure assumes that in the long run, U.S. EPS in real terms will revert to its time trend. Meanwhile, the Shiller CAPE is based on the assumption that real EPS will revert to its 10-year mean. Hence, the assumptions behind our CAPE model are quite reasonable if not preferable to those of Shiller's P/E. Remarkably, the U.S. (Wilshire 5000) market cap-to-GDP ratio is close to its 2000 peak (Chart I-3). With respect to EM equity valuations, the non-financial P/E ratio is at its highest level in the past 15 years (Chart I-4). EM banks have low multiples and seem "cheap" because many of them have not provisioned for NPLs. Hence, their profits and book values are artificially inflated. In short, excluding financials, EM stocks are not cheap at all, neither in absolute terms nor relative to DM bourses. Chart I-2A Perspective On U.S. Equity Valuation Chart I-3The U.S. Market Cap-To-GDP ##br##Ratio Is Close To 2000 Peak Chart I-4EM Non-Financial Equities Are Not Cheap Such elevated DM & EM stock market valuations might be justified by currently low global long-term bond yields. Yet, if and when long-term bond yields rise, multiples will likely shrink. The latter will overpower the profit growth impact on share prices, as multiples are disproportionately and negatively linked to interest rates - especially when interest rates are low - but are proportionately and positively linked to EPS.1 As a result, a small rise in long-term bond yields will lead to a meaningful P/E de-rating. Despite very high equity valuations, U.S. advisors and traders are extremely bullish on American stocks. Their sentiment measures are at all time and 11-year highs, respectively. So are copper traders on red metal prices (Chart I-5). The mirror image of the strong and steady rally in global stocks is record-low implied volatility. The aggregate financial markets' implied volatility index is at a multi-year low (Chart I-6). Finally, yields on junk (high-yield) EM corporate and sovereign bonds are at all-time lows (Chart I-7). They are priced for perfection. Chart I-5Bullish Sentiment On Copper Is Very Elevated Chart I-6Aggregate Global Financial Markets ##br##Implied VOL Is At Record Low Chart I-7EM Junk Bond Yields Are At Record Low Are we in a new paradigm, or are we witnessing financial market extremes that are unsustainable? In regard to the timing, can these dynamics last throughout 2018 or at least the first half of next year, or will they reverse in the coming months? We have less conviction on the durability of the U.S. equity rally, but our bet is that EM risk assets will roll over in absolute terms and begin underperforming their DM peers very soon. What could cause such a reversal in EM risk assets? China stands out as the most likely candidate to send negative shock waves through emerging markets and commodities. China: "Financial Stability" Priority Entails Tighter Policy The Chinese authorities are facing unprecedented challenges: The outstanding value of broad money in China (measured in U.S. dollars) is now larger than the combined U.S. and euro area broad money supply (Chart I-8, top panel). Chart I-8Beware Of Money Excesses In China As a share of its own GDP, broad money in China is much higher compared to any other nation in history (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In brief, there is too much money in China and most of it - $21 trillion out of $29 trillion - has been created by the banking system since early 2009. We maintain that the enormous overhang of money and credit in China represents major excess/imbalances and has nothing to do with the nation's high savings rate.2 Rather, it is an outcome of animal spirits running wild among bankers and borrowers over the past nine years. Easy money often flows into real estate and China has not been an exception. Needless to say, property prices are hyped and expensive relative to household income. Policy tightening amid lingering excesses and imbalances makes us negative on China's growth outlook. In a nutshell, we place more weight on tightening when there are excesses in the system, and downplay the importance of tightening in a healthy system without excesses. Importantly, excessive money creation seems to finally be pushing inflation higher. Consumer price services and core consumer price inflation rates are on a rising trajectory (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). As a result, banks' deposit rates in real terms (deflated by core CPI) have plunged into negative territory for the first time in the past 12 years (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Remarkably, the People's Bank of China's existing $3 trillion of international reserves is sufficient to "back up" only 13% and 11% of official M2 and our measure of M3, respectively (Chart I-10). If Chinese households and companies decide to convert 10-15% of their deposits into foreign currency and the PBoC takes the other side of the trade, its reserves will be exhausted. Chart I-9China: Inflation Is Rising And ##br##Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart I-10China: Low Coverage Of ##br##Money Supply By FX Reserves Therefore, reining money and credit expansion is of paramount importance to China's long-term financial and economic stability. "Financial stability" has become the key policy priority. "Financial stability" is policymakers' code word for containing and curbing financial imbalances and bubbles. Having experienced the equity bubble bust in 2015, policymakers are determined to preclude another bubble formation and its subsequent bust. Consequently, the ongoing tightening campaign will not be reversed in the near term unless damage to the economy becomes substantial and visible. By the time the authorities and investors are able to identify such damage in the real economy, China-related plays in financial markets will be down substantially. Chart I-11China: Corporate Bond Yields And Yield Curve Faced with significant excesses in money, leverage and property markets, the Chinese authorities have been tightening - and have reinforced their policy stance following the Party's Congress in October. There is triple tightening currently ongoing in China: 1. Liquidity tightening: Money market rates have climbed, and onshore corporate bond yields are rising (Chart I-11, top panel). Remarkably, the yield curve is flat, pointing to weaker growth ahead (Chart I-11, bottom panel). 2. Regulatory tightening: The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) is forcing banks to bring off-balance-sheet assets onto their balance sheets, and is reining banks' involvement in shadow banking activities. In addition, financial regulators are trying to remove the government's implicit "put" from the financial system, and thereby curb speculative and irresponsible investment behavior. Finally, many local governments are tightening investors' participation in the real estate market. 3. Anti-corruption campaign is embracing the financial institutions: The powerful anti-corruption commission is planning to dispatch groups of inspectors to examine financial institutions' activities. This could dampen animal spirits among bankers and shadow banking organizations. The Outlook: The "Knowns"... In China, broad money growth has already slumped to an all-time low (Chart I-12). The money as well as the credit plus fiscal spending impulses both point to a considerable slowdown in the mainland's industrial cycle and overall economic activity (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China: Broad Money ##br##Growth Is At All-Time Low Chart I-13China: Money And Credit & ##br##Fiscal Impulses Are Negative The slowdown is not limited to money growth; there are a few real business cycle indicators that are already weakening. For example, the growth rate of property floor space sold and started has slumped to zero (Chart I-14). Electricity output and aggregate freight volume growth have both decisively rolled over (Chart I-15). Chart I-14China: Property Starts Are Set To Contract Again Chart I-15China: A Few Signs Of Slowdown That said, based on the past correlation between money and credit impulses on the one hand and the business cycle on the other, China's economy should have slowed much more, and its negative impact on the rest of the world should have already been felt (Chart I-13, on page 9). This has been the key pillar of our view on EM, but it has not yet transpired. Is it possible that the relationship between money/credit impulses and the business cycle has broken down? If so, why? And how should investors handle such uncertainty? Bottom Line: China's ongoing policy tightening will ensure that money and credit impulses remain negative for some time. Can the country's industrial sectors de-couple from its past tight correlation with money and credit? ...And The "Unknowns" By definition, the only way to sustain nominal economic growth in the face of a decelerating money supply is if the velocity of money increases. This is true for any economy. Nominal GDP = Money Supply x Velocity of Money Provided China's policy tightening will likely further dampen money growth, the only way nominal GDP growth can hold up is if the velocity of money rises meaningfully, offsetting the drop in money growth. This is the main risk to our view and strategy. Chart I-16 portrays all three variables. Chart I-16China: Money, Nominal GDP ##br##And Velocity Of Money Even though the velocity of money has fallen structurally over the past nine years (Chart I-16, bottom panel), it has risen marginally in 2017, allowing the mainland's nominal economic growth to hold up despite a considerable relapse in money supply growth. Notably, this has been the reason why our view has not worked this year. What is the velocity of money, and how can we forecast its fluctuations and, importantly, the magnitude of its variations? The velocity of money is one of the least understood concepts in economic theory. The velocity of money is anything but stable. In our opinion, the velocity of money reflects animal spirits of households and businesses as well as government spending decisions. Forecasting animal spirits and the magnitude of their variations is not very a reliable exercise. In a nutshell, the banking system (commercial banks and the central bank) creates money via expanding its balance sheet - making loans to or acquiring assets from non-banks. However, commercial banks have little direct influence on the velocity of money. The latter is shaped by non-banks' decisions to spend or not (i.e., save). Significantly, non-banks' spending and saving decisions do not alter the amount of money in the system. Yet they directly impact the velocity of money. The banking system creates money, and non-banks churn money (make it circulate). At any level of money supply, a rising number of transactions will boost nominal output, and vice versa. Further, there is a great deal of complexity in the interaction between money supply and its velocity. Both are sometimes independent, i.e. they do not influence one another, but in some other cases one affects the other. For example, with the ongoing triple tightening in China and less money being originated by the banking system, will households and businesses increase or decrease their spending? Our bias is that they will not increase spending. This is especially true for the corporate sector, which has record-high leverage and where access to funding has been tightening. It is also possible that rising velocity will lead to more money creation as more spending leads to higher loan demand and banks accommodate it - i.e., originating more loans/money. These examples corroborate that money supply and the velocity of money are not always independent of each other. On the whole, it is almost impossible to reliably forecast the magnitude of changes in velocity of money. In the same vein, it is difficult to forecast animal spirit dynamics in any economy. Chart I-17U.S.: The Rise In Velocity Of Money ##br##Overwhelmed Slowdown In Money One recent example where nominal GDP has decoupled from broad money growth is the U.S. Chart I-17 demonstrates that in the past 12 months, U.S. nominal GDP growth has firmed up even though broad money (M2) growth has slumped. This decoupling can only be explained by a spike in the velocity of M2. In other words, soaring confidence and animal spirits among U.S. households and businesses have boosted their willingness to spend, even as the banking system has created less money and credit growth has slowed considerably over the past 12 months. Going back to China, how should investors consider such uncertainty in changes in the velocity of money? Investing is about the future, which is inherently uncertain. Hence, an investment process is about assigning probabilities to various scenarios. Provided the velocity of money is impossible to forecast, we assign equal probabilities to each of the following scenarios for China in 2018 (Figure I-1): One-third odds that the velocity of money rises more than the decline in broad money growth, producing robust nominal GDP growth; One-third probability that the velocity of money stays broadly flat - the outcome being meaningful deceleration in nominal GDP growth; A one-third chance that the velocity of money declines - the result being a severe growth slump. Figure I-1How Investors Can Consider Uncertainty Related To Velocity Of Money In short, a positive outcome on China-related plays has a one-third probability of playing out, while a negative outcome carries a two-thirds chance. This is why we continue to maintain our negative view on EM and commodities. Commodities Our view on commodities and commodity plays is by and large shaped by our view on China's capital spending. Given the credit plus fiscal spending impulse is already very weak, the path of least resistance for capital expenditures is down. Besides, the government is clamping down on local governments' off-balance-sheet borrowing and spending (via Local Government Financing Vehicles). A deceleration in capital expenditures in general and construction (both infrastructure and property development) in particular is bearish for industrial metals (Chart I-18). Money and credit impulses herald a major downturn in Chinese imports values and volumes (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Industrial Metals / Copper Are At Risk Chart I-19China Will Be A Drag On Its Suppliers As to China's commodities output reductions, last week we published a Special Report3 on China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal. The report concludes the following: The path of least resistance for steel, coal and iron ore prices is down over the next 12-24 months. China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal will continue into 2018 and 2019, but the scale and pace of "de-capacity" will diminish. Importantly, the mainland's steel and coal output will likely rise going forward as new capacity using more efficient and ecologically friendly technologies come on stream. The capacity swap policy introduced by the authorities has been allowing steel and coal producers to add new capacity in order to replace almost entirely obsolete capacity. The combination of demand slowdown and modest production recovery will weigh on non-oil raw materials. As for oil, the picture is much more complicated. Oil prices have been climbing in reaction to declining OECD inventories as well as on expectations of an extension to oil output cuts into 2018. One essential piece of missing information in the bullish oil narrative is China's oil inventories. In recent years, China has been importing more crude oil than its consumption trend justifies. Specifically, the sum of its net imports and domestic output of crude oil has exceeded the amount of refined processed oil. This difference between the sum of net imports and production of crude oil and processed crude oil constitutes our proxy for the net change of crude oil inventories. Chart I-20 shows that our proxy for mainland crude oil inventories has risen sharply in recent years. This includes both the nation's strategic oil reserves as well as commercial inventories. There is no reliable data on the former. Therefore, it is impossible to estimate the country's commercial crude oil inventories. Chart I-20China: Beware Of High Chinese Oil Inventories Nevertheless, whether crude oil inventories have risen due to a build-up of strategic petroleum reserves or commercial reserves, the fact remains that crude oil inventories in China have surged and appear to be reaching the size of OECD total crude and liquid inventories (Chart I-20). In short, China has been a stabilizing force for the oil market over the past three years by buying more than it consumes. Without such excess purchases from China, oil prices would likely have been much weaker. Going forward, the pace of Chinese purchases of crude oil will likely slow due to several factors: (a) China prefers buying commodities on dips, especially when it is for strategic inventory building. With crude oil prices having rallied to around $60, the authorities might reduce their purchases temporarily, creating an air pocket for prices, and then accelerate their purchases at lower prices; (b) Commercial purchases of oil will likely decelerate due to tighter money/credit, possibly high inventories and a general slowdown in industrial demand for fuel. Bottom Line: Raw materials and oil prices4 are at risk from China and overly bullish investor sentiment. Beyond Commodities The slowdown in China will impact not only commodities but also non-commodity shipments to the mainland (Chart I-21). In fact, 47% of the nation's imports are commodities and raw materials and 45% are industrial/capital goods - i.e., China's imports are heavily exposed to investment expenditures, not consumer spending. This is why money/credit impulses correlate so well with this country's imports. Consistently, China's broad money (M3) impulse leads EM corporate profit growth by 12 months - and currently heralds a major EPS downtrend (Chart I-22). In addition, aggregate EM narrow money (M1) growth also points to a material slump in EM EPS (Chart I-23). Chart I-21China Is A Risk To ##br##Non-Commodity Economies Too Chart I-22Downside Risk To EM EPS The only EM countries that are not materially exposed to China and commodities are Turkey and India. The former is a basket case on its own. Indian stocks are expensive and will have a difficult time rallying in absolute terms when the EM equity benchmark relapses. As for Korea and Taiwan, their largest export destination is not advanced economies but China. China accounts for 25% of Korea's exports and 28% of Taiwan's. This compares to a combined 22% of total Korean exports and 20% of total Taiwanese exports going to the U.S. and EU combined Can robust growth in the U.S. and EU derail the growth slowdown in China when capital spending slows? This is very unlikely, in our view. Chart I-24 portends that China's shipments to the U.S. and EU account for only 6.6% of Chinese GDP, while capital spending and credit origination constitute 45% and 25% of GDP, respectively. Chart I-23EM M1 And EM EPS Chart I-24What Drives Chinese Growth? A final word on tech stocks. EM's four large-cap tech stocks (Tencent, Ali-Baba, Samsung and TSMC) have gone exponential and are extremely overbought. At this juncture, any strong opinion on tech stocks is not warranted because they can sell off or continue advancing for no fundamental reason. We have been recommending an overweight position in tech stocks, and continue recommending overweighting them, especially Korean and Taiwanese semiconductor companies. As for Tencent and Alibaba, these are concept stocks, and as a top-down house we have little expertise to judge whether or not they are expensive. These are bottom-up calls. Investment Strategy EM Stocks: Asset allocators should continue to underweight EM versus DM, and absolute-return investors should stay put. Our overweights are Taiwan, China, Korean tech stocks, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Peru and Malaysia. Chart I-25EM Currencies: A Canary In ##br##Coal Mine For EM Credit? Stay short a basket of the following EM currencies: ZAR, TRY, BRL, IDR and MYR. We are also shorting the COP and CLP. Unlike in 2014-2015, EM currencies will depreciate not only versus the U.S. dollar but also the euro. For traders who prefer a market neutral currency portfolio, our recommended longs (or our currency overweights) are TWD, THB, SGD, ARS, RUB, PLN and CZK. INR and CNH will also outperform other EM currencies. Continue underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit relative to U.S. investment grade bonds. The mix of weaker EM/China growth, lower commodities prices and EM currency depreciation bode ill for already very tight EM credit spreads (Chart I-25). Within the sovereign credit space, our underweights are Brazil, Venezuela, South Africa and Malaysia and our overweights are Russia, Argentina and low beta defensive credits. The main risk to EM local currency bonds is EM currency depreciation. With foreign ownership of EM domestic bonds at all-time highs, exchange rate depreciation could trigger non-trivial selling pressure. Among local currency bond markets, the most vulnerable are Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia. The least vulnerable are Korea, Russia, China, India, Argentina and Central Europe. Other high-conviction market-neutral recommendations: Long U.S. banks / short EM banks. Long U.S. homebuilders / short Chinese property developers. Long the Russian ruble / short oil. Long the Chilean peso / short copper. Long Big Five state-owned Chinese banks / short small- and medium-sized banks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, given that interest rates are in the denominator of the Gordon Growth model, a one percentage point change in interest rates from a low level can have a significant impact on the fair value P/E ratio. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, link available on page 22. 4 This is the Emerging Markets Strategy team's view and is different from BCA's house view on commodities. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Synchronized global capex growth, a derivative of BCA's synchronized global growth thesis, will be a dominant theme next year, benefiting cyclicals over defensives. Three high-conviction calls are levered to this theme. Higher interest rates on the back of a pickup in inflation expectations is another BCA theme that should materialize in 2018. Three calls focus on a selloff in the bond markets for the coming year. Two special situations round up our high-conviction calls for 2018. Recent Changes S&P Software index - Boost to overweight. S&P Homebuilding index - Downgrade to underweight. Table 1 Feature Equities continued to grind higher last week, largely ignoring tax bill passage jitters. The S&P 500 is on track to register an eighth consecutive month of positive monthly returns, an impressive feat. Firm global economic data suggests that the synchronized global growth theme is gaining traction and remains investors' focal point. While the 10/2 yield curve flattening is a bit unnerving, another curve to watch is the spread between 2-year yields and the Fed funds rate, or what BCA often refers to as the "Fed Spread". This spread has widened 50bps since early September closely tracking the Citi economic surprise index (Chart 1A), and signals that the U.S. economy remains on a solid footing. We would be most worried that a recession was imminent were both slopes concurrently flattening and approaching inversion (third panel, Chart 1A). Chart 1AThe 'Fed Spread'Is Right Chart 1BHigher Interest Rates Theme Moreover, credit growth has turned the corner, and the three, six and twelve month credit impulses are all simultaneously rising at a time when total loans outstanding have hit an all-time high. Importantly, credit breadth is also broad-based. Our six month impulse diffusion index shows that six out of the eight credit categories that the Fed tracks have a positive second derivative (Chart 1A). All of this suggests that, cyclically, the path of least resistance is higher for equities, especially given BCA's view of a recession hitting only in 2019. In this context, we are revealing our high-conviction calls for the next year. Most of our calls leverage two BCA themes: synchronized global capex growth (a derivative of our flagship publication's "The Bank Credit Analyst" synchronized global growth theme articulated in last week's outlook)1 and a higher interest rate theme ("The Bank Credit Analyst" expects yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018)2. Over the past few months we have been articulating the ongoing synchronized global capital spending macro theme3 that, despite still flying under the radar, will likely dominate in 2018. Table 2 on page 4 shows that both DM and EM countries are simultaneously expanding gross fixed capital formation. As a result, we reiterate our recent cyclical over defensive portfolio bent,4 and tie three high-conviction overweight calls to this theme. Table 2Synchronized Global Capex Growth Similarly in recent reports we have been highlighting BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy view of a higher 10-year yield on the back of rising inflation expectations for 2018. If BCA's constructive crude oil view pans out then inflation and rates may get an added boost (Chart 1B). Three high-conviction calls are levered to this theme. Finally, we have a couple of special situations, and this year we characterize two out of these eight calls as speculative. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "OUTLOOK 2018 Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ibid. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Invincible" dated November 6, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives" dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Living With The Carry Trade" dated October 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks (Overweight, Capex Theme) The capex upcycle will likely fuel the next machinery stock outperformance upleg. Not only are expectations for overall capital outlays as good as they get (Chart 2), but there are also tentative signs that even the previously moribund mining and oil & gas complexes will be capex upcycle participants. While we are not calling for a return to the previous cycle's peak, even a modest renormalization of capital spending plans (i.e. maintenance capex alone would suffice) in these two key machinery client segments would rekindle industry sales growth. A quick channel check also waves the green flag. Both machinery shipments and new orders are outpacing inventory accumulation (Chart 2). Moreover, backlogs are rebuilding at the quickest pace of the past five years (not shown). This suggests that client demand visibility is returning. This machinery end-demand improvement is a global phenomenon. In fact, the fourth panel of Chart 2 shows that global machinery new orders are climbing faster than domestic new order growth. Tack on the reaccelerating global credit impulse courtesy of the latest Bank for International Settlements Quarterly Review and the ingredients are in place for a global machinery export boom. Finally, our machinery EPS model is firing on all cylinders, underscoring that the earnings-led recovery has more running room (Chart 2). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CSTF - CAT, CMI, PCAR. Chart 2S&P Construction Machinery & Heavy Trucks Energy (Overweight, Capex Theme) The slingshot recovery in basic resources investment - albeit from a very low base - suggests that there is more room for relative gains in the S&P energy index in the coming months (second panel, Chart 3). The U.S. dollar remains down significantly for the year and, irrespective of future moves, it should continue to goose energy sector profits owing to the positive impact on the underlying commodity. Importantly, energy producers are a levered play on oil prices and the latter have jumped roughly $14/bbl to $58/bbl or ~32% since July 10th, but energy stocks are up only 8% in absolute terms. Given BCA's still sanguine crude oil market view, we expect a significant catch up phase in energy equity prices into 2018. On the supply front, Cushing and OECD oil stocks are now contracting. As oil inventories get whittled down, OPEC stays disciplined and oil demand grinds higher, oil prices will remain well bid. The implication is that the relative share price advance is still in the early innings. Relative valuations have ticked up in the neutral zone according to our composite relative Valuation Indicator, but on a number of metrics value remains extremely compelling in the energy space. Finally, our EPS model heralds additional growth in the coming quarters on the back of solid industry pricing power and sustained global oil producer discipline. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5ENRS - XLE:US. Chart 3S&P Energy Software (Overweight, Capex Theme) The S&P software index is a clear capex upcycle beneficiary (Chart 4) and we recommend an upgrade to a high-conviction overweight stance today. If software commands a larger slice of the overall capital spending pie as we expect, then industry profits should enjoy a healthy rebound (second panel, Chart 4). Small business sector plans to expand have returned to a level last seen prior to the Great Recession, underscoring that software related outlays will likely follow them higher. Recovering bank loan growth is also corroborating this upbeat spending message: capital outlays on software are poised to accelerate based on rebounding bank loans. The latter signals that businesses are beginning to loosen their purse strings anew (Chart 4). Reviving animal spirits suggest that demand for software upgrades will stay elevated. CEO confidence is pushing decade highs. Such ebullience is positive for a pickup in software investments. It has also rekindled software M&A activity, with the number of industry deals jumping in recent months. Meanwhile, the structural pull from the proliferation of cloud computing and software-as-a-service has served as a catalyst to raise the profile of this more defensive and mature tech sub-sector. Finally, our newly introduced S&P software EPS model encapsulates this sanguine industry backdrop and heralds a bright profit outlook. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT-MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, ATVI, INTU, EA, ADSK, RHT, SYMC, SNPS, ANSS, CDNS, CTXS, CA. Chart 4S&P Software Banks (Overweight, Higher Interest Rates Theme) The S&P banks index is a core overweight portfolio holding and there are high odds of significant relative gains in the coming quarters. All three key drivers of bank profits, namely price of credit, loan growth and credit quality, are simultaneously moving in the right direction. On the price front, the market expects the 10-year yield to hit 2.47% in November 2018 from roughly 2.32% currently. BCA expects the 10-year yield will rise more quickly than is discounted in the forward curve. Our U.S. bond strategists think core inflation will soon resume its modest cyclical uptrend (Chart 5). A parallel recovery in the cost of inflation protection will impart 50-60 basis points of upside to the 10-year Treasury yield by the time core inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target.5 C&I and consumer loans, two large credit categories, are both forecast to reaccelerate in the coming months. The ISM has been on fire lately and consumer confidence has been following closely behind. Our credit growth model captures these positive forces and is sending an unambiguously positive message for loan reacceleration in the coming months (Chart 5). Finally, credit quality remains pristine despite some pockets of weakness in, subprime especially, auto loans. At this stage of the cycle, near or at full employment, NPLs will remain muted. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.  Chart 5S&P Banks Utilities (Underweight, Higher Interest Rates Theme) Increasing global economic growth expectations bode ill for defensive utilities stocks (global manufacturing PMI diffusion index shown inverted, top panel, Chart 6). Synchronized global economic and capex growth (second panel, Chart 6) and coordinated tightening in monetary policy spells trouble for bonds. Our U.S. Bond strategists expect a bond selloff to gain steam in 2018. Given that utilities essentially trade as a proxy for bonds, this macro backdrop leaves them vulnerable to a significant underperformance phase. Importantly, the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio and utilities sector relative performance also has a tight inverse correlation. The implication is that downside risks remain acute. Without the support of continued declines in bond yields, or of indiscriminate capital flight from all riskier assets, utilities advances depend on improving fundamentals. The news on the domestic operating front is grim. Contracting natural gas prices, the marginal price setter for the industry, suggest that recent utilities pricing power gains are running on empty. Add on waning productivity, with labor additions handily outpacing electricity production, and the ingredients for a margin squeeze are in place. Finally, industry utilization rates are probing multi-decade lows and overcapacity is negative for pricing power. Turbine and generator inventories have been hitting all-time highs. This is a deflationary backdrop. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5UTIL - XLU:US. Chart 6S&P Utilities Pharmaceuticals (Underweight, Special Situation) Weak pricing power fundamentals, a soft spending backdrop, a depreciating U.S. dollar and deteriorating industry operating metrics will sustain downward pressure on pharma stocks in the coming year. Both in absolute terms and relative to overall PPI, pharma selling prices are steadily losing steam (Chart 7). In the context of a bloated industry workforce, the profit margin outlook darkens significantly. If the Trump administration also manages to clamp down on the secular growth of pharma selling price inflation, then industry margins will remain under chronic pressure. Moreover, our dual synchronized global economic and capex growth themes bode ill for defensive pharma stocks. Nondiscretionary health care outlays jump in times of duress and underwhelm during expansions. Currently, the soaring ISM manufacturing index is signaling that pharma profits will remain under pressure in the coming months as the most cyclical parts of the economy flex their muscles (the ISM survey is shown inverted, second panel, Chart 7). A depreciating currency is also synonymous with pharma profit sickness (bottom panel, Chart 7). While pharma exports should at least provide some top line growth relief during depreciating U.S. dollar phases, they are contracting at an accelerating pace (middle panel, Chart 7), warning that global pharma demand is ill. Finally, even on the operating metric front, the outlook is dark. Pharma industrial production is nil and our productivity proxy remains muted, warning that profits will likely underwhelm. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PHAR - JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, AGN, LLY, ZTS, MYL, PRGO. Chart 7S&P Pharma Homebuilding (Speculative Underweight, Higher Interest Rates Theme) Year-to-date, the niche homebuilding index is the best performing sub-index within consumer discretionary stocks surpassing even the internet retail subgroup that AMZN is part of, and has bested the broad market by 50 percentage points. Such exuberance is unwarranted and we deem that stocks prices have run way ahead of earnings fundamentals. Worrisomely the trifecta of higher interest rates, high lumber prices and likely tax reform blues are substantial headwinds to the index's profit potential. The second panel of Chart 8 shows that if BCA's interest rate view materializes in 2018, then 30-year fixed mortgage rates will rise in tandem with the 10-year yield (assuming the spread stays intact) and cause, at the margin, some consternation to homeownership. Near all-time highs in lumber prices are also a cause for concern (bottom panel, Chart 8). Lumber is an input cost to new homes built and eats into homebuilder margins if they decide not to pass it on to the consumer. If they do add it as a surcharge to new home selling prices, then existing homes become a "cheaper" alternative, hurting new home demand. Finally, the GOP tax plan may change mortgage interest and property tax deductions, affecting largely new home owners and becoming a net negative to the homebuilding index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOME-DHI, LEN, PHM, LEN / B. Chart 8S&P Homebuilding Semiconductor Equipment (Speculative Underweight, Special Situation) Semiconductor stocks in general and semi equipment in particular have gone parabolic. The latter have bested the market by 60 percentage points year-to-date, and over a two-year period the outperformance jumps to roughly 180 percentage points (top panel, Chart 9). Something has got to give, and we are putting the S&P semi equipment index on our speculative high-conviction underweight list. A global M&A frenzy and the bitcoin/ICO mania (bottom panel, Chart 9) have pushed chip equipment stocks to the stratosphere. In absolute terms this index is near the tech bubble peak, and relative share prices are following close behind (top panel, Chart 9). Worrisomely five year EPS growth forecasts recently surpassed the 25% mark, an all-time high. Both the tech sector's (in 2000) and the biotech index's (2001 and 2014) long term growth estimates hit a wall near such breakneck pace (second panel, Chart 9). This indefinite profit euphoria is unwarranted and we would lean against it. On the operating front, DRAM prices (a pricing power proxy) have tentatively peaked and so have semi sales (an industry end-demand proxy), warning that extrapolating the recent semi equipment V-shaped profit recovery far into the future is fraught with danger (third & fourth panels, Chart 9). The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SEEQ-AMAT, LRCX, KLC. Chart 9S&P Semis Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Special Report

Dear Client, Today we are sending you a two-part Special Report prepared by my colleague Billy Zicheng Huang of our Emerging Markets Equity Sector Strategy team, entitled “A Sector Guide To A-shares”. Part I of the report was published in September, and emphasized the key takeaways from MSCI’s decision to include A-shares in the MSCI EM index beginning in June 2018. More importantly, it provided a comprehensive analysis of the financials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples sectors. Part II of the report was published at the end of October, and provided an analysis of the remaining sectors not included in Part I. The reports underscore that while the top-down impact of MSCI’s decision is limited, it is significant in terms of expanding potential alpha from security selection. I trust that you will find this report to be useful. Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports Part I of the Special Report discussed the market impact of MSCI's decision to include A-shares in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, followed by a comprehensive analysis of the four most investment-relevant sectors with corresponding company calls in each sector. In the second part of the Special Report, the EMES team will analyze the remaining sectors, and provide investment recommendations. We will publish an Investment Case by the end of this year, highlighting our best sector picks from Part I and Part II of the Special Reports to construct an A-share portfolio. A Recap In the first part of our A-shares special report, the EMES team discussed the key takeaways from A-shares' inclusion in the MSCI EM index and concluded that, despite a limited near-term impact on the market from a passive investment standpoint, the MSCI's decision will provide an expansion of the investable universe for active EM investors, and more opportunities to allocate assets and generate alpha.1 Moreover, we looked at the four sectors most relevant for investors - financials, industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples - analyzing valuations, profitability, leverage, and the growth outlook. In this special report, we will continue our journey through the remaining sectors: energy, healthcare, IT, materials, real estate, and utilities. Please note that only one company, Dr.Peng Telecom & Media (CH 600804), will be added to telecoms, and will not result in material changes to the sector. Thus we omitted analysis of this sector. Energy Seven companies from the energy sector will be included into the MSCI EM index, including six from the oil & gas industry. The equally weighted basket of the seven A-share energy companies has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 26.2%, and by 19.8% over a one-year period (Table 1). With the Chinese government's mandate to cut excess capacity, capex growth in the energy sector will continue to be weak, which will weigh on the growth outlook for the sector. In terms of valuation, stripping out two dual-listed names that are already in the MSCI EM Index (Sinopec and PetroChina - please see Appendix I for the full list), Lu'an Environmental and Xishan Coal & Electric Power are trading at significantly cheaper valuations than their peers. On the other end of the spectrum, Guanghui Energy and Wintime Energy's P/Es have expensive valuations. Looking at profitability, low P/E names tend to have high ROEs, while Guanghui Energy suffers from the weakest ROE (Charts 1A & 1B). From a profitability-versus-valuation perspective, Lu'an Environmental offers a superior risk-reward profile, while Guanghui Energy has the least favorable risk-reward profile (Chart 1C). Wintime and Lu'an reported the strongest operating margins, while Offshore Oil Engineering has the weakest margin among peers (Chart 1D). On leverage, Offshore Oil Engineering has the lowest debt-to-equity (D/E) ratio, mainly because its core business is energy equipment and service rather than oil & gas exploration. All energy producers are highly leveraged, with Wintime and Guanghui topping the list. On free cash flow yield, Lu'an leads the table, while both Guanghui and Wintime have negative yields which, together with high leverage, is a negative combination (Charts 1E, 1F, 1G). The A-share Energy companies have a dividend yield of less than 2%, with Offshore Oil Engineering enjoying the highest yield among peers, while Xishan Coal & Electric Power has the lowest yield (Chart 1H). Screening the earnings forecasts, all companies' EPS are expected to growth by more than 10%, led by Offshore Oil Engineering and Guanghui Energy (Chart 1I). Taking all the factors into consideration, we suggest investors should be cautious on the energy sector, and should be especially cautious about betting on the likelihood of Guanghui Energy's turnaround. The company registered surprising positive bottom-line growth in 1H17, but this was mainly due to a low base in 2016. The commencement of its new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in Jiangsu Province will not help much to lift sales volumes or margins, given little LNG price recovery and growing competition from well-positioned larger players such as Kunlun and CNOOC. Healthcare There are 13 companies in the A-share healthcare sector. Stocks in the sector have a heavy tilt towards pharmaceutical producers. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 1.8%, and outperformed by 0.9% over a one-year period (Table 2). On an absolute return basis performance was resilient across various time horizons. The EMES team has been bullish on healthcare sector on a long-term investment horizon, with overweight calls on Fosun Pharma (2196 HK) from among the current MSCI EM constituents.2 We prefer companies with innovative drug R&D pipelines, which will more likely take advantage of the new China FDA rule encouraging biopharmaceutical innovation. Shanghai Pharma and Fosun Pharma are excluded from our analysis, as their H-listed shares are already in the MSCI EM index. Examining valuations, on a trailing P/E basis we favor Sanjiu Medical and Dong-E-E-Jiao. By contrast, Hengrui Medicine and Guizhou Bailing look expensive (Chart 2A). Looking at the profitability side, Salubris Pharma and Dong-E-E-Jiao have the strongest ROE, while Tongrentang and Baiyunshan Pharma lie on the other end of the spectrum (Chart 2B). In summary, Salubris Pharma and Dong-E-E-Jiao will likely outperform, based on a valuation-versus-profitability comparison (Chart 2C). Furthermore, Salubris Pharma and Dong-E-E-Jiao also lead by operating margin, with relatively safe leverage levels at the same time (Chart 2D). On the other hand, Jointown suffers from the highest debt level, the only one with debt-to-equity surpassing 100%. In terms of free cash flow, Sanjiu Medical and Salubris have the most attractive FCF yield, while Jointown and Tasly, both companies with the highest debt levels, also display a worryingly negative FCF yield (Charts 2E, 2F, 2G). Salubris and Baiyun Shan dominate the dividend yield rank (Chart 2H). Concerning the earnings outlook, Huadong Medicine and Kangmei are expected to see fast bottom-line growth in 2018, driven by robust antibiotic and cardiovascular sales respectively, while Tongrentang and Baiyunshan are likely to fall behind the industry average (Chart 2I). In summary, we prefer Salubris Pharma among the A-share healthcare basket, supported by its stronger fundamentals and the bullish outlook on innovative drug R&D and sales in China, in which Salubris Pharma is specialized. IT 14 names from the IT sector will be added to the MSCI EM index. The equally weighted basket has outperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 22.3%, and outperformed by 23.3% over a one-year period (Table 3), with most stocks performing strongly across various investment horizons. We believe the A-share IT basket provides investors with attractive opportunities in the investable universe given that it is less expensive than its H-share counterpart. The inclusion will also dilute the weight of IT sector ADRs, such as Alibaba and Sina Weibo, in the index. Please note that Protruly Vision Tech has been suspended from trading due to legal issues, with no further detail released by the court. Stripping out ZTE because of its H-share listing already in the MSCI EM index, there are 12 names left. Regarding valuations, most companies are trading at a below-50 trailing P/E, with the exceptions of Hundsun Tech and iFlytek, both of which are above 150x, while Aisino and BOE are relatively undervalued compared to other names in the sector. It is worth mentioning that Hundsun is 100% owned by Zhejiang Finance Credit Network Technology, a company 99% owned by Alibaba. From a profitability perspective, Hikvision Digital and Dahua Tech have the highest ROE, while Hundsun Tech and Tsinghua Unisplendour lie at the other end of the spectrum (Charts 3A & 3B). Taking these two factors into consideration, we highlight Hikvision Digital and Dahua Tech as the most attractive based on their risk-reward profile (Chart 3C). When looking at the income statement, Sanan Optoelectronics displays robust operating margins, with 2345 Network following suit. By contrast, Hundsun Tech and Tsinghua Unisplendour report the most disappointing margins (Chart 3D). On the positive side, Hundsun Tech has virtually zero debt on the balance sheet, while Dongxu Optoelectronic is more than 80% leveraged. Meanwhile, only four companies register positive FCF yields. Taking both metrics into account, Aisino can most easily service its debt with free cash flow (Charts 3E, 3F, 3G). By dividend yield, Aisino and Hikvision rank top (Chart 3H). With respect to forward EPS growth, iFlytek and Hundsun Tech are expected to see the fastest bottom-line expansion, while Aisino's and BOE Tech's bottom lines will increase at the slowest pace (Chart 3I). Based on our criteria, we like video surveillance manufacturers Hikvision and Dahua Tech for their robust fundamentals and reasonable valuations. In particular, Hikvision is likely to have the largest market cap among A-share tech companies newly included in the MSCI indexes. Materials Currently only seven Chinese companies from the materials sector are included into the MSCI EM Index. After the inclusion, some 26 more companies will be added, substantially expanding the investable universe. Two subsectors will most likely draw investors' attention due to the significant exposure increase: metals & mining, and chemicals. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 2%, but outperformed by 4.6% over a one-year period (Table 4). We exclude five names, which are already in the current MSCI EM index: Sinopec Shanghai Petrochem, Anhui Conch Cement, Aluminum Corp of China, Jiangxi Copper, and Zijin Mining. Among the other companies, we have been underweight Maanshan Iron & Steel (H-share listing) and Aluminum Corp of China (H-share listing) in our China Materials trade, and overweight Tianqi Lithium in the lithium supply chain trade. Maanshan Iron & Steel and Angang Steel have attractive valuations, with trailing P/Es below 15. On the other end of this scale, China Northern Rare Earth and Baotou Steel appear very expensive (Chart 4A). On profitability, Wanhua Chemical and Tianqi Lithium top the ROE rank, while Jinduicheng Molybdenum and Baotou Steel sit at the bottom (Chart 4B). Screening the risk-reward profile, it is noticeable that chemicals normally demonstrate a better ROE vs. P/E metric than companies from the metals & mining industry. Specifically, Wanhua Chemical and Tianqi Lithium are the most attractive, while Jindiucheng Molybdenum is the least attractive (Chart 4C). In terms of operations, Tianqi Lithium reported the strongest operating margin, followed by Junzheng, while Hainan Rubber and Jinduicheng Molybdenum are the only companies that registered negative operating margins (Chart 4D). Looking at the balance sheet, Jinduicheng Molybdenum has the healthiest leverage, while Hesteel shows the most worrisome leverage. Moreover, it has the lowest FCF yield. In terms of FCF yield versus leverage, Kingenta offers the best tradeoff, while Hesteel is the least attractive (Charts 4E, 4F, 4G). Furthermore, dividend yield favors Longsheng and disfavors Northern Rare Earth (Chart 4H). In terms of projected EPS growth, Jinduicheng Molybdenum and Shandong Gold Mining have the strongest outlook for next year, while Maanshan Iron & Steel and Angang Steel are likely to report profit declines (Chart 4I). In summary, apart from Maanshan Iron & Steel, Hainan Rubber is a good candidate for the underweight basket due to its relatively expensive valuation, negative margin and FCF yield. Moreover, its focus on the rubber business diversifies the portfolio risk from metal & mining-concentrated underweight exposure. China Molybdenum, with its above-average risk-reward profile, moderately strong operations and financial position, as well as robust growth outlook, is a good candidate for the overweight basket of our lithium supply trade to replace Ganfeng Lithium. The company has a strong market presence in Congo, where over 60% of cobalt is mined. Real Estate Some 14 developers will be added to the existing MSCI EM index. Among the top 10 Chinese developers, measured by contracted sales and floor space sold, existing MSCI EM constituents account for six, while the A-share list will add two (Poly Real Estate and China Fortune Land). In the environment of property market tightening in China, primary land supply has remained stagnant. The government is unlikely to ease the supply restrictions in the near-term, especially in the residential land space. In this vein, we believe large market players will be better-positioned in this market, due to their bargaining power. Also, developers with heavy exposure to commercial property will be less affected by policy uncertainty than their residential counterparts. Looking at historical performance, the equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 20.5%, and by 17.1% over a one-year period (Table 5). Xinhu Zhongbao and Financial Street are trading at the cheapest valuations, while Zhejiang China Commodities and China Fortune Land seem to be slightly overpriced compared to peers. The ROE for Xinhu Zhongbao is remarkable, while Zhangjiang High-tech Park is the only company with ROE under 10% (Charts 5A, 5B). Taking both dimensions into account, Xinhu Zhongbao and Gemdale display an attractive risk-reward profile (Chart 5C). Looking at operational metrics, Zhejiang China Commodities and Financial Street enjoy the highest margin, while Xinhu Zhongbao and Tahoe lie on the other end of the spectrum (Chart 5D). Due to the nature of business, leverage is high across the sector. In particular, Oceanwide and Tahoe have a high debt-to-equity ratio, while Zhejiang China Commodities and Gemdale have a more prudent capital structure. Furthermore, FCF yields vary a lot across companies, with Financial Street and Xinhu Zhongbao on the positive end, and Tahoe and Oceanwide on the negative. Financial Street also beats other developers in terms of cash generation for debt payment (Charts 5E, 5F, 5G). Gemdale and Risesun have the highest dividend yield, while Tahoe and Zhejiang China Commodities have the lowest (Chart 5H). Regarding the full-year 2018 expectations, Financial Street and Zhejiang China Commodities have a robust growth outlook with respect to funds from operations (FFO) and EPS respectively, while Gemdale is likely to see sluggish growth on both metrics (Charts 5I & 5J). In summary, we believe Financial Street Holding is likely to outperform in the real estate sector, given its appealing risk-reward profile, decent dividend yield, superior cash flow yield and operating margin, reasonable debt ratio, and robust FFO growth. Its large-scale and commercial property exposure is expected to be more immune to policy tightening in China. Utilities Some 12 utility companies will be added to the existing MSCI EM index, most of which are in power generation and renewables. EMES published in July an investment case on China utilities, underlining our preference toward companies with a focus on the environment and clean power, in line with the Chinese government's emphasis in the 13th five-year plan.3 In the A-share basket, we highlight Yangtze Power, the hydro power large cap, National Nuclear, as its name suggests the state-owned nuclear power operator, and Beijing Capital, the water utility provider. The equally weighted basket has underperformed the MSCI EM index year to date by 19.2%, and by 14.2% over a one-year period (Table 6). Huaneng Power is excluded from our analysis, as its H-share is already in the MSCI EM Index. Screening valuations, the trailing P/E factor favors Shenery and Chuantou Energy. By contrast, Huadian Power and Beijing Capital look expensive (Chart 6A). On profitability, Yangtze Power and Chuantou Energy have the strongest ROE, while Huadian Power and Shenzhen Energy fall far behind the average (Chart 6B). Based on valuation versus profitability, Chuantou Energy, Yangtze Power, and SDIC Power will likely outperform (Chart 6C). Yangtze Power and SDIC Power have remarkably high operating margins, while Shenery and Beijing Capital are at the other end of the spectrum (Chart 6D). Concerning leverage, most large-scale players such as Datang International Power and National Nuclear Power are highly leveraged. By contrast, low leveraged players, such as Hubei Energy and Shenergy, tend to have small market caps of around US$ 5 bn. In terms of FCF yield, we highlight Yangtze Power and Chuantou Energy, while we are cautious on Shenzhen Energy and National Nuclear Power due to their deeply negative yields. In summary, we like Chuantou Energy, Yangzte Power, Zheneng Electric, and Shenergy with respect to FCF yield versus leverage, which also coincides with dividend yield rank (Charts 6E, 6F, 6G, 6H). Finally, Huadian Power and Datang are expected to show the fastest bottom-line growth next year, while Yangtze Power and Chuantou Energy are likely to see limited earnings expansion (Chart 6I). Therefore, within utilities sector, we expect Yangtze Power to outperform in the long term, supported by its appealing risk-reward profile, margin expansion, and debt service ability. We also like the fact that the company's dominant strength of hydropower is the Yangtze River Delta. Billy Zicheng Huang, Research Analyst billyh@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see EM Equity Sector Strategy Special Report "A Sector Guide To A-shares - Part I ", dated September 19, 2017, available at emes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see EM Equity Sector Strategy Investment case "China Healthcare, Getting Healthier", dated August 9, 2016, available at emes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see EM Equity Sector Strategy Investment case "Budding Green Equities In China", dated July 11, 2017, available at emes.bcaresearch.com Appendix - I Appendix - II Overweight Company Profile Underweight Company Profile

Highlights When it meets in Vienna at the end of this month, OPEC 2.0 will look through the pipeline leaks in South Dakota, which are expected to take some 500k b/d of Canadian crude shipments to the U.S. off the market until repairs are done at the end of November. While this will provide an unexpected assist in draining U.S. inventories, it truly is a transitory event (no pun intended). The larger issue for prices is gauging market expectations going into the OPEC 2.0 meeting at the end of this month. We believe the market is giving high odds to the coalition extending its 1.8mm b/d production cut to cover all of 2018 at its Vienna meeting. This is without doubt the result of the synchronized messaging coming from the leaders of OPEC 2.0, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Based on our balances models, an extension of the cuts to end-June - our base case - will draw OECD stocks down below their five-year average by mid-2018 (Chart of the Week). An executed extension to end-December 2018 would produce even sharper draws. This leaves the only material risk to prices a failure to extend the cuts on Nov. 30, or a reduction in the cuts themselves. Of the two, a failure to extend the cuts is the only material downside risk we see going into the Vienna meetings. Should OPEC 2.0 fail to extend its production cuts at month-end, and cause the markets to sell, we would view it as a buying opportunity: a Mar/18 expiry runs counter to OPEC 2.0's strategy. Energy: Overweight. Our Brent and WTI call spreads in May, July and December 2018 - long $55/bbl calls vs. short $60/bbl calls - are up an average 41.4%, since they were recommended in September and October. Our long Jul/18 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI trade initiated November 2, 2017 in expectation of steepening backwardation is up 27.7%. Base Metals: Neutral. A weaker USD is providing a tailwind for copper, which is up ~ 2% over the past week. Our U.S. Bond Strategy desk expects the Fed to remain behind the inflation curve, which will translate into lower real rates and continue to support base metals.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold continues to trade on either side of $1,280/oz, hardly budging following the upheaval in KSA. U.S. financial conditions - particularly a weaker USD - are driving gold. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 4.2% since inception May 4, 2017. Ags/Softs: Neutral. Updated projections of record-high yields from U.S. corn farmers is behind the upward revision to 2017/2018 corn ending stocks in the November WASDE. This led to a massive increase - by 7.56mm MT - in U.S. corn output, which was partially offset by an increase in expected world demand and a downward adjustment to global beginning stocks. Corn prices were down more than 3% in the week following the revisions, but have since regained 2.5%. Feature Markets appear to be pricing in an extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts to end-2018 when the producer group meets in Vienna at the end of the month around OPEC's regularly scheduled meeting. Our updated balances suggest a sharp sell-off triggered by market disappointment in OPEC 2.0 would represent a buying opportunity, particularly in 2H18. We continue to expect Brent to average $65/bbl next year in our base case (OPEC 2.0 cuts extended to end-June), with WTI trading $2/bbl under that. An extension of OPEC 2.0's cuts to end-December could lift our 2018 Brent forecast as much as $5/bbl, although the Brent-WTI spread likely would widen to $4 to $5/bbl, if this occurs. We do not believe additional cuts are in the offing. Nor do we expect an even-more-dramatic announcement of cuts being extended beyond 2018. We are deliberately keeping our base case more conservative than the apparent market expectation of an extension to end-2018. This suggests markets will be disappointed with anything less than an extension of the OPEC 2.0 cuts to end-June. Given our balances modeling, we believe any disappointment in the market's expectation that leads to a sell-off would represent a buying opportunity, since a Mar/18 expiry – the current terminus of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts, defeats the coalition's strategy of reducing OECD inventories. Under our base case, inventories draw to their five-year average levels by mid-year 2018 (Chart of the Week). In our updated balances model, we have a 100k b/d downward revision in expected U.S. oil-shale output for 2018 tightening the supply side for next year. The U.S. EIA has repeatedly revised its historical estimated shale production lower in recent months, and late-2017 rig counts have deteriorated slightly, which have shifted our historical production curve lower as well. On the demand side, we expect growth of ~ 1.65mm b/d on average in 2017 - 18. These assumptions give an upward bias to our 2018 price forecasts for Brent and WTI crude oil (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekSupply-Demand Balances##BR##Point Toward Tight Markets Chart 2Balances Are Tightening,##BR##Giving An Upward Bias To Prices Inventory Draw Could Be Sharper Chart 3Extending OPEC 2.0 Cuts To End-December##BR##Will Result In Sharper Draws An extension of the OPEC 2.0 cuts to end-Dec/18 would translate to a deeper storage draw than our end-June base case expectation (Chart 3). The Keystone pipeline leaks referenced above also provide an unanticipated assist in drawing down inventories, by temporarily removing ~ 500k b/d from the market in the 2H of November. While we have modeled price-induced additions to U.S. shale-oil output next year in our base case, an extension of OPEC 2.0's cuts to end-December likely will accelerate this production increase as additional production is added in 2H18. This will tend to temper price hikes, but not arrest them, given the differential storage draws we expect of 127 mm bbls. As we have noted, an extension of the OPEC 2.0 production cuts to the end of 2018 could lift Brent and WTI prices by as much as $5/bbl. However, given the still-insufficient pipeline take-away in the U.S. shale basins, we would expect higher production would widen the Brent - WTI price spread to $4 to $5/bbl next year. Practically, if the extension of the production cuts pushes Brent to $70/bbl, we're more inclined to expect WTI prices to average ~ $65/bbl next year. EM Continues To Lead Growth In Oil Demand EM oil demand strength continues to be the dominant feature of the oil market this year, and, we expect, into next year. We are modeling a 1.13mm b/d and 1.22mm b/d increase in EM demand this year and next, respectively. This accounts for 75% and 77% percent of global growth in 2017 and 2018 (Table 1). DM demand, which we proxy with OECD oil consumption, is expected to average 47.5mm b/d over the two-year interval, an average gain of 490k b/d over the interval, vs. 1.18 mm b/d gain in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) China and India account for slightly more than one-third of the 52mm b/d of consumption we are modeling for non-OECD demand over this period, and ~50% of the non-OECD demand growth from 2016 to 2018. The indicators we use to confirm or refute the demand trends we see - EM imports and global PMIs - continue to support the global-growth theme we've noted throughout the year, particularly in the EM markets (Charts 4 and 5). Chart 4EM Trade Volumes Remain Strong,##BR##Supporting The Global Growth Hypothesis Chart 5Global Manufacturing Activity##BR##Remains Robust Continue Watching The Fed EM oil demand and import volumes are highly dependent on Fed policy, which is of particular concern now, because the U.S. central bank is trying to carry out its rate-normalization policy (Chart 6). Still, as our colleagues on the U.S. Bond Strategy desk note, "To avoid policy failure the Fed must allow inflation to reach its 2% target before the onset of the next recession. This means it will soon fall behind the inflation curve." This will be bullish for trade, since as we've shown in the past, U.S. monetary policy has a huge effect on trade.2 For the near term - into 1H18 - fundamentals will dominate the evolution of price: Supply, demand and inventories will matter more than U.S. monetary policy effects on the USD and real rates. Nonetheless, should the hawks in the Fed carry the day, we would expect a strengthening of the USD, which, all else equal, would act as a headwind to oil prices next year. For the time being, a weaker USD is reinforcing stronger prices brought about by tighter fundamentals, particularly in the Brent market (Chart 7). Chart 6Continue Watching The Fed Chart 7A Weaker USD Provides A Slight Tailwind Bottom Line: Markets are expecting OPEC 2.0 to extend its 1.8mm b/d production cut to end-2018. We are deliberately using a more conservative extension to end-June in our balances modeling, which produce 2018 Brent and WTI prices forecasts of $65/bbl and $63/bbl. An executed extension of the OPEC 2.0 cuts to end-December 2018 likely would add as much as $5/bbl to Brent prices, and perhaps $2/bbl to WTI prices, which would widen the Brent - WTI spread to $4 to $5/bbl on average next year. Fundamentals will continue to dominate the evolution of prices into 2018 - supply growth (falling), demand growth (rising), and inventories (falling) will drive prices. For the moment a weaker USD is supportive for commodities generally, particularly oil and copper. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "The Fed Will Fall Behind The Curve," published October 24, 2017, by BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see footnote 1 above. U.S. monetary policy effects on EM oil demand and trade volumes, and the feedback loop back to the key indicators used by the Fed, have been a recurrent theme in our research. Please see, e.g., "Strong EM Trade Volumes Will Support Oil," published June 8, 2017, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Our line of research recently found support in IMF research published earlier this month; please see "Global Trade and the Dollar," published by the IMF November 13, 2017. The IMF research is available at http://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2017/11/13/Global-Trade-and-the-Dollar-45336?cid=em-COM-123-36197 Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q17 Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Special Report

Highlights The path of least resistance for steel, coal and iron ore prices is down over the next 12-24 months. China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal will continue into 2018 and 2019, but the scale and pace of "de-capacity" will diminish. The Mainland's steel and coal output will likely rise going forward as new capacity using more efficient and ecologically friendly technologies come on stream. Both the steel and coal industries in China are becoming more efficient and more competitive, with low-quality output falling and high-quality supply rising. Feature Reducing capacity (also called "de-capacity") in the oversupplied commodities markets (e.g., steel, coal, cement, and aluminum) has been a key priority within China's structural supply side reforms over the past two years. The reforms were announced by President Xi Jinping in November 2015 and have focused primarily on steel and coal, and to a lesser extent on the aluminum and cement sectors. China's "de-capacity" reforms have been aiming to reduce inefficient productive capacity and low-quality output of the above mentioned commodities, as well as boost medium-to-high-quality production. The main focus of this report is to dissect China's supply side "de-capacity" reforms, and to assess their impact on steel, coal and iron ore prices. The de-capacity reforms were announced in late 2015 and, coincidentally, all major industrial commodities prices made a synchronized bottom in late 2015/early 2016 (Chart I-1). Chart I-1ASynchronized Bottom & Rally: ##br##Due To Chinese 'De-Capacity' Reforms? Chart I-1BSynchronized Bottom & Rally: ##br##Due To Chinese 'De-Capacity' Reforms? China is the largest producer and consumer of various raw materials, ranging from steel and coal to base metals. Hence, two interesting questions arise: was it the "de-capacity" reforms or other factors that caused the various raw materials to bottom in early 2016 and rally thereafter? How will China's ongoing "de-capacity" reforms affect steel, coal, and iron ore prices going into 2018 and 2019? Progress Of "De-Capacity" Reforms Three main approaches have been used by policymakers with respect to de-capacity reforms: The government sets up capacity reduction targets and then implements concrete plans to achieve these targets. The government conducts inspections to ensure the reforms are being implemented or for environmental protection purposes. The government aims to eliminate outdated capacity by setting up electricity price rules (higher electricity prices for producers with inefficient technologies) as well as ordering banks to curtail lending to those producers. In terms of timelines, the Chinese supply side "de-capacity" reforms so far have been rolled out in three phases: Phase I: Initiation and preparation phase (2015 Q4 - 2016 H1): The first phase involved policy makers drawing related policies and capacity reduction targets in the steel and coal industries. Local governments and related SOEs began implementing the so-called "de-capacity" reforms. During this period, only 30% of the 2016 capacity reduction targets for both steel and coal markets were achieved. Phase II: The accelerating implementation phase (2016 H2): The second phase included a ramp-up of "de-capacity" reforms, with over 70% of 2016 steel and coal capacity reduction targets being implemented. Meanwhile, steel production disruptions increased due to more stringent environmental rules, more frequent inspections, and government-ordered closures of low-quality steel (called "Ditiaogang" in Chinese) production in Jiangsu and Shandong provinces. Phase III: The reform-deepening phase (2017): The third phase, implemented in the first half of this year, was a clamping down on overcapacity to eliminate all illegal sub-standard steel (Ditiaogang) production and capacity by the end of June 2017. To date, the Chinese authorities have succeeded in their "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal: both the steel and coal industries in China have become more efficient, more competitive, and have much less obsolete excess capacity: The government's plan was to reduce capacity by 100-150 million metric tons in steel and 1 billion metric tons in coal within "three to five years." This equated to a 9-13% and 18% reduction of existing 2015 Chinese capacity in steel and coal, respectively. In addition, this is equivalent to 7-9% for steel and 10% for coal of 2015's global output (Table I-1). As of August 2017, within less than two years since the beginning of the supply side reforms, 77% of the steel "de-capacity" target (or 10% of 2015 capacity) and 52% of the coal "de-capacity" target (or 7% of 2015 capacity) have been achieved (Table I-1). Table I-1Chinese Supply-Side Reform - Capacity Reduction Target And Actual Achievement With declining capacity and rising production, the capacity utilization rates (CUR) of the steel and coal industries have increased meaningfully. The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) reported that as of the third quarter of 2017, the CUR for the steel industry has risen to 76.7% (the highest since 2013, and an increase of 4.4 percentage points from a year ago). As for the coal sector, the CUR reached 69% (the highest since 2015, and an increase of 10.6 percentage points from a year ago). With outdated and illegal production capacity exiting the marketplace, the number of companies and the number of employees have declined significantly in both the steel and coal industries (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Since the start of the "de-capacity" reforms, the central government has allocated 100 billion yuan (0.1% of GDP and 3.6% of central government spending) to a special fund for the relocation of employees in the coal and steel industries. Chart I-2Consolidation In Chinese Steel ##br##And Coal Sectors: Fewer Companies... Chart I-3...And Fewer Employees Higher prices for steel and coal have greatly boosted producers' profitability. From January 2016 to September 2017, the number of loss-making enterprises as a share of all enterprises has dropped from 25% to 17% in the steel industry and from 34% to 21% in the coal sector. Improving financial conditions have enhanced steel and coal companies' ability to invest in industrial upgrades (i.e., more investment in advanced technologies and new equipment). Bottom Line: Chinese "de-capacity" reforms have been successfully implemented, which has improved economic efficiency in the steel and coal industries by reducing high-cost and low-quality supply, and by increasing lower-cost and high-quality output. Understanding The Cycle In this section, we try to connect the dots between the progress of China's supply side reforms, and steel and coal prices. Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B show the fascinating dynamics among policy actions, production and prices. Chart I-4APolicy Actions And Market Dynamics: Coal Sector Chart I-4BPolicy Actions And Market Dynamics: Steel Sector Here are our major findings: (A) Except for coal, Chinese "de-capacity" reforms were not the major trigger for the price bottom in major industrial commodities in early 2016. As the period from November 2015 to June 2016 was only the initiation stage of the reforms, not much steel capacity reduction - only 1.2% of total existing 2015 capacity - occurred in the first half year of 2016. Moreover, most of the reduced capacity was outdated capacity and probably had been offline for years. Therefore, the policy driven capacity cut in the first half of 2016 was unlikely the reason for the rally in steel prices. The reasons behind the bottom in raw materials prices in general and steel in particular during the first half of 2016 were the following: 1. Production cuts in both 2015 and the first half of 2016 was market-driven. In other words, it was not government reforms but natural market forces (the dramatic drop in raw materials prices in 2015) that caused company closures and declines in various raw materials output in both 2015 and the first half of 2016 (Chart I-4A). The price recovery in the first half of 2016 was not sufficient to make most producers profitable. 2. Remarkably, the authorities injected considerable amounts of credit and fiscal stimulus in late 2015 and early 2016. As a result, demand recovery was another major trigger for the synchronized bottom in early 2016. The rise in the aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse led to a revival in property construction, automobile production and infrastructure investment in the first half of 2016 (Chart I-5). 3. Financial/speculative demand for commodities was also a driving force behind the early 2016 price recovery. Chart I-6 illustrates that Mainland trading volumes in various commodities futures surged in the first half of 2016, and specifically in coal in the third quarter of 2016, coinciding with their respective price spikes. Chart I-5Strong Demand Recovery In 2016 Chart I-6Speculative Buying In Early 2016 All of these factors contributed to the synchronized price bottom in early 2016 and the consequent price rally in the first half of 2016, in which Chinese "de-capacity" reforms only played a minor role, especially in the steel market. (B) Chinese "de-capacity" reforms were the determining factor for the coal price spike in 2016 and steel price appreciation in 2017. Coal in 2016: "De-capacity" reforms were behind the surge in coal and coke prices throughout 2016. In February 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) stipulated that domestic coal mines could operate no more than 276 working days in one year, down from 330 working days in the past. This was equivalent to the immediate removal of 16% of existing operating capacity off the market. Before this decision, Chinese coal production had already declined 2.5% in 2014 and 3.3% in 2015 (Chart I-4B on page 6). On top of this decision, the government enforced a 250 million metric ton capacity cut target in the coal industry in 2016. Furthermore, actual coal capacity reduction in 2016 was 116% of that year's target (Table I-1). The end result was a 10% decline in Chinese coal production during the period of January and September of 2016 from the same period of 2015, triggering an exponential rise in both thermal coal and coking coal prices (Chart I-1 on page 2). Coking coal is mainly used for coke production, and coke is employed as a fuel in smelting iron ore in a blast furnace to produce steel. Therefore, a shortage of coking coal combined with a revival in steel production made coke the best-performing commodity last year, with its price skyrocketing by 300%. Chart I-7Diverging Prices In 2017 Towards the end of last year, the authorities realized that "de-capacity" in the coal market was too aggressive, and began loosening up coal production restrictions in September 2016. Last November the NDRC further eased policy by allowing companies to operate 330 days a year again (Chart I-4B on page 6). In response to these adjustments, thermal coal, coking coal and coke prices all peaked in December 2016/early 2017 (Chart I-1 on page 2). This reveals how Chinese supply side reforms can be a determining factor for global commodities prices. Steel prices in 2017: Steel prices have exhibited a steady rally throughout 2017, even though prices for coal, coke and iron ore all declined. There has been considerable price divergence this year between steel, on one hand, and coal, coke and iron ore, on the other. Prices for thermal coal, coking coal, coke and iron ore all peaked in late 2016/early 2017, while prices for steel continued to rise and reached a six-year high in September, expanding profit margins for steel producers (Chart I-7). The resilience of steel prices this year was because the Mainland had dismantled all "Ditiaogang" capacity by the end of June 2017, resulting in an accelerated drop in steel products production (Chart I-4A on page 6). "Ditiaogang" is low-quality steel made by melting scrap metal in cheap and easy-to-install induction furnaces. These steel products are of poor quality, and also lead to environmental degradation. "Ditiaogang" is often converted into products like rebar and wire rods. As steel produced this way is illegal, it is not recorded in official crude steel production data. However, after it is converted into steel products, official steel products production data do include it. Both falling steel products production and surging scrap steel exports entail that the "Ditiaogang" capacity elimination policy has been very effective (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Removal Of 'Ditiaogang' Has ##br##Been Successfully Implemented As reported by the government, about 120 million metric tons per year of "Ditiaogang" capacity has been eliminated, more than double this year's steel "de-capacity" target of 50 million metric tons. A considerable portion of the 120 million metric ton "Ditiaogang" capacity was still in operation early this year when "Ditiaogang" producers enjoyed higher profit margins than large steel producers. This rapid change created a sudden squeeze on steel products supply, which consequently boosted their prices. Bottom Line: China's "de-capacity" reforms have played a major role in driving the rallies in steel prices in 2017 and in the coal markets in 2016. In short, China's supply-side reforms have been effective in shaping prices and boosting efficiency in Mainland industries by eliminating weak/inefficient producers or forcing their industrial upgrade. However, the government efforts at times have also produced large price swings, as in the case of both coal and coke. The Outlook For 2018 And 2019 Given past success and the nation's leadership adherence to reforms, China will firmly proceed with its "de-capacity" reform strategy over the next two years. However, steel and coal prices are likely to decline going forward. The most aggressive phase of "de-capacity" reforms is now behind us. The pace of capacity reduction for both steel and coal will decrease over the next two years as more than half of the 2016-2020 target has already been achieved for both sectors. Both steel and coal producers currently enjoy near-decade high profit margins, and their profits have swelled (Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B). Not surprisingly, steel and coal producers have already sped up their investment in advanced technologies to augment their capacity - by introducing ecologically friendly equipment that can produce medium- to high-end quality products. Chart I-9AStrong Profits For Steel And Coal Producers Chart I-9BRising Profit Margins For Steel And Coal Producers Importantly, the capacity swap policy introduced by the authorities has been allowing steel and coal producers to add new capacity to replace obsolete capacity at a ratio of 1:1-1.25 (the range depends on region). In short, having eliminated the inefficient/outdated capacity, producers are now allowed to add as much capacity as they had before, but using efficient technologies. This will weigh on steel and coal prices as output gains and production costs will likely be lower with new technologies. In addition, Chinese steel producers are accelerating the expansion of advanced electric furnace (EF) capacity. At 6%, current Chinese EF steel output as a share of total steel production is much lower than the same ratio for the major world steel producers and the world average (Chart I-10). The Chinese government's target is to raise the share of EF crude steel production as a share of total production to 15% by 2020. It usually takes at least 1-2 years to build a new EF plant. Hence, newly installed EF capacity will likely come into operation in 2018-'19. On the whole, this points to lower prices for crude steel and steel products. The EF steel-making process only requires scrap steel and electricity to produce crude steel. It does not need either iron ore or coke. This is negative for iron ore and coke prices. With the abundance of used cars and used home appliances in China, the domestic availability of scrap steel has significantly improved over the past few decades. In addition, electricity prices for industrial use have declined by about 5% since March 2015. Therefore, easing resource constraints (availability of scrap steel) and lower electricity costs will facilitate EF steel capacity expansion in China. Some words about the policy-driven steel production cut during the winter season. More than two dozen cities in northern China drew up detailed action plans during September and October to fight the notorious winter smog. China has set a target to reduce the level of Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 pollution by at least 15% in cities around the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region between October 2017 and March 2018. The new rules will require seasonal suspensions or production cuts of steel, aluminum and cement (with the most focus on steel) during the winter heating season from November 15 to March 15. Therefore, over the next four months, downside in steel and coal prices may be limited due to support from these output cuts. This also entails less short-term demand for coke and iron ore, prices for these commodities may remain under downward pressure. Nonetheless, Chinese crude steel output is set to continue rising over the next two years, which in turn will eventually reverse the recent decline in steel products production and assure expansion in steel products production in 2018-'19 (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Chinese Electric Furnace Crude ##br##Steel Production Will Go Up Chart I-11Steel Products Output Will Soon Catch Up For coal, production will accelerate in 2018. The NDRC expects coal production capacity to rise by a net 200 million metric tons this year as increases at more "advanced" mines exceed shutdowns of outmoded facilities. This will be a 50 million metric ton gain over this year's 150 million metric ton obsolete capacity reduction target. In addition, China's coal utilization rate as of the third quarter of 2017 was still below 70%, implying substantial additional capacity remains, potentially boosting coal output, so long as the government does not alter the 330 working-day rule. Importantly, on the demand side, China is aiming to reduce coal usage for electricity generation while promoting renewable energy like hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. This constitutes a structural headwind to coal prices. This is especially significant, given than China accounts for half of global coal consumption. The supply side reforms of the past two years (shutting down inferior capacity) along with the adoption of new, more efficient technologies, has already strengthened the competitiveness of Chinese steel and coal producers. This entails that China will soon resume net exports of steel products, and that its net imports of coal will drop (Chart I-12). This is bad news for international steel and coal producers, who in the past two years have benefited from higher steel and coal prices on the back of a revival in Chinese demand, and curtailed supply. Last but not least, our broad money impulse as well as the aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse shows that economic growth in general and demand for industrial metals in particular are set to decelerate considerably in the next nine to 12 months or so (Chart I-13). Chart I-12China May Increase Its Net Steel Exports ##br##And Decrease Its Net Coal Imports Chart I-13Demand Is Set To Decelerate Chinese steel and coal markets will determine the direction of coke and iron ore prices, both of which will likely be headed lower as well. Coke: Rising coking coal output as a result of coal production ramping up will increase coke supply sizably. As an increasing share of steel output will come from non-coke-reliant EF capacity, coke demand growth will be constrained. Iron ore: Recovering domestic iron ore production could cap China's imports of iron ore (Chart I-14). First, a marginal rise in profit margins for Chinese iron ore domestic producers and a declining number of loss-generating companies heralds modest upside for iron ore output in China (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Chinese Iron Ore Output Will Rise Chart I-15Chinese Iron Ore Producers: ##br##Marginal Rise In Profit Margins Second, more vertical integration - a rising number of Chinese steel producers that have bought iron ore mines - will result in higher domestic iron ore output. Steel companies' current fat profit margins could prompt them to boost iron ore output from the mines that they have integrated into their production chain. Although profits from iron ore production specifically are likely to be limited. This will be the case especially if the government encourages them to do so. Last year, Chinese iron ore imports accounted for 87% of national total consumption - an all-time high. The authorities dislike such great dependence on resource imports, and the government will likely introduce policies such as reducing taxes for domestic iron ore producers or other efforts to boost domestic production. Bottom Line: China's "de-capacity" reforms in steel and coal will continue into 2018 and 2019, but the scale and pace of "de-capacity" will diminish. The Mainland's steel and coal output will likely rise going forward as new capacity using more efficient and ecologically friendly technologies come on stream. The path of least resistance for steel, coal and iron ore prices is down over the next 12-24 months. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist EllenJ@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This year, Mr. X introduced us to his daughter, who we shall identify as Ms. X. She has many years of experience as a portfolio manager, initially in a wealth management firm, and subsequently in two major hedge funds. In 2017, she joined her father to help him run the family office portfolio. She took an active role in our recent discussion and this report is an edited transcript of our conversation. Mr. X: As always, it is a great pleasure to sit down with you to discuss the economic and investment outlook. And I am thrilled to bring my daughter to the meeting. She and I do not always agree on the market outlook and appropriate investment strategy, but even in her first year working with me she has added tremendous value to our decisions and performance. As you know, I have a very conservative bias in my approach and this means I sometimes miss out on opportunities. My daughter is more willing than me to take risks, so we make a good team. I am happy that our investment portfolio has performed well over the past year, but am puzzled by the high level of investor complacency. I can't understand why investors do not share my concerns about by sky-high valuations, a volatile geopolitical environment and the considerable potential for financial instability. Over the years, you have made me appreciate the power of easy money to create financial bubbles and also that market overshoots can last for a surprisingly long time. Thus, I am fully aware that we could easily have another year of strong gains, but were that to happen, I would worry about the potential for a sudden 1987-style crash. I remember that event well and it was an unpleasant experience. My inclination is to move right now to an underweight equity position. Ms. X: Let me add that I am delighted to finally attend the annual BCA meeting with my father. Over the years, he has talked to me at length about your discussions, making me very jealous that I was not there. He and I do frequently disagree about the outlook so it will be good to have BCA's independent and objective perspective. As my father noted, I do not always share his cautious bias. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded him to raise our equity exposure and that was the right decision. I have been in the business long enough to know that it is dangerous to get more bullish as the market rises and I agree there probably is too much complacency. However, I do not see an early end to the conditions that are driving the bull market and I am inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. Thus, the big debate between us is whether or not we should now book profits from the past year's strong performance and move to an underweight stance in risk assets. Hopefully, this meeting will help us make the right decision. Chart 1An Impressive Bull Market BCA: First of all, we are delighted to see you both and look forward to getting to know Ms. X in the years to come. It is not a surprise that you are debating whether to cut exposure to risk assets because that question is on the mind of many of our clients. We share your surprise about complacency - investors have been seduced by the relentless upward drift of prices since early 2016. The global equity index has not suffered any setback above 2% during the past year, and that has to be close to a record (Chart 1). The conditions that have underpinned this remarkable performance are indeed still in place but we expect that to change during the coming year. Thus, if equity prices continue to rise, it would make sense to reduce exposure to risk assets to a neutral position over the next few months. A blow-off phase with a final spike in prices cannot be ruled out, but trying to catch those moves is a very high-risk strategy. We are not yet recommending underweight positions in risk assets, but if our economic and policy views pan out, we likely will shift in that direction in the second half of 2018. Ms. X: It seems that you are siding with my father in terms of wanting to scale back exposure to risk assets. That would be premature in my view and I look forward to discussing this in more detail. But first, I would be interested in reviewing your forecasts from last year. BCA: Of course. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of President-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. The key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given President-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. The most important prediction that we got right was our view that conditions were ripe for an overshoot in equity prices. The MSCI all-country index has delivered an impressive total return of around 20% in dollar terms since the end of 2016, one of the best calendar year performances of the current cycle (Table 1). So it was good that your daughter persuaded you to keep a healthy equity exposure. It is all the more impressive that the market powered ahead in the face of all the concerns that you noted earlier. Our preference for European markets over the U.S. worked out well in common currency terms, but only because the dollar declined. Emerging markets did much better than we expected, with significant outperformance relative to their developed counterparts. Table 1Market Performance With regard to the overall economic environment, we were correct in forecasting a modest improvement in 2017 global economic activity and that growth would not fall short of the IMF's predictions for the first time in the current expansion. However, one big surprise, not only for us, but also for policymakers, was that inflation drifted lower in the major economies. Latest data show the core inflation rate for the G7 economies is running at only 1.4%, down from 1.6% at the end of 2016. We will return to this critical issue later as the trend in inflation outlook will be a key determinant of the market outlook for the coming year and beyond. Regionally, the Euro area and Japanese economies registered the biggest upside surprises relative to our forecast and those of the IMF (Table 2). That goes a long way to explaining why the U.S. dollar was weaker than we expected. In addition, the dollar was not helped by a market downgrading of the scale and timing of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the dollar has merely unwound the 2016 Trump rally and recently has shown some renewed strength. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts A year ago, there were major concerns about potential political turmoil from important elections in Europe, the risk of U.S.-led trade wars and a credit bust-up in China. We downplayed these issues as near-term threats to the markets and that turned out to be appropriate. Nevertheless, there are many lingering risks to the outlook and market complacency is a much bigger concern now than it was a year ago. Mr. X: As you just noted, a key theme of your Outlook last year was "Shifting Regimes" such as the end of disinflation and fiscal conservatism, a retreat from globalization, and the start of a rebalancing in income shares away from profits toward labor. And of course, you talked about the End of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago. Do you still have confidence that these regime shifts are underway? BCA: Absolutely! These are all trends that we expect to play out over a number of years and thus can't be judged by short-term developments. There have been particularly important shifts in the policy environment. The 2007-09 economic and financial meltdown led central banks to fight deflation rather than inflation and we would not bet against them in this battle. Inflation has been lower than expected, but there has been a clear turning point. On fiscal policy, governments have largely given up on austerity against a background of a disappointingly slow economic recovery in recent years and rising populist pressures (Chart 2). The U.S. budget deficit could rise particularly sharply over the next few years. In the U.S., the relative income shares going to profits and labor have started to shift direction, but there is a long way to go. Finally, the same forces driving government to loosen fiscal purse strings have also undermined support for globalization with the U.S. even threatening to abandon NAFTA. The ratio of global trade to output has trended sideways for several years and is unlikely to turn higher any time soon. All these trends are part of our Regime Shift thesis. Chart 2Regime Shifts The remarkable macro backdrop of low inflation, easy money and healthy profits has been incredibly positive for financial markets in recent years. You would have to be an extreme optimist to believe that such an environment will persist. Our big concern for the coming year is that we are setting up for a collision between the markets and looming changes in economic policy. The Coming Collision Between Policy And The Markets BCA: As you mentioned earlier, we attach enormous importance to the role of easy money in supporting asset prices and it is hard to imagine that we could have had a more stimulative monetary environment than has existed in recent years. Central banks have been in panic mode since the 2007-09 downturn with an unprecedented period of negative real interest rates in the advanced economies, coupled with an extraordinary expansion of central bank balance sheets (Chart 3). Initially, the fear was for another Great Depression and as that threat receded, the focus switched to getting inflation back to the 2% target favored by most developed countries. In a post-Debt Supercycle world, negative real rates have failed to trigger the typical rebound in credit demand that was so characteristic of the pre-downturn era. Central banks have expanded base money in the form of bank reserves, but this has not translated into markedly faster growth in broad money or nominal GDP. This is highlighted by the collapse in money multipliers (the ratio of broad to base money) and in velocity (the ratio of GDP to broad money). This has been a double whammy: there is less broad money generated for each dollar of base money and less GDP for every dollar of broad money (Chart 4). Chart 3An Extraordinary Period Of Easy Money Chart 4Monetary Policy: Pushing On A String Historically, monetary policy acted primarily through the credit channel with lower rates making households and companies more willing to borrow, and lenders more willing to supply funds. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, the credit channel has become partly blocked, forcing policymakers to rely more on the other channels of monetary transmission, the main one being boosting asset prices. However, there is a limit to how far this can go because the end result is massively overvalued assets and building financial excesses. The Fed and many other central banks now realize that this strategy cannot be pushed much further. The economic recovery in the U.S. and other developed economies has been the weakest of the post-WWII period. But potential growth rates also have slowed which means that spare capacity has gradually been absorbed. According to the IMF, the U.S. output gap closed in 2015 having been as high as 2% of potential GDP in 2013. The IMF estimates that the economy was operating slightly above potential in 2017 with a further rise forecast in 2018 (Chart 5). According to IMF estimates, the median output gap for 20 advanced economies will shift from -0.1% in 2017 to +0.3% in 2018 (i.e. they will be operating above potential). This makes it hard to justify the maintenance of hyper-stimulative monetary policies. Chart 5No More Output Gaps The low U.S. inflation rate is giving the Fed the luxury of moving cautiously and that is keeping the markets buoyant. Indeed, the markets don't even believe the Fed will be able to raise rates as much they expect. The most recent FOMC projections show a median federal funds rate of 2.1% by the end of 2018 but the markets are discounting a move to only 1.8%. The markets probably have this wrong because inflation is likely to wake up from its slumber in the second half of the year. Ms. X: This is another area where my father and I disagree. I view the world as essentially deflationary. We all know that technological innovations have opened up competition in a lot of markets, driving down prices. Two obvious examples are Uber and Airbnb, but these are just the tip of the iceberg. Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is another example of how increased competitive pressures will continue to sweep through previously relatively stable industries. And such changes have an important impact on employee psychology and thus bargaining power. These days, people are glad to just keep their jobs and this means companies hold the upper hand when it comes to wage negotiations. So I don't see a pickup in inflation being a threat to the markets any time soon. Mr. X: I have a different perspective. First of all, I do not even believe the official inflation data because most of the things I buy have risen a lot in price over the past couple of years. Secondly, given the extremely stimulative stance of monetary policy in recent years, a pickup in inflation would not surprise me at all. So I am sympathetic to the BCA view. But, even if the data is correct, why have inflation forecasts proved so wrong and what underpins your view that it will increase in the coming year? BCA: There is an interesting disconnect between the official data and the inflation views of many consumers and economic/statistics experts. According to the Conference Board, U.S. consumers' one-year ahead inflation expectations have persistently exceeded the published data and the latest reading is close to 5% (Chart 6). That ties in with your perception. Consumer surveys by the New York Fed and University of Michigan have year-ahead inflation expectations at a more reasonable 2.5%. At the same time, many "experts" believe the official data is overstated because it fails to take enough account of technological changes and new lower-priced goods and services. The markets also have a moderately optimistic view with the five-year CPI swap rate at 2%. This is optimistic because it is consistent with inflation below the Fed's 2% target, if one allows for an inflation risk premium built in to the swap price. We are prepared to take the inflation data broadly at face value. Low inflation is consistent with an ongoing tough competitive environment in most sectors, boosted by the disruptive impact of technological changes that Ms. X described. The inflation rate for core goods (ex-food and energy) has been in negative territory for several years while that for services ex-shelter is at the low end of its historical range (Chart 7). Chart 6Differing Perspectives Of Inflation Chart 7Not Much Inflation Here There is no simple explanation of why inflation has fallen short of forecasts. Economic theory assumes that price pressures build as an economy moves closer to full employment and the U.S. is at that point. This raises several possibilities: There is more slack in the economy than suggested by the low unemployment rate. The lags are unusually long in the current cycle. Technological disruption is having a greater impact than expected. The link between economic slack and inflationary pressures is typically captured by the Phillips Curve which shows the relationship between the unemployment rate and inflation. In the U.S., the current unemployment rate of 4.1% is believed to be very close to a full-employment level. Yet, inflation recently has trended lower and while wage growth is in an uptrend, it has remained softer than expected (Chart 8). Chart 8Inflationary Pressures Are Turning We agree with Ms. X that employee bargaining power has been undermined over the years by globalization and technological change and by the impact of the 2007-09 economic downturn. That would certainly explain a weakened relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth, but does not completely negate the theory. The historical evidence still suggests that once the labor market becomes tight, inflation eventually does accelerate. A broad range of data indicates that the U.S. labor market is indeed tight and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker is in an uptrend, albeit modestly. Two other factors consistent with an end to disinflation are the lagged effects of dollar weakness and a firming in oil prices. Non-oil prices have now moved decisively out of deflationary territory while oil prices in 2017 have averaged more than 20% above year-ago levels. As far as the impact of technology is concerned, there is no doubt that innovations like Uber and Airbnb are deflationary. However, our analysis suggests that the growth in online spending has not had a major impact on the inflation numbers. E-commerce still represents a small fraction of total U.S. consumer spending, depressing overall consumer inflation by only 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. The deceleration of inflation since the global financial crisis has been in areas largely unaffected by online sales, such as energy and rent. Moreover, today's creative destruction in the retail sector is no more deflationary than the earlier shift to 'big box' stores. We are not looking for a dramatic acceleration in either wage growth or inflation - just enough to convince the Fed that it needs to carry on with its plan to raise interest rates. And the pressure to do this will increase if the Administration is able to deliver on its planned tax cuts. Ms. X: You make it sound as if cutting taxes would be a bad thing. Surely the U.S. would benefit from the Administration's tax plan? A reduction in the corporate tax rate would be very bullish for equities. BCA: The U.S. tax system is desperately in need of reform via eliminating loopholes and distortions and using the savings to lower marginal rates. That would make it more efficient and hopefully boost the supply side of the economy without undermining revenues. However, the economy does not need stimulus from net tax giveaways given that it is operating close to potential. That would simply boost demand relative to supply, create overheating, and give the Fed more reason to get aggressive. The Republican's initial tax plan has some good elements of reform such as cutting back the personal mortgage interest deduction, eliminating some other deductions and making it less attractive for companies to shift operations overseas. However, many of these proposals are unlikely to survive the lobbying efforts of special interest groups. The net result probably will be tax giveaways without much actual reform. Importantly, there is not a strong case for personal tax cuts given that a married worker on the average wage and with two children paid an average income tax rate of only 14% in 2016, according to OECD calculations. There inevitably will be contentious negotiations in Congress but we assume that the Republicans will eventually come together to pass some tax cuts by early next year. The combination of easier fiscal policy and Fed rate hikes will be bullish for the dollar and this will contribute to tighter overall financial conditions. That is why we see a coming collision between economic policy and the markets. The narrative for the so-called Trump rally in markets was based on the assumption that the Administration's platform of increased spending, tax cuts and reduced regulations would be bullish for the economy and thus risk assets. That was always a misplaced notion. The perfect environment for markets has been moderate economic growth, low inflation and easy money. The Trump agenda would be appropriate for an economy that had a lot of spare capacity and needed a big boost in demand. It is less suited for an economy with little spare capacity. Reduced regulations and lower corporate tax rates are good for the supply side of the economy and could boost the potential growth rate. However, if a key move is large personal tax cuts then the boost to demand will dominate. Mr. X: It seems that you are making the case for a serious policy error in the U.S. in the coming year - both on fiscal and monetary policy. I can't argue against that because everything that has happened over the past few years tells me that policymakers don't have a good grip on either the economy or the implications of their actions. I never believed that printing money and creating financial bubbles was a sensible approach to an over-indebted economy. I always expected it to end badly. BCA: Major tightening cycles frequently end in recession because monetary policy is a very blunt tool. Central banks would like to raise rates by just enough to cool things down but that is hard to achieve. The problem with fiscal policy is that implementation lags mean that it often is pro-cyclical. In other words, there is pressure for fiscal stimulus in a downturn, but by the time legislation is passed, the economy typically has already recovered and does not really need a big fiscal boost. And that certainly applies to the current environment. The other area of potential policy error is on trade. Having already pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trump Administration is taking a hardline attitude toward a renegotiation of NAFTA. This could even end up with the deal being scrapped and that would add another element of risk to the North American economies. Ms. X: Your scenario assumes that the Fed will be quite hawkish. However, everything I have read about Jerome Powell, the new Fed chair, suggests that he will err on the side of caution when it comes to raising rates. So monetary policy may not collide with markets at all over the coming year. BCA: It is certainly true that Powell does not have any particular bias when it comes to the conduct of monetary policy. That would not have been the case if either John Taylor or Kevin Warsh had been given the job - they both have a hawkish bias. Powell is not an economist so will likely follow a middle path and be heavily influenced by the Fed's staff forecasts and by the opinions of other FOMC members. There are still several vacancies on the Fed's Board so much will depend on who is appointed to those positions. The latest FOMC forecasts are for growth and inflation of only 2% in 2018 and these numbers seem too low. Meanwhile, the prediction that unemployment will still be at 4.1% at end-2018 is too high. We expect projections of growth and inflation to be revised up and unemployment to be revised down. That will embolden the Fed to keep raising rates. So, even with Powell at the helm, monetary policy is set to get tighter than the market currently expects. Ms. X: So far, we have talked mainly about the U.S. What about other central banks? I can't believe that inflation will be much of a problem in the euro area or in Japan any time soon. Does that not mean that the overall global monetary environment will stay favorable for risk assets? BCA: The Fed is at the leading edge of the shift away from extreme monetary ease by hiking interest rates and starting the process of balance sheet reduction. But the Bank of Canada also has raised rates and the ECB has announced that it will cut its asset purchases in half beginning January 2018, as a first step in normalizing policy. Even the Bank of England has raised rates despite Brexit-related downside risks for the economy. The BoJ will keep an accommodative stance for the foreseeable future. You are correct that financial conditions will be tightening more in the U.S. than in other developed economies. Moreover, equity valuations are more stretched in the U.S. than elsewhere leaving that market especially vulnerable. Yet, market correlations are such that any sell-off in U.S. risk assets is likely to become a global affair. Another key issue relates to the potential for financial shocks. Long periods of extreme monetary ease always fuel excesses and sometimes these remain hidden until they blow up. We know that companies have taken on a lot of debt, largely to fund financial transactions such as share buybacks and merger and acquisitions activity. That is unlikely to be the direct cause of a financial accident but might well become a problem in the next downturn. It typically is increased leverage within the financial sector itself that poses the greatest risk and that is very opaque. The banking system is much better capitalized than before the 2007-09 downturn so the risks lie elsewhere. As would be expected, margin debt has climbed higher with the equity market, and is at a historically high level relative to market capitalization (Chart 9). We don't have good data on the degree of leverage among non-bank financial institutions such as hedge funds but that is where leverage surprises are likely to occur. And the level of interest rates that causes financial stress is almost certainly to be a lot lower than in the past. Chart 9Financial Leverage Has Risen Mr. X: That is the perfect lead-in to my perennial concern - the high level of debt in the major economies. I realize high debt levels are not a problem when interest rates are close to zero, but that will change if your view on the Fed is correct. Ms. X: I would just add that this is one area where I share my father's concerns, but with an important caveat. I wholeheartedly agree that high debt levels pose a threat to economic and financial stability, but I see this as a long-term issue. Even with rising interest rates, debt servicing costs will stay low for at least the next year. It seems to me that rates will have to rise a lot before debt levels in the major economies pose a serious threat to the system. Even if the Fed tightens policy in line with its plans, real short rates will still stay low by historical standards. This will not only keep debt financing manageable but will also sustain the search for yield and support equity prices. BCA: We would be disappointed if you both had not raised the issue of debt. Debt levels do indeed remain very elevated among advanced and emerging economies (Chart 10). The growth in private debt remains far below pre-crisis levels in the advanced countries, but this has been offset by the continued high level of government borrowing. As a result, the total debt-to-GDP ratio has stayed close to a peak. And both private and public debt ratios have climbed to new highs in the emerging economies, with China leading the charge. Chart 10ADebt Levels Remain Elevated Chart 10BDebt Levels Remain Elevated As we have discussed in the past, there is not an inconsistency between our End of Debt Supercycle thesis and the continued high levels of debt in most countries. As noted earlier, record-low interest rates have not triggered the kind of private credit resurgence that occurred in the pre-crisis period. For example, household borrowing has remained far below historical levels as a percent of income in the U.S., despite low borrowing costs (Chart 11). At the same time, it is not a surprise that debt-to-income ratios are high given the modest growth in nominal incomes in most countries. Chart 11Low Rates Have Not Triggered ##br##A Borrowing Surge In U.S. Debt growth is not benign everywhere. In the developed world, Canada's debt growth is worryingly high, both in the household and corporate sectors. As is also the case with Australia, Canada's overheated housing market has fueled rapid growth in mortgage debt. These are accidents waiting to happen when borrowing costs increase. In the emerging word, China has yet to see the end of its Debt Supercycle. Fortunately, with most banks under state control, the authorities should be able to contain any systemic risks, at least in the near run. With regard to timing, we agree that debt levels are not likely to pose an economic or financial problem in next year. It is right to point out that debt-servicing costs are very low by historical standards and it will take time for rising rates to have an impact given that a lot of debt is locked in at low rates. For example, in the U.S., the ratio of household debt-servicing to income and the non-financial business sector's ratio of interest payments to EBITD are at relatively benign levels (Chart 12). However, changes occur at the margin and the example of the Bernanke taper tantrum highlighted investor sensitivity to even modest changes in the monetary environment. You may well be right Ms. X that risk assets will continue to climb higher in the face of a tighter financial conditions. But given elevated valuations, we lean toward a cautious rather than aggressive approach to strategy. We would rather leave some money on the table than risk being caught in a sudden downdraft. Other investors, including yourself, might prefer to wait for clearer signals that a turning point is imminent. Returning to the issue of indebtedness, the end-game for high debt levels continues to be a topic of intense interest. There really are only three options: to grow out of it, to write it off, or to try and inflate it away. The first option obviously would be best - to have fast enough growth in real incomes that allowed debtors to start paying down their debt. Unfortunately, that is the least likely prospect given adverse demographic trends throughout the developed world and disappointing productivity growth (Chart 13). Chart 12Borrowing Costs Are Benign Chart 13It's Hard To Grow Out Of Debt ##br##With These Structural Headwinds Writing the debt off - i.e. defaulting - is a desperate measure that would be the very last resort after all other approaches had failed. In this case, we are talking mainly about government debt, because private debt always has to be written off when borrowers become bankrupt. Japan is the one developed country where government debt probably will be written off eventually. Given that the Bank of Japan owns around 45% of outstanding government debt, those holdings can be neutralized by converting them to perpetuals - securities that are never redeemed. If the first two options are not viable, then inflation becomes the preferred solution to over-indebtedness. To make a big impact, inflation would need to rise far above the 2% level currently favored by central banks, and it would have to stay elevated for quite some time. Central banks are not yet ready to allow such an environment, but that could change after the next economic downturn. Central banks have made it clear that they are prepared to pursue radical policies in order to prevent deflation. This sets the scene for increasingly aggressive actions after the next recession and the end result could be a period of significantly higher inflation. Mr. X: I don't disagree with that view which is why I always like to hold some physical gold in my portfolio. It is interesting that you are worried about a looming setback for risk assets because you are positive on the near-run economic outlook. That is contrary to the typical view that sees a decent economy as supporting higher equity prices. Let's spend a bit more time on your view of the economic outlook. Ms. X: Before we do that, I would just emphasize that it is far too early to worry about debt end games and the potential for sharply rising inflation. I don't disagree that monetary policy could be forced to embrace massive reflation during the next downturn and perhaps that will make me change my view of the inflation outlook. But the sequencing is important because we would first have to deal with a recession that could be a very deflationary episode. And before the next recession we could have period of continued decent growth, which would be positive for risk assets. So I agree that the near-term view of the economic outlook is important. The Economic Outlook BCA: This recovery cycle has been characterized by a series of shocks and headwinds that constrained growth in various regions. In no particular order, these included fiscal austerity, the euro crisis, a brief U.S. government shutdown, the Japanese earthquake, and a spike in oil prices above $100. As we discussed a year ago, in the absence of any new shocks, we expected global growth to improve and that is what occurred in 2017. A broad range of indicators shows that activity has picked up steam in most areas. Purchasing managers' indexes are in an uptrend, business and consumer confidence are at cyclical highs and leading indicators have turned up (Chart 14). This is hardly a surprise given easy monetary conditions and a more relaxed fiscal stance almost everywhere. Chart 14Global Activity On An Uptrend The outlook for 2018 is positive and the IMF's projections for growth is probably too low (see Table 2). So, for the second year in a row, the next set of updates due in the spring are likely to be revised up. Ms. X: Let's talk about the U.S. economy. You are concerned that tax cuts could contribute to overheating, tighter monetary policy and an eventual collision with the markets. But there are two alternative scenarios, both quite optimistic for risk assets. On the one hand, a cut in the corporate tax rate could trigger a further improvement in business confidence and thus acceleration in capital spending. This would boost the supply side of the economy and mean that faster growth need not lead to higher inflation. It would be the perfect world of a low inflation boom. At the other extreme, if political gridlock prevents any meaningful tax cuts, we will be left with the status quo of moderate growth and low inflation that has been very positive for markets during the past several years. Mr. X: You can always rely on my daughter to emphasize the potential for optimistic outcomes. I would suggest another entirely different scenario. The cycle is very mature and I fear it would not take much to tip the economy into recession, even if we get some tax relief. So I am more concerned with near-term downside risks to the U.S. economy. A recession in the coming year would be catastrophic for the stock market in my view. BCA: Before we get to the outlook, let's agree on where we are right now. As we already noted, the U.S. economy currently is operating very close to its potential level. The Congressional Budget Office estimates potential growth to be only 1.6% a year at present, which explains why the unemployment rate has dropped even though growth has averaged a modest 2% pace in recent years. The consumer sector has generally been a source of stability with real spending growing at a 2¾% pace over the past several years (Chart 15). And, encouragingly, business investment has recently picked up from its earlier disappointing level. On the negative side, the recovery in housing has lost steam and government spending has been a source of drag. Looking ahead, the pattern of growth may change a bit. With regard to consumer spending, the pace of employment growth is more likely to slow than accelerate given the tight market and growing lack of available skilled employees. According to the National Federation of Independent Business survey, 88% of small companies hiring or trying to hire reported "few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill". Companies in manufacturing and construction say that the difficulty in finding qualified workers is their single biggest problem, beating taxes and regulations. In addition, we should not assume that the personal saving rate will keep falling given that it has hit a recovery low of 3.1% (Chart 16). On the other hand, wage growth should continue to firm and there is the prospect of tax cuts. Overall, this suggests that consumer spending should continue to grow by at least a 2% pace in 2018. Chart 15Trends In U.S. Growth Chart 16Personal Saving At A Recovery Low Survey data suggests that business investment spending should remain strong in the coming year, even without any additional boost from corporate tax cuts. Meanwhile, rebuilding and renovations in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma should provide a short-term boost to housing investment and a more lasting improvement will occur if the millennial generation finally moves out of their parents' basements. On that note, it is encouraging that the 10-year slide in the homeownership rate appears to have run its course (Chart 17). And although housing affordability is down from its peak, it remains at an attractive level from a historical perspective. Chart 17A Weak Housing Recovery Last, but not least, government spending will face countervailing forces. The Administration plans to increase spending on defense and infrastructure but there could be some offsetting cutbacks in other areas. Overall, government spending should make a positive contribution to 2018 after being a drag in 2017. Putting all this together, the U.S. economy should manage to sustain a growth rate of around 2.5% in 2018, putting GDP further above its potential level. And it could rise above that if tax cuts are at the higher end of the range. You suggested three alternative scenarios to our base case: a supply-side boom, continued moderate growth and a near-term recession. A supply-side revival that leads to strong growth and continued low inflation would be extremely bullish, but we are skeptical about that possibility. The revival in capital spending is good news, but this will take time to feed into faster productivity growth. Overall, any tax cuts will have a greater impact on demand than supply, putting even greater pressure on an already tight labor market. The second scenario of a continuation of the recent status quo is more possible, especially if we end up with a very watered-down tax package. However, growth would actually have to drop below 2% in order to prevent GDP from rising above potential. We will closely monitor leading indicators for signs that growth is about to lose momentum. The bearish scenario of a near-term recession cannot be completely discounted, but there currently is no compelling evidence of such a development. Recessions can arrive with little warning if there is an unanticipated shock, but that is rare. Historically, a flat or inverted yield curve has provided a warning sign ahead of most recessions and the curve currently is still positively sloped (Chart 18). Another leading indicator is when cyclical spending1 falls as a share of GDP, reflecting the increased sensitivity of those items to changes in financial conditions. Cyclical spending is still at a historically low level relative to GDP and we expect this to rise rather than fall over the coming quarters. While a near-term recession does not seem likely, the odds will change during the course of 2018. By late year, there is a good chance that the yield curve will be flat or inverted, giving a warning signal for a recession in 2019. Our base case view is for a U.S. recession to start in the second half of 2019, making the current expansion the longest on record. At this stage, it is too early to predict whether it would be a mild recession along the lines of 1990-91 and 2000-01 or a deeper downturn. Chart 18No Recession Signals For The U.S. ...Yet Mr. X: I hope that you are right that a U.S. recession is more than a year away. I am not entirely convinced but will keep an open mind, and my daughter will no doubt keep me fully informed of any positive trends. Ms. X: You can be sure of that. Although I lean toward the optimistic side on the U.S. economy, I have been rather surprised at how well the euro area economy has done in the past year. Latest data show that the euro area's real GDP increased by 2.5% in the year to 2017 Q3 compared to 2.3% for the U.S. Can that be sustained? BCA: The relative performance of the euro area economy has been even better if you allow for the fact that the region's population growth is 0.5% a year below that of the U.S. So the economic growth gap is even greater on a per capita basis. The euro area economy performed poorly during their sovereign debt crisis years of 2011-13, but the subsequent improvement has meant that the region's real per capita GDP has matched that of the U.S. over the past four years. And even Japan's GDP has not lagged much behind on a per capita basis (Chart 19). Chart 19No Clear Winner On Growth The recovery in the euro area has been broadly based but the big change was the end of a fiscal squeeze in the periphery countries. Between 2010 and 2013, fiscal drag (the change in the structural primary deficit) was equivalent to around 10% of GDP in Greece and Portugal and 7% of GDP in Ireland and Spain. There was little fiscal tightening in the subsequent three years, allowing those economies to recover lost ground. Meanwhile, Germany's economy has continued to power ahead, benefiting from much easier financial conditions than the economy has warranted. That has been the inevitable consequence of a one size fits all monetary policy that has had to accommodate the weakest members of the region. The French and Italian economies have disappointed, but there are hopes that the new French government will pursue pro-growth policies. And Italy should also pick up given signs that it is finally starting to deal with its fragile banking system. Both Spain and Italy faced a sharp rise in non-performing bank loans during the great recession, but Italy lagged Spain in dealing with the problem (Chart 20). That goes a long way to explaining why the Italian economic recovery has been so poor relative to Spain. With Italian banks raising capital and writing off non-performing loans more aggressively, the Italian economy should start to improve, finally catching up with the rest of the region. Overall, the euro area economy should manage to sustain growth above the 2.1% forecast by the IMF for 2018. Overall financial conditions are likely to stay favorable for at least another year and we do not anticipate any major changes in fiscal policy. If, as we fear, the U.S. moves into recession in 2019, there will be negative fallout for Europe, largely via the impact on financial markets. However, in relative terms, the euro area should outperform the U.S. during the next downturn. Mr. X: A year ago, you said that Brexit posed downside risks for the U.K. economy. For a while, that seemed too pessimistic as the economy performed quite well, but recent data show things have taken a turn for the worse. How do you see things playing out with this issue? BCA: It was apparent a year ago that the U.K. government had no concrete plans to deal with Brexit and little has changed since then. The negotiations with the EU are not going particularly well and the odds of a "hard" exit have risen. This means withdrawing from the EU without any agreement on a new regime for trade, labor movements or financial transactions. A growing number of firms are taking the precaution of shifting some operations from the U.K. to other EU countries. As you noted, there are signs that Brexit is starting to undermine the U.K. economy. For example, London house prices have turned down and the leading economic index has softened (Chart 21). The poor performance of U.K. consumer service and real estate equities relative to those of Germany suggest investors are becoming more wary of the U.K. outlook. Of course, a lot will depend on the nature of any deal between the U.K. and the EU and that remains a source of great uncertainty. Chart 20A Turning Point For Italian Banks? Chart 21U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are ##br##Underperforming Brexit Effects Show Up At the moment, there are no real grounds for optimism. The U.K. holds few cards in the bargaining process and the country's strong antipathy toward the free movement of people within the EU will be a big obstacle to an amicable separation agreement. Ms. X: I think the U.K. made the right decision to leave the EU and am more optimistic than you about the outlook. There may be some short-term disruption but the long-term outlook for the U.K. will be good once the country is freed from the stifling bureaucratic constraints of EU membership. The U.K. has a more dynamic economy than most EU members and it will be able to attract plenty of overseas capital if the government pursues appropriate policies toward taxes and regulations. It will take a few years to find out who is correct about this. In the meantime, given the uncertainties, I am inclined to have limited exposure to sterling and the U.K. equity market. Let's now talk about China, another country facing complex challenges. This is a topic where my father and I again have a lot of debates. As you might guess, I have been on the more optimistic side while he has sided with those who have feared a hard landing. And I know that similar debates have occurred in BCA. BCA: It is not a surprise that there are lots of debates about the China outlook. The country's impressive economic growth has been accompanied by an unprecedented build-up of debt and supply excesses in several sectors. The large imbalances would have led to a collapse by now in any other economy. However, China has benefited from the heavy state involvement in the economy and, in particular, the banking sector. The big question is whether the government has enough control over economic developments to avoid an economic and financial crisis. The good news is that China's government debt is relatively low, giving them the fiscal flexibility to write-off bad debts from zombie state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The problems of excessive leverage and over-capacity are particularly acute in SOEs that still comprise a large share of economic activity. The government is well aware of the need to reform SOEs and various measures have been announced, but progress has been relatively limited thus far. The IMF projects that the ratio of total non-financial debt to GDP will remain in an uptrend over the next several years, rising from 236% in 2016 to 298% by 2022 (Chart 22). Yet, growth is expected to slow only modestly over the period. Of course, one would not expect the IMF to build a crisis into their forecast. Some investors have been concerned that a peak in China's mini-cycle of the past two years may herald a return to the economic conditions that prevailed in 2015, when the industrial sector grew at a slower pace than during the acute phase of the global financial crisis. These conditions occurred due to the combination of excessively tight monetary conditions and weak global growth. While China's export growth may slow over the coming year, monetary policy remains accommodative. Monetary conditions appear to have peaked early this year but are still considerably easier than in mid-2015. Shifts in the monetary conditions index have done a good job of leading economic activity and they paint a reasonably positive picture (Chart 23). The industrial sector has finally moved out of deflation, with producer prices rising 6.9% in the year ended October. This has been accompanied by a solid revival in profits. Chart 22China: Debt-Fueled Growth To Continue Chart 23China Leaves Deflation Behind On balance, we assume that the Chinese economy will be able to muddle through for the foreseeable future. President Xi Jinping has strengthened his grip on power and he will go to great lengths to ensure that his reign is not sullied with an economic crisis. The longer-term outlook will depend on how far the government goes with reforms and deleveraging and we are keeping an open mind at this point. In sum, for the moment, we are siding with Ms. X on this issue. Mr. X: I have been too bearish on China for the past several years, but I still worry about the downside risks given the massive imbalances and excesses. I can't think of any example of a country achieving a soft landing after such a massive rise in debt. I will give you and my daughter the benefit of the doubt, but am not totally convinced that you will be right. BCA has been cautious on emerging economies in general: has that changed? BCA: The emerging world went through a tough time in 2015-16 with median growth of only 2.6% for the 23 constituent countries of the MSCI EM index (Chart 24). This recovered to 3% in 2017 according to IMF estimates, but that is still far below the average 5% pace of the period 2000-07. Chart 24Emerging Economy Growth: ##br##The Boom Years Are Over It is always dangerous to generalize about the emerging world because the group comprises economies with very different characteristics and growth drivers. Two of the largest countries - Brazil and Russia - went through particularly bad downturns in the past couple of years and those economies are now in a modest recovery. In contrast, India has continued to grow at a healthy albeit slowing pace, while Korea and the ASEAN region have not suffered much of a slowdown. If, as seems likely, Chinese growth holds above a 6% pace over the next year, then those countries with strong links to China should do fine. And it also points to reasonably steady commodity prices, supporting resource-dependent economies. Longer-run, there are reasons to be cautious about many emerging economies, particularly if the U.S. goes into recession 2019, as we fear. That would be associated with renewed weakness in commodity prices, and capital flight from those economies with high external debt such as Turkey and South Africa. As we stated a year ago, the heady days of emerging economy growth are in the past. Mr. X: It seems that both my daughter and I can find some areas of agreement with your views about the economic outlook. You share her expectation that the global growth outlook will stay healthy over the coming year, but you worry about a U.S.-led recession in 2019, something that I certainly sympathize with. But we differ on timing: I fear the downturn could occur even sooner and I know my daughter believes in a longer-lasting upturn. Let's now move onto what this all means for financial markets, starting with bonds. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: I expect this to be a short discussion as I can see little attraction in bonds at current yields. Even though I expect inflation to stay muted, bonds offer no prospect of capital gains in the year ahead and even the running yield offers little advantage over the equity dividend yield. BCA: As you know, we have believed for some time that the secular bull market in bonds has ended. We expect yields to be under upward pressure in most major markets during 2018 and thus share your view that equities offer better return prospects. By late 2018, it might well be appropriate to switch back into bonds against a backdrop of higher yields and a likely bear market in equities. For the moment, we recommend underweight bond exposure. It is hard to like government bonds when the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is less than 50 basis points above the dividend yield of the S&P 500 while the euro area bond yield is 260 basis points below divided yields (Chart 25). Real yields, using the 10-year CPI swap rate as a measure of inflation expectations, are less than 20 basis points in the U.S. and a negative 113 basis points in the euro area. Even if we did not expect inflation to rise, it would be difficult to recommend an overweight position in any developed country government bonds. One measure of valuation is to compare the level of real yields to their historical average, adjusted by the standard deviation of the gap. On this basis, the most overvalued markets are the core euro area countries, where real yields are 1.5 to 2 standard deviations below their historical average (Chart 26). There are only two developed bond markets where real 10-year government yields currently are above their historical average: Greece and Portugal. This is warranted in Greece where there needs to be a risk premium in case the country is forced to leave the single currency at some point. This is less of a risk for Portugal, making it a more interesting market. Real yields in New Zealand are broadly in line with their historical average, also making it one of the more attractive markets. Chart 25Bonds Yields Offer Little Appeal Chart 26Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets Mr. X: Given your expectation of higher inflation, would you recommend inflation-protected Treasuries? BCA: Yes, in the sense that they should outperform conventional Treasuries. The 10-year TIPS are discounting average inflation of 1.85% and we would expect this to be revised up during the coming year. However, the caveat is that absolute returns will still be mediocre. Ms. X: You showed earlier that corporate bonds had a reasonable year in 2017, albeit falling far short of the returns from equities. A year ago, you recommended only neutral weighting in investment-grade bonds and an underweight in high yield. But you became more optimistic toward both early in 2017, shifting to an overweight position. Are you thinking of scaling back exposure once again, given the tight level of spreads? BCA: Yes, we were cautious on U.S. corporates a year ago because valuation was insufficient to compensate for the deterioration in corporate balance sheet health. Nonetheless, value improved enough early in 2017 to warrant an upgrade to overweight given our constructive macro and default rate outlook. The cyclical sweet spot for carry trades should continue to support spread product for a while longer. Moreover, value is better than it appears at first glance. The dotted line in Chart 27 shows the expected 12-month option-adjusted spread for U.S. junk bonds after adjusting for our base case forecast for net default losses. At 260 basis points, this excess spread is in line with the historical average. In the absence of any further spread narrowing, speculative-grade bonds would return 230 basis points more than Treasurys in 2018. If high-yield spreads were to tighten by another 150 basis points, then valuations would be at a historical extreme, and that seems unwarranted. An optimistic scenario would have another 100 basis point spread tightening, delivering excess returns of 5%. Of course, if spreads widen, then corporates will underperform. If financial conditions tighten in 2018 as we expect then it will be appropriate to lower exposure to corporates. In the meantime, you should favor U.S. and U.K. corporate bonds to issues in the Eurozone because ECB tapering is likely to spark some spread widening in that market. Mr. X: What about EM hard-currency bonds? BCA: The global economic background is indeed positive for EM assets. However, EM debt is expensive relative to DM investment-grade bonds which, historically, has heralded a period of underperformance (Chart 28). We expect that relative growth dynamics will be more supportive of U.S. corporates because EM growth will lag. Any commodity price weakness and/or a stronger U.S. dollar would also weigh on EM bonds and currencies. Chart 27Not Much Value In U.S. Corporates Chart 28Emerging Market Bonds Are Expensive Mr. X: We have not been excited about the bond market outlook for some time and nothing you have said changes my mind. I am inclined to keep our bond exposure to the bare minimum. Ms. X: I agree. So let's talk about the stock market which is much more interesting. As I mentioned before, I am inclined to remain fully invested in equities for a while longer, while my father wants to start cutting exposure. Equity Market Outlook BCA: This is one of those times when it is important to draw a distinction between one's forecast of where markets are likely to go and the appropriate investment strategy. We fully agree that the conditions that have driven this impressive equity bull market are likely to stay in place for much of the next year. Interest rates in the U.S. and some other countries are headed higher, but they will remain at historically low levels for some time. Meanwhile, in the absence of recession, corporate earnings still have upside, albeit not as much as analysts project. However, we have a conservative streak at BCA that makes us reluctant to chase markets into the stratosphere. For long-term investors, our recommended strategy is to gradually lower equity exposure to neutral. However, those who are trying to maximize short-term returns should stay overweight and wait for clearer signs that tighter financial conditions are starting to bite on economic activity. Chart 29Reasons For Caution On U.S. Stocks Getting down to specifics, here are the trends that give us cause for concern and they are all highlighted in Chart 29. Valuation: Relative to both earnings and book value, the U.S. equity market is more expensive than at any time since the late 1990s tech bubble. The price-earnings ratio (PER) for the S&P 500 is around 30% above its 60-year average on the basis of both trailing operating earnings and a 10-year average of earnings. The market is not expensive on a relative yield basis because interest rates are so low, but that will change as rates inevitably move higher. Other developed markets are not as overvalued as the U.S., but neither are they cheap. Earnings expectations: The performance of corporate earnings throughout this cycle - particularly in the U.S. - has been extremely impressive give the weaker-than-normal pace of economic growth. However, current expectations are ridiculously high. According to IBES data, analysts expect long-run earnings growth of around 14% a year in both the U.S. and Europe. Even allowing for analysts' normal optimistic bias, the sharp upward revision to growth expectations over the past year makes no sense and is bound to be disappointed. Investor complacency: We all know that the VIX index is at a historical low, indicating that investors see little need to protect themselves against market turmoil. Our composite sentiment indicator for the U.S. is at a high extreme, further evidence of investor complacency. These are classic contrarian signs of a vulnerable market. Most bear markets are associated with recessions, with the stock market typically leading the economy by 6 to 12 months (Chart 30). The lead in 2007 was an unusually short three months. As discussed earlier, we do not anticipate a U.S. recession before 2019. If a recession were to start in mid-2019, it would imply the U.S. market would be at risk from the middle of 2018, but the rally could persist all year. Of course, the timing of a recession and market is uncertain. So it boils down to potential upside gains over the next year versus the downside risks, plus your confidence in being able to time the top. Chart 30Bear Markets And Recessions Usually Overlap We are not yet ready to recommend that you shift to an underweight position in equities. A prudent course of action would be to move to a broadly neutral position over the next few months, but we realize that Ms. X has a higher risk tolerance than Mr. X so we will leave you to fight over that decision. The timing of when we move to an underweight will depend on our various economic, monetary and market indicators and our assessment of the risks. It could well happen in the second half of the year. Mr. X: My daughter was more right than me regarding our equity strategy during the past year, so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt and wait for clearer signs of a market top. Thus far, you have focused on the U.S. market. Last year you preferred developed markets outside the U.S. on the grounds of relative valuations and relative monetary conditions. Is that still your stance? BCA: Yes it is. The economic cycle and thus the monetary cycle is far less advanced in Europe and Japan than in the U.S. This will provide extra support to these markets. At the same time, profit margins are less vulnerable outside the U.S. and, as you noted, valuations are less of a problem. In Chart 31, we show a valuation ranking of developed equity markets, based on the deviation of cyclically-adjusted PERs from their historical averages. The chart is not meant to measure the extent to which Portugal is cheap relative to the U.S., but it indicates that Portugal is trading at a PER far below its historical average while that of the U.S. is above. You can see that the "cheaper" markets tend to be outside the U.S. Japan's reading is flattered by the fact that its historical valuation was extremely high during the bubble years of the 1980s, but it still is a relatively attractive market. Chart 31Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets From a cyclical standpoint, we are still recommending overweight positions in European and Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., on a currency-hedged basis. Nevertheless, market correlations are such that a sell-off in the U.S. will be transmitted around the world (Chart 32). Chart 32When the U.S. Market Sneezes, The World Catches A Cold Ms. X: I would like to turn the focus to emerging equity markets. You have been cautious on these for several years and that worked out extremely well until 2017. I note from your regular EM reports that you have not changed your stance. Why are you staying bearish given that you see an improvement in global growth and further potential upside in developed equity prices? BCA: The emerging world did extremely well over many years when global trade was expanding rapidly, China was booming, commodity prices were in a powerful bull market and capital inflows were strong. Those trends fostered a rapid expansion in credit-fueled growth across the EM universe and meant that there was little pressure to pursue structural reforms. However, the 2007-09 economic and financial crisis marked a major turning point in the supports to EM outperformance. As we noted earlier, the era of rapid globalization has ended, marking an important regime shift. Meanwhile, China's growth rate has moderated and the secular bull market in commodities ended several years ago. We do not view the past year's rebound in commodities as the start of a major new uptrend. Many emerging equity markets remain highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and to commodity prices (Chart 33). Although we expect the Chinese economy to hold up, growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Finally, the rise in U.S. interest rates is a problem for those countries that have taken on a marked increase in foreign currency debt. This will be made even worse if the dollar appreciates. Obviously, the very term "emerging" implies that this group of countries has a lot of upside potential. However, the key to success is pursuing market-friendly reforms, rooting out corruption and investing in productive assets. Many countries pay only lip service to these issues. India is a case in point where there is growing skepticism about the Modi government's ability to deliver on major reforms. The overall EM index does not appear expensive, with the PER trading broadly in line with its historical average (Chart 34). However, as we have noted in the past, the picture is less compelling when the PER is calculated using equally-weighted sectors. The financials and materials components are trading at historically low multiples, dragging down the overall index PER. Emerging market equities will continue to rise as long as the bull market in developed markets persists, but we expect them to underperform on a relative basis. Chart 33Drivers Of EM Performance Chart 34Emerging Markets Fundamentals Mr. X: One last question on equities from me: do you have any high conviction calls on sectors? BCA: A key theme of our sector view is that cyclical stocks should outperform defensives given the mature stage of the economic cycle. We are seeing the typical late-cycle improvement in capital spending and that will benefit industrials, and we recommend an overweight stance in that sector. Technology also is a beneficiary of higher capex but of course those stocks have already risen a lot, pushing valuations to extreme levels. Thus, that sector warrants only a neutral weighting. Our two other overweights are financials and energy. The former should benefit from rising rates and a steeper yield curve while the latter will benefit from firm oil prices. If, as we fear, a recession takes hold in 2019, then obviously that would warrant a major shift back into defensive stocks. For the moment, the positive growth outlook will dominate sector performance. Ms. X: I agree that the bull market in equities, particularly in the U.S., is very mature and there are worrying signs of complacency. However, the final stages of a market cycle can sometimes be very rewarding and I would hate to miss out on what could be an exciting blow-off phase in 2018. As I mentioned earlier, my inclination is to stay heavily invested in equities for a while longer and I have confidence that BCA will give me enough of a warning when risks become unacceptably high. Of course, I will have to persuade my father and that may not be easy. Mr. X: You can say that again, but we won't bother our BCA friends with that conversation now. It's time to shift the focus to commodities and currencies and I would start by commending you on your oil call. You were far out of consensus a year ago when you said the risks to crude prices were in the upside and you stuck to your guns even as the market weakened in the first half. We made a lot of money following your energy recommendations. What is your latest thinking? Commodities And Currencies BCA: We had a lot of conviction in our analysis that the oil market would tighten during 2017 against a backdrop of rising demand and OPEC production cuts, and that view turned out to be correct. As we entered the year, the big reason to be bearish on oil prices was the bloated level of inventories. We forecast that inventories would drop to their five-year average by late 2017, and although that turned out to be a bit too optimistic, the market tightened by enough to push prices higher (Chart 35). Chart 35Oil Market Trends The forces that have pushed prices up will remain in force over the next year. Specifically, our economic view implies that demand will continue to expand, and we expect OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition of OPEC and non-OPEC states, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - to extend its 1.8 million b/d production cuts to at least end-June. On that basis, OECD inventories should fall below their five-year average by the end of 2018. We recently raised our 2018 oil price target to an average of $65 in 2018. Of course, the spot market is already close to that level, but the futures curve is backwardated and that is likely to change. We continue to see upside risks to prices, not least because of potential production shortfalls from Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq and Libya. Mr. X: The big disruptor in the oil market in recent years was the dramatic expansion in U.S. shale production. Given the rise in prices, could we not see a rapid rebound in shale output that, once again, undermines prices? BCA: Our modeling indicates that U.S. shale output will increase from 5.1 mb/d to 6.0 mb/d over the next year, in response to higher prices. This is significant, but will not be enough to materially change the global oil demand/supply balance. Longer run, the expansion of U.S. shale output will certainly be enough to prevent any sustained price rise, assuming no large-scale production losses elsewhere. A recent report by the International Energy Agency projected that the U.S. is destined to become the global leader in oil and gas production for decades to come, accounting for 80% of the rise in global oil and gas supply between 2010 and 2025. Ms. X: You have suggested that China's economic growth is becoming less commodity intensive. Also, you have shown in the past that real commodity prices tend to fall over time, largely because of technological innovations. What does all this imply for base metals prices over the coming year? BCA: The base metals story will continue to be highly dependent on developments in China. While the government is attempting to engineer a shift toward less commodity-intensive growth, it also wants to reduce excess capacity in commodity-producing sectors such as coal and steel. Base metals are likely to move sideways until we get a clearer reading on the nature and speed of economic reforms. We model base metals as a function of China's PMIs and this supports our broadly neutral stance on these commodities (Chart 36). Chart 36China Drives Metals Prices Mr. X: As usual, I must end our commodity discussion by asking about gold. Last year, you agreed that an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with continued low interest rates should support bullion prices, and that was the case with a respectable 12% gain since the end of 2016. You also suggested that I should not have more than 5% of my portfolio in gold which is less than I am inclined to own. It still looks like a gold-friendly environment to me. Ms. X: Let me just add that this is one area where my father and I agree. I do not consider myself to be a gold bug, but I think bullion does provide a good hedge against shocks in a very uncertain economic and political world. I would also be inclined to hold more than 5% of our portfolio in gold. BCA: There will be opposing forces on gold during the coming year. On the positive side, it is safe to assume that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and there also is the potential for an increase in inflation expectations that would support bullion. On the negative side, rising interest rates are not normally good for gold and there likely will be an added headwind from a firmer U.S. dollar. Gold appears to be at an important point from a technical perspective (Chart 37). It currently is perched just above its 200-day average and a key trend line. A decisive drop below these levels would be bearish. At the same time, there is overhead resistance at around 1350-1360 and prices would have to break above that level to indicate a bullish breakout. Traders' sentiment is at a broadly neutral level, consistent with no clear conviction about which way prices will break. There is no science behind our recommendation of keeping gold exposure below 5%. That just seems appropriate for an asset that delivers no income and where the risk/reward balance is fairly balanced. Ms. X: You referred to the likelihood of a firmer dollar as a depressant on the gold price. You also were bullish on the dollar a year ago, but that did not work out too well. How confident are you that your forecast will fare better in 2018? BCA: We did anticipate that the dollar would experience a correction at the beginning of 2017, but we underestimated how profound this move would be. A combination of factors explains this miscalculation. Chart 37Gold At A Key Level It first began with positioning. We should have paid more attention to that fact that investors were massively bullish and long the dollar at the end of 2016, making the market vulnerable to disappointments. And disappointment did come with U.S. inflation weakening and accelerating in the euro area. Additionally, there were positive political surprises in Europe, especially the presidential victory of Emmanuel Macron in France. In the U.S., the government's failure to repeal Obamacare forced investors to lower expectations about fiscal stimulus. As a result, while investors were able to price in an earlier first hike by the ECB, they cut down the number of rate hikes they anticipated out of the Fed over the next 24 months. In terms of the current environment, positioning could not be more different because investors are aggressively shorting the dollar (Chart 38). The hurdle for the dollar to deliver positive surprises is thus much lower than a year ago. Also, we remain confident that tax cuts will be passed in the U.S. by early 2018. As we discussed earlier, U.S. GDP will remain above potential, causing inflation pressures to build. This will give the Fed the leeway to implement its planned rate hikes, and thus beat what is currently priced in the market. This development should support the dollar in 2018. Ms. X: A bullish view on the U.S. dollar necessarily implies a negative view on the euro. However, the European economy seems to have a lot of momentum, and inflation has picked up, while U.S. prices have been decelerating. To me, this suggests that the ECB also could surprise by being more hawkish than anticipated, arguing against any major weakness in the euro. BCA: The European economy has indeed done better than generally expected in the past year. Also, geopolitical risks were overstated by market participants at the beginning of 2017, leaving less reason to hide in the dollar. However, the good news in Europe is now well known and largely discounted in the market. Investors are very long the euro, by both buying EUR/USD and shorting the dollar index (Chart 39). In that sense, the euro today is where the dollar stood at the end of 2016. Chart 38Too Much Pessimism On The Dollar Chart 39Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Valuations show a similar picture. The euro might appear cheap on a long-term basis, but not so much so that its purchasing power parity estimate - which only works at extremes and over long-time periods - screams a buy. Moreover, the euro has moved out of line with historical interest rate parity relationships, warning that the currency is at risk if the economy disappoints. Overall, we expect EUR/USD to trade around 1.10 in 2018. Long-run, the picture is different because a U.S. recession in 2019 would trigger renewed broad-based weakness in the dollar. Mr. X: I have been perplexed by the yen's firmness in the past year, with the currency still above its end-2016 level versus the dollar. I expected a lot more weakness with the central bank capping bond yields at zero and more or less monetizing the government deficit. A year ago you also predicted a weak yen. Will it finally drop in 2018? BCA: We were not completely wrong on the yen as it has weakened over the past year on a trade-weighted basis and currently is about 2% below its end-2016 level. But it has risen slightly against the U.S. dollar. In the past couple of years, the yen/dollar rate has been highly correlated with real bond yield differentials (Chart 40). These did not move against the yen as much as we expected because U.S. yields drifted lower and there was no major change in relative inflation expectations. Chart 40Bond Yield Differentials Drive The Yen The real yield gap is likely to move in the dollar's favor over the next year, putting some downward pressure on the yen. Meanwhile, the Bank of Japan will continue to pursue a hyper-easy monetary stance, in contrast to the Fed's normalization policy. However, it is not all negative: the yen is cheap on a long-term basis, and Japan is an international net creditor to the tune of more than 60% of GDP. Investors are also quite short the yen as it remains a key funding currency for carry trades. Thus, it will continue to benefit each time global markets are gripped with bouts of volatility. It remains a good portfolio hedge. Ms. X: Are any other currency views worth noting? BCA: The outlook for sterling obviously will be tied to the Brexit negotiations. Having fallen sharply after the Brexit vote, sterling looks cheap relative to its history. This has allowed it to hold in a broad trading range over the past 18 months, even though the negotiations with the EU have not been going well. At this stage, it is hard to know what kind of deal, if any, will emerge regarding Brexit so we would hedge exposure to sterling. Our optimism toward the oil price is consistent with a firm Canadian dollar, but developments in the NAFTA negotiations represent a significant risk. At the moment, we are overweight the Canadian dollar, but that could change if the NAFTA talks end badly. We still can't get enthusiastic about emerging market currencies even though some now offer reasonable value after falling sharply over the past few years. Mr. X: We can't leave currencies without talking about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I like the idea of a currency that cannot be printed at will by governments. There are too many examples of currency debasement under a fiat money system and the actions of central banks in recent years have only served to increase my mistrust of the current monetary system. But I can't profess to fully understand how these cryptocurrencies work and that makes me nervous about investing in them. What are your thoughts? BCA: You are right to be nervous. There have been numerous cases of hackers stealing Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Also, while there is a limit to the number of Bitcoins that can be issued, there is no constraint on the number of possible cryptocurrencies that can be created. Thus, currency debasement is still possible if developers continue creating currencies that are only cosmetically different from the ones already in existence. Moreover, we doubt that governments will sit idly by and allow these upstart digital currencies to become increasingly prevalent. The U.S. Treasury derives $70 billion a year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to issue currency which it can then redeem for goods and services. At some point, governments could simply criminalize the use of cryptocurrencies. This does not mean that Bitcoin prices cannot rise further, but the price trend is following the path of other manias making it a highly speculative play (Chart 41). If you want more detail about our thoughts on this complex topic then you can read the report we published last September.2 Chart 41Bitcoin Looks Like Other Bubbles Ms. X: I don't fear bubbles and manias as much as my father and have made a lot of money during such episodes in the past. But I am inclined to agree that Bitcoin is best avoided. The topic of manic events presents a nice segue into the geopolitical environment which seems as volatile as ever. Geopolitics Ms. X: Which geopolitical events do you think will have the biggest impact on the markets over the coming year? BCA: Domestic politics in the U.S. and China will be very much in focus in 2018. In the U.S., as we discussed, the Republicans will pass tax cuts but it is unclear whether this will help the GOP in the November midterm elections. At this point, all of our data and modeling suggests that Democrats have a good chance of picking up the House of Representatives, setting a stage for epic battles with President Trump about everything under the sun. In China, we are watching carefully for any sign that Beijing is willing to stomach economic pain in the pursuit of economic reforms. The two reforms that would matter the most are increased financial regulation and more aggressive purging of excess capacity in the industrial sector. The 19th Party Congress marked a serious reduction in political constraints impeding President Xi's domestic agenda. This means he could launch ambitious reforms, akin to what President Jiang Zemin did in the late 1990s. While this is a low-conviction view, and requires constant monitoring of the news and data flow out of China, it would be a considerable risk to global growth. Reforms would be good for China's long-term outlook, but could put a significant damper on short-term growth. The jury is out, but the next several months will be crucial. Three other issues that could become market-relevant are the ongoing North Korean nuclear crisis, trade protectionism, and tensions between the Trump administration and Iran. The first two are connected because a calming of tensions with North Korea would give the U.S. greater maneuvering room against China. The ongoing economic détente between the U.S. and China is merely a function of President Trump needing President Xi's cooperation on pressuring North Korea. But if President Trump no longer needs China's help with Kim Jong-Un, he may be encouraged to go after China on trade. As for Iran, it is not yet clear if the administration is serious about ratcheting up tensions or whether it is playing domestic politics. We suspect it is the latter implying that the market impact of any brinkmanship will be minor. But our conviction view is low. Mr. X: We seem to be getting mixed messages regarding populist pressures in Europe. The far right did not do as well as expected in the Netherlands or France, but did well in Austria. Also, Merkel is under some pressure in Germany. BCA: We don't see much in the way of mixed messages, at least when it comes to support for European integration. In Austria, the populists learned a valuable lesson from the defeats of their peers in the Netherlands and France: stay clear of the euro. Thus the Freedom Party committed itself to calling a referendum on Austria's EU membership if Turkey was invited to join the bloc. As the probability of that is literally zero, the right-wing in Austria signaled to the wider public that it was not anti-establishment on the issue of European integration. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany only gained 12.6%, but it too focused on an anti-immigration platform. The bottom line for investors is that the European anti-establishment right is falling over itself to de-emphasize its Euroskepticism and focus instead on anti-immigration policies. For investors, the former is far more relevant than the latter, meaning that the market relevance of European politics has declined. One potential risk in 2018 is the Italian election, likely to be held by the end of the first quarter. However, as with Austria, the anti-establishment parties have all moved away from overt Euroskepticism. At some point over the next five years, Italy will be a source of market risk, but in this electoral cycle and not with economic growth improving. Ms. X: The tensions between the U.S. and North Korea, fueled by two unpredictable leaders, have me very concerned. I worry that name-calling may slide into something more serious. How serious is the threat? BCA: The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are a good analog for the North Korean crisis. The U.S. had to establish a "credible threat" of war in order to move Iran towards negotiations. As such, the Obama administration ramped up the war rhetoric - using Israel as a proxy - in 2011-2012. The negotiations with Iran did not end until mid-2015, almost four years later. We likely have seen the peak in "credible threat" display this summer between the U.S. and North Korea. The next two-to-three months could revisit those highs as North Korea responds to President Trump's visit to the region, as well as to the deployment of the three U.S. aircraft carriers off the coast of the Korean Peninsula. However, we believe that we have entered the period of "negotiations." It is too early to tell how the North Korean crisis will end. We do not see a full out war between either of the main actors. We also do not see North Korea ever giving up its nuclear arsenal, although limiting its ballistic technology and toning down its "fire and brimstone' rhetoric is a must. The bottom line is that this issue will remain a source of concern and uncertainty for a while longer. Conclusions Mr. X: This seems a good place to end our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that it would make good sense to start lowering the risk in our portfolio. I know that such a policy could leave money on the table as there is a reasonable chance that equity prices may rise further. But that is a risk I am prepared to take. Ms. X: I foresee some interesting discussions with my father when we get back to our office. At the risk of sounding reckless, I remain inclined to stay overweight equities for a while longer. I am sympathetic to the view that the era of hyper-easy money is ending and at some point that may cause a problem for risk assets. However, timing is important because, in my experience, the final stages of a bull market can deliver strong gains. BCA: Good luck with those discussions! We have similar debates within BCA between those who want to maximize short-run returns and those who take a longer-term view. Historically, BCA has had a conservative bias toward investment strategy and the bulk of evidence suggests that this is one of these times when long-run investors should focus on preservation of capital rather than stretching for gains. Our thinking also is influenced by our view that long-run returns will be very poor from current market levels. Our estimates indicate that a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns of only 3.3% a year over the coming decade, or 1.3% after inflation (Table 3). That is down from the 4% and 1.9% nominal and real annual returns that we estimated a year ago, reflecting the current more adverse starting point for valuations. There is a negligible equity risk premium on offer, implying that stock prices have to fall at some point to establish higher prospective returns. Table 310-Year Asset Return Projections The return calculations for equities assume profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or PERs stay at historically high levels. In that case, equities obviously would do better than our estimates. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot will depend on the pace of economic growth. We are assuming that growth is strong enough to encourage central banks to keep moving away from hyper-easy policies, setting up for a collision with markets. If growth slows enough that recession fears spike, then that also would be bad for risk assets. Sustaining the bull market requires a goldilocks growth outcome of not too hot and not too cold. That is possible, but we would not make it our base case scenario. Ms. X: You have left us with much to think about and I am so glad to have finally attended one of these meetings. My father has always looked forward to these discussions every year and I am very happy to be joining him. Many thanks for taking the time to talk to us. Before we go, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 20, 2017 1 This comprises consumer spending on durables, housing and business investment in equipment and software. 2 Please see 'Bitcoin's Macro Impact', BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, September 15, 2017.