Economy

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Contrary to popular perception, non-cyclical sectors have led the market so far this year, while deep cyclical sectors are breaking down, in relative performance terms. Our models point to more of the same ahead. The oversold rebound in the pharmaceutical group may soon run into resistance so we recommend trimming positions to neutral. Put the proceeds into restaurants, a quasi-defensive group that enjoys a brightening sales outlook without pharma's political and regulatory risk. Recent Changes S&P Pharmaceuticals - Downgrade to neutral. S&P Restaurants - Upgrade to overweight. Table 1 Feature Equities are exhibiting signs of mild fatigue. Breadth has begun to narrow, and new highs have sagged compared with new lows (Chart 1). Both of these technical developments have warned of previous tactical pullbacks. The recent reset in oil prices may also test investor nerves. Oil prices have been a critical macro variable, because they influence inflation expectations and the corporate bond market (high yield bond spreads shown inverted, Chart 1). Crude oil price corrections have accurately timed equity retreats (Chart 1), and general risk aversion phases. To be sure, the global economy is no longer on a deflationary precipice, suggesting that weaker oil prices may not foreshadow a soft patch, but they may be a good enough excuse for profit taking in the equity market after a good run. Contrary to popular perception, cyclical sectors have not led the broad market so far in 2017. In fact, energy, materials and industrials have all broken down in relative performance terms (Chart 2), after peaking in mid-December. Only the technology sector has stayed resilient. Chart 1Short-Term Fatigue Chart 2Cyclicals Have Broken Down Chart 3Overshoot Renormalization Insipid cyclical sector performance has occurred within the context of a synchronized lift in global economic growth and recovering corporate sector pricing power. So why are cyclical sectors lagging? It may simply be a digestion phase. However, a different interpretation is that a number of key macro factors fail to confirm the durability of last year's outperformance, suggesting that defensive outperformance could last. Concerns that the current global inventory cycle may not morph into a broad-based upturn in global final demand continue to linger: the global credit impulse remains anemic, the Fed and China are tightening monetary policy and commodity markets are cracking (Chart 3). The lack of any meaningful improvement in Chinese loan demand signals that the economy may be quick to cool as the authorities tap the breaks on credit growth. It would take a decisive depreciation in the U.S. dollar to boost the relative profit fortunes of capital spending-dependent cyclical sectors on a sustainable basis. On a more positive note, the Fed's benign forward guidance last week bears close attention. If the U.S. dollar loses upside support, particularly with the ECB contemplating a retreat from full throttle easing, it could change the investment landscape. By reminding markets that their inflation target is symmetric, the Fed signaled it will be willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot, which is positive for risk assets in the short run. A softer U.S. dollar would take the pressure off of developing countries, support commodity prices, and bolster our cyclical sector sales models and Cyclical Macro Indicators. However, Chart 4 shows that the objective message from our models remains consistent with continued defensive sector outperformance. With a more protectionist U.S. Administration, we remain reluctant to position exclusively for a much weaker dollar. The ongoing underperformance of emerging market equities relative to U.S. and global benchmarks reinforces that foreign-sourced profit growth continues to lag (Chart 5). Positioning for cyclical sector earnings outperformance requires healthier profits abroad, to spur a new capital investment cycle. Chart 4Heeding The Message From Our Models... Chart 5... And The Markets We will look to selectively add cyclical exposure when the objective message from our Indicators provides confirmation that earnings-driven outperformance lies ahead. At the moment, there is no such confirmation. In fact, the elevated reading in the SKEW index continues to signal that a defensive posture will optimize portfolio performance (Chart 5). In sum, we continue to characterize the broad market's current momentum as an overshoot phase, with additional technical upside potential, but the rally is starting to fray around the edges. In this environment, holding a mostly defensive basket with selective beta exposure is still recommended. Importantly, within the defensive universe, there are tweaks to be made, especially if the U.S. dollar stops rising. Fade The Pharmaceuticals Rebound Health care has been the second strongest of the eleven broad sectors year-to-date, contrary to popular perception. That is in line with the flattening yield curve, cresting in inflation expectations and a modest correction in oil prices (Chart 6), all of which have revived the allure of non-cyclical sectors. Moreover, our Cyclical Macro Indicator (CMI) for the health care sector remains firm, supported by the ongoing large pricing power advantage. Relative value is the most attractive it has been in five years. While the latter provides little timing help, it indicates low risk, especially with technical conditions still deeply oversold (Chart 7). Chart 6Health Care Is Storming Back Chart 7Still Cheap And Oversold The heavyweight pharmaceutical group has led the sector's tactical charge, recouping the ground lost, in relative performance terms, leading up to the U.S. election. While we were caught off guard by the severity of the pullback last September/October, we refrained from selling into an oversold market and noted our intention to lighten positions whenever the inevitable relief rally occurred. The time has come to execute on this thesis. Pharmaceutical stocks are very cheap and have discounted a hostile regulatory environment. The relative forward P/E is well below its historic mean, even though both 12-month and 5-year relative forward earnings growth expectations are depressed (Chart 8). Typically, the latter would serve to artificially inflate valuations. These conditions exist even though free cash flow growth remains strong; merger activity has been solid, albeit ebbing in recent months; and companies have used excess capital to reduce total shares outstanding (Chart 8). In other words, relative forward earnings would have to decline substantially to validate these expectations. Is this plausible? Much depends on the regulatory environment. While details of the U.S. Administration's proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act have started to leak out, final details are still elusive and legislative action is not imminent. So far, it appears as if a worst case scenario would see an increase in the number of uninsured Americans, with a rising cost of insurance (to the benefit of managed care companies). According to the Department of Health & Human Services, the uninsured rate of the U.S. population nearly halved from 16% in 2010 to 9% in 2015. That led to a lift in the number of procedures performed and bolstered hospital bottom lines. Hospitals are a major pharmaceutical buying group. Higher utilization rates fed increased pharmaceutical demand for a number of years. However, drug spending growth has dropped off, and if the legion of uninsured patients rises anew in the coming years, then hospital utilization rates will decline, taking drug consumption growth down with it. Moreover, Trump wants to streamline the FDA's approval process, which would ultimately boost the number of high margin new drugs coming to market. Drug stocks boomed back in the mid-1990s, the last time FDA approval rates accelerated meaningfully (Chart 9). Chart 8Full Capitulation Chart 9Full Capitulation But at the same time, if government is given leeway to negotiate drug prices directly with drug companies, then pricing power will continue to converge down toward overall corporate sector pricing power, especially if drug consumption rates ease (Chart 9). At the moment, drug consumption growth remains above the rate of overall consumption growth, but that is much slower than during the boom following the introduction of the Affordable Care Act. Retail sales at pharmacies are growing robustly, and hospitals are still adding staff, signaling that they continue to position for expansion, i.e. rising procedure volumes (Chart 10). On the downside, the strong U.S. dollar is a big drag on top-line growth. Drug imports exceed exports by a wide margin, resulting in a negative trade balance and a drag on U.S. drug company profits, all else equal. The combination of a sales growth deceleration and adequate channel inventories has capped drug output growth (Chart 10). That is a productivity and profit margin headwind. Against this background, the industry will need an external assist to deliver profit outperformance. Relative profit estimates rise when disinflationary forces reign supreme, as measured by the NFIB planned price hikes series (shown inverted, Chart 11). This measure of future corporate pricing power intentions has rolled over, but broader measures of inflation are creeping higher. Ergo, drug earnings forecasts may be challenged to keep pace with the overall corporate sector. Chart 10... But Growth Rates Are Slowing Chart 11Mixed Signals The good news is that even though U.S. dollar strength is an export drag, the negative drug trade balance suggests that it will hurt other industries more. Indeed, a rising currency often coincides with profit outperformance (Chart 11). There is not enough evidence that exogenous factors will offset slowing domestic drug consumption growth. In all, the case for a further and sustained relative performance recovery has weakened, and we are taking advantage of this year's oversold bounce to move to the sidelines. Bottom Line: Trim the S&P pharmaceuticals index to neutral. This position was deep in the money initially, but last year's downdraft pushed it into a loss position of 10%. BLBG: S5PHARX-JNJ, PFE, MRK, BMY, LLY, AGN, ZTS, MYL, PRGO, MNK. Restaurants: Increasing Appetite The broad consumer discretionary sector has been treading water, largely owing to fears that a border adjustment tax (BAT) will undermine the retailing sub-component. This consolidation has restored value and created an attractive technical entry point (Chart 12, bottom panel). Importantly, industry earnings fundamentals are on the upswing. Our consumer discretionary sector Cyclical Macro Indicator has perked up (Chart 12), supported by an increase in wages, and more recently, the decline in oil prices. The latter is freeing up disposable income, which consumers have an incentive to spend given that household net worth (HNW) has climbed to all-time highs as a percent of disposable income (Chart 13). Chart 12A Good Place To Shop Chart 13Piggyback The Wealth Effect While we remain overweight housing related equities (homebuilders and home improvement retailers) in addition to our upbeat view on the media and advertising complex, a buying opportunity has surfaced in the neglected S&P restaurants index. We booked gains on an underweight position and lifted exposure to neutral back in late-October. Since then, value has improved further, while leading sales indicators continue to firm. Stronger consumer finances should flow into the casual dining industry. Sales have already started to reaccelerate, and should climb further based on the leading message from HNW (Chart 14). The lower income, $15K-$35K, cohort is also feeling increasingly confident, according to the latest Conference Board survey data (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the National Association of Restaurants Performance Index has regained momentum (Chart 15), signaling increased activity and rising confidence among restaurateurs. While the gap between the cost of dining out and dining in remains wide, it has begun to narrow, which is a plus for store traffic, all else equal. Chart 14Buy Into Weakness Chart 15At A Turning Point Domestically... Chart 16... And Globally? Our restaurants profit margin proxy (comprising restaurants CPI versus a blend of the industry's wage bill and food commodity costs) is trending higher. That is notable because it has a good track record in leading relative earnings growth estimates (Chart 15). Nevertheless, it is not all good news. International exposure remains a headache. Typically, soft EM currencies warn of translation drags on foreign sourced revenue (Chart 16). This cycle, there is an offset, as EM interest rates have come down, which is a plus for domestic demand (Chart 16). Thus, the headwind from outside the U.S. should abate as the year progresses. Adding it all up, factors are falling into place for a playable rally in the under-owned and unloved S&P restaurants index. This group offers attractive quasi-cyclical defensive exposure to replace the S&P pharmaceuticals index, without the political and regulatory risks. Bottom Line: Redeploy funds from the pharma downgrade and boost the S&P restaurants index to overweight. BLBG: S5REST-MCD, YUM, CMG, SBUX, DRI. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Highlights ­­The U.S. Treasury is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment in April. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers. The risk of that at the moment is low. The current episode of Chinese capital outflow can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade". The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Beyond the near term, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Feature As we go to press this week, the Federal Reserve has just released its interest rate decision. The 25-basis-point rate hike was well anticipated, and the markets should be assuaged by the fact that the Fed does not anticipate a more rapid pace of rate hikes than it did in December. As far as China is concerned, the RMB, which has been put on the backburner by global investors in recent months, is once again back in the spotlight, as its descent against the dollar has resumed after a relatively calm period. Both Chinese interest rates and the USD/CNY have been pushed higher by the latest moves in U.S. Treasury prices and the broad dollar trend (Chart 1). Chart 1The U.S. Connection Beyond The Currency Manipulator U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signaled late last month that he wants to use a regular review process of foreign-exchange markets to identify currency manipulators, which means the U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal procedure to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from President Donald Trump's repeated campaign trail promises, and has reduced the odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB. If the Treasury follows the formal process laid out in statutory law, it is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the conditions required for being charged with currency manipulation, as discussed in detail in our previous report.1 Even if China was indeed labeled a currency manipulator in the April assessment, the existing procedure does not authorize the administration to immediately impose punitive measures. Instead, the law requires the Treasury to negotiate with the allegedly "guilty" party to correct the currency manipulation and remove unfair trade practices. Even if negotiations fail, the punitive measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are largely symbolic for a country like China. The recommended remedial measures such as prohibiting federal procurement from offending countries and seeking additional surveillance through the International Monetary Fund are hardly biting for China. In short, a "currency manipulation" charge, even if it were imposed, would mostly be a symbolic move, and the real economic consequences would be limited. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers, which would be far more unpredictable and would inevitably lead to harsh retaliation from the Chinese side. The risk of that at the moment is low. President Trump appears to be occupied with domestic issues and has notably toned down his anti-China rhetoric. Meanwhile, President Xi is reportedly scheduled to visit the U.S. next month, at which time he will likely seek to improve bilateral ties. We expect both sides will try to set up a new high-level mechanism for effective communication and negotiations over key policy issues to replace the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialog (S&ED) under the Obama administration. Given the numerous "China hawks" in President Trump's inner circle, trade frictions between the two countries will likely increase, but the risks appear to be pushed out to at least next year. Where Did The Money Go? China's official foreign reserves have stabilized at around US$3 trillion in recent months, compared with a peak of over US$4 trillion in the second quarter of 2014. The common perception is that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has been fighting a constant bleed of domestic capital, and the rapid decline in its foreign reserves means an ever-smaller war chest, which will eventually force the PBoC to surrender. There has been open debate within China's policy-making circles and prominent think-tanks on whether the PBoC should protect the RMB exchange rate or preserve its official reserves. While the decimal changes in China's official reserves have been grabbing headlines among the financial media of late, much less known is China's total international investment positions. In fact, China having a hefty current account surplus means the country's domestic savings exceed its domestic investment, and subsequently the excess savings become holdings of foreign assets - the PBoC's official reserves are just a part of the country's growing total foreign claims. Therefore, it is important to have a closer look at China's total foreign investment positions to understand cross-border capital flows. On the asset side, since the second quarter of 2014 when official reserves peaked out, China's total foreign assets have continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace (Chart 2). The decline in official reserves has been more than offset by increases in other forms of investments. Specifically, direct overseas investments, foreign loans and holdings for foreign securities increased by US$503 billion, US$170 billion and US$79 billion, respectively, between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016, the latest available data points, compared with a US$792 billion decline in official reserves during the same period. In other words, the country as a whole has continued to accumulate foreign assets, but the corporate sector and households have been increasing their holdings at the same time that the public sector has been trimming positions. On the liability side, the Chinese corporate sector has been paying back foreign debt aggressively since Q2 2014, which also increased demand for foreign currencies and contributed to the decline in the PBoC's official reserves. Loans and trade credit taken by Chinese firms dropped by US$423 billion between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016. The outstanding balance of total foreign loans and trade credit at the end of Q3 2016 stood at US$583 billion, almost half the US$1 trillion peak in Q2 2014 (Chart 2, bottom panel). Regarding foreigners' claims in China, the RMB fluctuation has had no meaningful impact on both foreign direct investments (FDIs) and foreigners' investments in Chinese domestically listed securities such as stocks and bonds. In fact, both FDIs and foreign investments in Chinese securities have continued to rise despite heightened anxieties on the RMB (Chart 3). However, foreigners' liquid holdings of Chinese financial assets, cash and savings deposits have dropped by US$100 billion from a peak of US$441 billion in Q2 2014 to US$340 billion at the end of Q3 2016. This could well be the withdrawal of foreign "hot money" that flew into China in previous years. Chart 2Where Did The Money Go? Chart 3Foreign Investment In China: The Ins And Outs Taken together, the decline in China's official reserves appears less disconcerting. Chinese companies' debt repayments and foreign "hot money" repatriation accounted for the lion's share of the decline in Chinese foreign reserves since 2014. Therefore, the current episode can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade": In previous years, when the RMB was appreciating against the dollar, Chinese firms undertook loans in dollars and foreign 'hot money" also rushed into China - the tide has been reversing as the USD/CNY trend has shifted. The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Chinese Foreign Reserves: The Big Picture While the dominant concern at the moment is that Chinese official reserves, still by far the largest in the world, are not enough to maintain exchange rate stability, easily forgotten is that the consensus was the opposite a mere three years ago (Chart 4). Back then the prevailing view was that the country had too much foreign reserves, which was both a waste of resources and an economic burden. While popular perceptions in the marketplace always swing dramatically, it is important to keep the big picture in mind. At the onset, official reserves currently account for 50% of China's total international investment positions. This is a notable decline from a peak of 71% in 2009, but still far higher than any other major economy (Chart 5). For example, Japanese official reserves account for 16% of total international claims, 26% for Taiwan, and a mere 2% for the U.S. Chart 4Chinese Official Reserves Are ##br##Still By Far The Largest Chart 5Chinese International Assets Are ##br##Primarily Official Reserves As China's foreign assets are primarily represented in official reserves, the return of China's foreign claims is extremely low, as official reserves are mainly invested in risk-free highly liquid assets, with achieving higher returns always having been of secondary consideration. The average return of Chinese foreign assets has been hovering around 3%, not much higher than U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 6). By contrast, foreign investments in China are primarily engaged in the real economy and are able to garner much higher yields. This mismatch, ironically, has led to a net loss in China's international investment position. In other words, even though China is a massive net creditor to the rest of the world, the country's net investment income has in fact been negative, as the country pays a lot more to foreign investors than it gets from its own overseas investments. Chart 6China Gets Less Than It Pays This mismatch has been one of the key reasons why the PBoC in previous years tried to encourage domestic entities to hold foreign assets directly rather than through official channels in the form of foreign reserves. The more recent rapid increase in capital outflows from the Chinese corporate sector and households has challenged the PBoC's near-term priority to maintain exchange rate stability, prompting the authorities to tighten capital account controls to support the RMB. From a big-picture point of view, however, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. All in all, the near term CNY/USD cross rate will remain largely determined by the Fed action and the broad trend of the dollar, but the PBoC will continue to intervene to prevent major currency depreciation. The RMB is unlikely to depreciate against the greenback more than other major currencies in a period of dollar strength. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?," dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Once the Brexit starting gun is fired, the EU27's high-level guidelines and red lines will create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. The BoE will be more boxed in than the ECB. Brexit trades have more legs. We describe four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets (on page 6). Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Feature "Many in Great Britain expected a major calamity... but what happened was near enough nothing ." The citation above perfectly describes the 9 months that have elapsed since the U.K.'s June 23 2016 vote to exit the EU. In fact, it refers to the 9 months that elapsed after Britain declared war on Germany on September 3 1939 - a period of calm, militarily speaking, which became known as the 'Phoney War'.1 But outside the military sphere a lot did happen in the Phoney War. Most notably, a propaganda war ensued. On the night of September 3 1939 alone, the Royal Air Force dropped 6 million leaflets over Germany titled 'Note to the German People'. Chart of the WeekOne Big Correlated Trade: Pound/Euro And Eurostoxx600 Vs. FTSE100 Brexit Phoney War And The Markets Fast forward 77 years. The 9 months since the Brexit vote has also been a period of calm, economically speaking. Indeed, the U.K. economy has sailed along remarkably smoothly. And this has fuelled a propaganda war for those who believe that Brexit's economic impact will be near enough nothing. But outside the economic sphere, a lot has happened in the Brexit Phoney War: The pound has slumped 12% versus the euro and 17% versus the dollar. The FTSE100 has surged 16%, substantially outperforming the 8% gain in the Eurostoxx600 The U.K. 10-year gilt yield is down 40 bps when the equivalent German bund yield is up 40 bps and the equivalent U.S. Treasury yield is up 90 bps. These relative moves appear to reflect different asset class stories, but it is crucial to realise that: All of these relative moves are just one big correlated trade. The relative moves in bond yields have just tracked the expected differences in central bank policy rates two years ahead (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). This is exactly in line with the theory that a bond yield just equals the expected average interest rate over the bond's lifetime. Chart I-2Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. Bund Yields Chart I-3Difficult Brexit = Gilt Yields Fall Vs. T-Bond Yields Likewise, the moves in pound/dollar and pound/euro have also closely tracked the same expected differences in central bank policy rates (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Again, this is exactly in line with theory. Over short horizons, the biggest driver of exchange rates is fixed income cross-border portfolio flows - which always seek out the highest yield adjusted for hedging costs. Chart I-4Difficult Brexit = Pound/Euro Falls Chart I-5Difficult Brexit = Pound/Dollar Falls In turn, FTSE100 performance versus the Eurostoxx600 has near-perfectly tracked the inverse direction of pound/euro. Once more, this is exactly as theory would suggest. The FTSE100 and Eurostoxx600 are just a collection of multinational dollar-earning companies quoted in pounds and euros respectively. So when pound/euro weakens, the dollar earnings increase more in FTSE100 index terms than in Eurostoxx600 index terms, resulting in Eurostoxx600 underperformance (Chart of the Week). Now that the Brexit battle is about to begin in earnest, what will happen to these Brexit trades? Brexit Battle Begins It is not our intention here to forecast all the twists and turns of the Brexit battle. We will leave that to a later report. Instead, we just want to list the likely opening salvos. With Parliamentary approval now sealed, Theresa May is due to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty in the week commencing March 27 and thereby formally begin the Brexit battle. Expect the first EU27 response within 48 hours, probably through the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. In this response, Tusk may also give the date for the first European Council 'Brexit' summit. This EU27 Brexit summit will take place within 8 weeks of the Article 50 trigger, and likely after the two-round French Presidential Election in April/May. At the Brexit summit, the EU27 will establish its strategy, high-level guidelines and red lines for the Brexit negotiations. The European Council will present these negotiating guidelines to the European Commission. Drawing upon its own legal and policy expertise, the Commission will then draft a mandate which sets out more technical details of each area of negotiation. Next, the Council of the EU2 must approve this draft mandate by qualified majority vote (obviously excluding the U.K.) Once approved, the European Commission can begin the detailed negotiations with the U.K., keeping within the final mandate's guidelines. But what does all this mean for investors? The preceding analysis showed that the dominant driver for all Brexit trades is the expected difference in central bank policy interest rates two years ahead. Recall that not long ago the BoE was vying with the Fed to be the first to hike rates in this cycle, while the ECB was likely to ease further. But after the Brexit vote and the resulting uncertainty about the U.K.'s position in the world, the tables have turned. The EU27's high-level negotiating guidelines and red lines are likely to create more vulnerabilities and uncertainties for the U.K. than for the euro area. And now, these vulnerabilities and uncertainties are amplified by Scotland First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, calling for a second referendum on Scottish Independence. For central bank policy, this means that the BoE will be hamstrung; whereas, absent any tail-events, the ECB can continue to back away from its extreme dovishness - a process that Draghi verbally started at the ECB Press Conference last week. Therefore, at least into the early summer, stay: Overweight U.K. gilts versus German bunds. Long euro/pound. Long FTSE100 versus Eurostoxx600 (or Eurostoxx50). Long U.K. Clothes and Apparel equities versus the market (Chart I-6). Short U.K. Real Estate equities versus the market (Chart I-7). But a word of warning for risk control. Remember that all five positions are in effect just one big correlated trade. So they will all work together, or they will all not work together! Chart I-6Difficult Brexit = U.K. Clothes And Apparel Outperforms Chart I-7Difficult Brexit = U.K. Real Estate Equities Underperform Four Disruptors The final section this week takes a wider-angle view of the world, and briefly highlights four structural disruptors to economies and financial markets in the coming years. Disruptor 1: Protectionism. Since the Great Recession, an extremely polarised distribution of economic growth has left most people's standard of living stagnant - despite seemingly decent headline economic growth and job creation (Chart I-8). Looking to find a scapegoat, economic nationalism and protectionism have resonated very strongly with voters in the U.K. and U.S. - resulting in Brexit and President Donald Trump. Other voters could follow in the same vein. But history teaches us that protectionism ends up hurting many more people than it helps. Disruptor 2: Technology. The bigger danger is that people are misdiagnosing the illness. The vast majority of middle-income job losses are not due to globalization, but due to technology. Specifically, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is replacing secure middle-income jobs and displacing workers into insecure low-income manual jobs - like bartending and waitressing - which AI cannot (yet) replace (Table I-1). And AI's impact on middle-income jobs is only in its infancy.3 The worry is that by misdiagnosing the illness as globalization and wrongly taking a protectionist medicine, the illness will intensify, rather than improve. Chart I-8Disruptor 1: Protectionism Table I-1Disruptor 2: Technology Disruptor 3: Debt super-cycles have reached exhaustion. The protectionist medicine carries a further danger. Major emerging market economies are coming to the end of structural credit booms and need to wean themselves off their credit addictions (Chart I-9). At this point of vulnerability, aggressive protectionism risks tipping these emerging economies into a sharp slowdown. Chart I-9Disruptor 3: Debt Super-Cycles Have Reached Exhaustion Disruptor 4: Equities are overvalued. Disruptors one, two and three come at a time when equities are valued to generate feeble total nominal returns over the next decade (Chart I-10). Risk premiums are extremely compressed. And if investors suddenly demand that risk premiums rise to average historical levels, it necessarily requires equity prices to adjust downwards. Chart I-10Disruptor 4: Equities Are Overvalued The long-term investment message is crystal clear. With the four disruptors in play, we strongly advise long-term investors not to follow passive (equity) index-tracking strategies. Instead, we advise long-term investors to stick to bespoke structural investment themes. Our favourite structural investment themes are Personal Product equities, euro/yuan, and real estate in Spain, Ireland and Germany. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 C N Trueman 'The Phoney War'. 2 The Council of the EU should not be confused with the European Council. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Superstar Economy: Part 2," dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model This week's trade is to short Netherlands equities, but wait until after the election result. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Dear Client, In addition to this brief note concerning Wednesday's FOMC meeting, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Brian Piccioni, head of BCA's Technology Strategy service. Brian discusses the investment implications of what could be one of the most profound technological developments of the 21st century: CRISPR, a radical new technique for genetic engineering. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy The dollar and U.S. Treasury yields fell sharply in the aftermath of Wednesday's FOMC meeting, while equities rallied. Indeed, so pronounced was the asset market reaction that financial conditions eased markedly for the day, making the Fed's actions an "unhike" of sorts. The FOMC meeting produced several dovish surprises. First, the number of participants who expected four rate hikes or more did not increase, as some observers had anticipated. Second, the estimate for the structural rate of unemployment was scaled down further by a tenth of a percentage point to 4.7%. Third, the FOMC statement said that the Fed was looking for a "sustained" return to 2% inflation, while also referring to its inflation target as a "symmetric" one. Fourth, Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari dissented in favor of keeping rates unchanged, which few people had expected. Having said all this, the market's reaction still seems rather excessive. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target. This was reflected in the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. Consistent with this, the FOMC raised its growth forecast for 2018 from 2.0% to 2.1%. In addition, it lifted its inflation forecast for this year from 1.8% to 1.9%. The median projection for the funds rate also edged up from 2.9% to 3% for 2019. The mean dot rose 9 bps in both 2018 and 2019, while the modal dot increased by 25 bps in both years. None of this is particularly dovish. As far as the reference to the Fed's "symmetric" target is concerned, this is something that Chair Yellen and other FOMC officials have stressed many times before. All it means is that the Fed will not react too aggressively if core inflation were to drift somewhat above 2%. It does not mean that the Fed will purposely try to engineer an inflation overshoot. If the Fed had wanted to do that, it would have lifted its 2019 inflation forecast. It didn't do that and the inflation forecast remains stuck at 2.0%. Why, then, did the FOMC bother massaging the language? The answer is that the Fed simply wanted to reassure the public and the investment community that it would maintain its "go slow" approach to raising rates. After all, investors were pricing in only a small probability of a March hike just a few weeks ago. A "hawkish hike" could have led to an excessive tightening in financial conditions, similar to what happened during the taper tantrum. However, given that financial conditions actually eased significantly in response to the FOMC's decision, it is likely that Fed speeches will lean in a less dovish direction over the coming weeks. The implication for investors is that the dollar is likely to rebound. Indeed, the longer-term risk to the dollar is not that the Fed turns out be too dovish, but that it turns out to be too hawkish - that it raises rates so much that the economy begins to roll over. However, with interest rates still low in absolute terms, this is more of a risk for late 2018 or 2019 than it is for the next 12 months. As such, investors should continue to cyclically overweight global equities, favouring stock markets such as those in Europe and Japan that have a "higher beta" to global growth than the U.S. A modest bearish tilt towards long-term government bonds is also warranted. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global stocks and bonds have priced in a goldilocks scenario - strong growth and low inflation/interest rates. In the short term, global bond yields are set to rise further. Risk assets, especially EM ones, are vulnerable on the back of higher bond yields. Thereafter, global bond yields will roll over decisively as inflation worries subside. Risk assets will probably recover some lost ground in this phase. Toward the end of this year, growth disappointments in EM/China will resurface and EM risk assets will sell off again. Feature The near-term risks to emerging markets (EM) and global stocks over the next three months or so are potential inflation anxieties in the U.S. and around the world, and a further rise in U.S./global interest rate expectations. Yet looking beyond the short-term, it is not clear that the rise in global inflation will be lasting. Timing zigzags in financial markets is almost impossible. However, if we were to try to speculate on potential swings in financial markets over the next 12 months, our prediction would be that the current growth acceleration will soon lead to heightened inflation worries, and global bond yields will climb further. Having already rallied a lot, global share prices will likely relapse, with EM risk assets being hardest hit on the back of rising U.S. bond yields. Thereafter, there will likely be a period of calm when inflation worries subside due to growth disappointments, and bond yields roll over decisively. Risk assets will probably recover some lost ground in this phase. Yet this calm phase might not last too long as EM/China growth will relapse considerably again toward the end of this year. In short, another global growth scare driven by EM/China is likely to transpire later this year. Any potential U.S. trade protectionist measures will play into this scenario - augmenting U.S. inflation expectations initially when adopted and then, when implemented, dampening global growth. Please note that this is the view of BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service, which differs from BCA's house view that is cyclically positive on global stocks/risk assets. Neither the inflation fears/higher interest rates episode nor the growth scare phase that we believe is in the cards later this year are bullish for EM risk assets. Therefore, we maintain that the risk-reward for EM risk assets is extremely unattractive at the current juncture, even if global growth stays firm for now. More Upside In Bond Yields Inflation has been accelerating in the U.S. and China: The average of U.S. trimmed-mean CPI and PCE, median CPI and market-based core CPI inflation has risen above 2% (Chart I-1). The individual components are shown in Chart I-2. Chart I-1U.S. Inflation Measures Are In Uptrend Chart I-2Broad-Based Rise In U.S. Inflation BCA's U.S. wage tracker - a mean of four different wage series - is also accelerating (Chart I-3, top panel), signaling a tightening labor market. Wages are critical to inflation dynamics because not only are wages the largest cost component of a business but also higher wages entail more consumer spending, making it easier for companies to raise prices. That said, what drives cost-push inflation is not wages but unit labor costs. In the U.S., unit labor costs have been rising signaling accumulating pressure on businesses to raise prices (Chart I-3, bottom panel). In China, core (ex-food and energy) consumer, retail and trimmed mean consumer inflation are in an uptrend (Chart I-4). Chart I-3U.S. Wages And Unit Labor ##br##Costs Argue For More Inflation Upside Chart I-4China: Inflation Is Picking Up However, disposable income (a proxy for wages) growth in China remains subdued, given economic growth has been very weak (Chart I-5, top panel). Hence, there are no imminent wage pressures in China like there are in the U.S. That said, unit labor costs in China are still rising because output per hour (productivity) growth has decelerated notably (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Real (adjusted for inflation) interest rates have not yet increased much and remain low worldwide. As global growth conditions remain robust and inflation data surprise on the upside, interest rates both in nominal and real terms will likely rise. In the U.S., 10-year Treasury yields adjusted for the average consumer price inflation (currently running at 2.0%) stand at 0.35% (Chart I-6, top panel). Consistently, U.S. 10- and 5-year TIPS yields are 0.6% and 0.2%, respectively (Chart I-6, bottom panel). Provided U.S. growth remains robust and the labor market continues to improve, there are no reasons for U.S. TIPS yields to stay at these low levels. Chart I-5China: Wage Proxy And Unit Labor Costs Chart I-6U.S. Real Yields Are Low A strong U.S. dollar could have been an impediment to a potential rise in real rates, but year-to-date the greenback has been tame. In addition, U.S. share prices and high-yield corporate bonds are handling the news of Federal Reserve tightening well. All of this opens a window for both nominal and real U.S. bond yields to rise in the near term. On the whole, either the U.S. dollar will spike soon or U.S. interest rates will climb further. The latter will eventually cause the greenback to appreciate. This will be especially troublesome for EM risk assets. In China, the real deposit rate has turned negative (Chart I-7, top panel). In the past, when the real deposit rate was negative, the central bank hiked interest rates (Chart I-7, bottom panel). If households do not get a more attractive deposit rate, they will opt for foreign currency, real assets like property or riskier investments domestically. All of this entails negative consequences for China's financial stability. Considering the above as well as improved growth in China and higher bond yields globally, we expect mainland policymakers to tolerate marginally higher interest rates. Notably, China's onshore domestic corporate bond yields, swap rates and the interbank repo rate have already been rising since last autumn - a trend that will likely persist for now (Chart I-8). Chart I-7China: Real Deposit Rates Have Turned ##br##Negative China: Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart I-8China: Interest ##br##Rates Are In Uptrend We do not have strong conviction on how persistent and pervasive the nascent inflation uptrend will be in the U.S. and China. Inflation is driven by numerous structural and cyclical variables, and they often work in opposite directions. The outlook for these variables is not identical to draw a definite conclusion about the inflation trajectory in the long run. In this report, we cover just one aspect of inflation - how liquidity and money relate to and drive consumer prices (please see the section below). Bottom Line: Odds are that there could be a global inflation/interest rates scare in the near term, and bond yields will continue rising in the next two to three months. Monetary-Liquidity Approach To Inflation As Milton Friedman famously stated: Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output. Yet a relevant question is which monetary aggregates do really impact inflation. Identifying specific monetary aggregates that impact inflation will help us gauge the outlook for the latter. Central bank liquidity provisioning to banks does not necessarily cause inflation to rise. It is money/credit creation by commercial banks that generates higher inflation. In any banking system, it is commercial banks that create loans. Central banks emit and supply banks with liquidity - commercial banks' reserves held at the central bank - but the monetary authorities do not create money directly, except when they finance the government or non-bank organizations directly or buy financial assets from them. Money is created by commercial banks when they originate loans. Similarly, money is destroyed when a loan is repaid to a bank. Commercial banks do not need savings and/or deposits to originate loans. They create a deposit themselves when they grant a loan. Yet banks require liquidity (reserves at the central bank) to settle their payments with other banks. Banks seek liquidity in various ways, such as by attracting deposits, borrowing money from the central bank and in interbank markets as well as raising funds abroad, among other methods. When a bank attracts deposits, these deposits constitute outflows of deposits from other banks, or a drainage of cash in circulation that was once a deposit at another bank and was cashed out. In short, these deposits do not fall out of the sky, and do not constitute new deposits/savings in the banking system and the economy. On the whole, when a commercial bank extends a loan it creates a new deposit, and thereby new money - i.e. it increases money supply. When a bank attracts a deposit, it does not create a new deposit or new money. The existing money/deposit simply moves from one bank to another, or from cash to deposit. The amount of money supply does not change. A bank does not need liquidity (reserves at the central bank) for each loan it generates. It requires liquidity (reserves at the central bank) only to settle its balance with other banks or to meet minimum reserve requirements. If a bank creates a loan but still has excess reserves at the central bank, it might not require liquidity to "back up" the loan.1 This is the reason why quantitative easing programs implemented by central banks in the advanced countries did not produce high inflation. Even though central banks conducting QEs - the Fed, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan - supplied a lot of banking system liquidity, and commercial banks' reserves at the central bank skyrocketed, commercial banks initially were reluctant to originate new loans. Where are we presently in money/credit cycles in major economies? Chart I-9 demonstrates broad money growth for the U.S., the euro area, China and EM ex-China. Broad money growth is still strong across the world. In addition, there is a reasonable, albeit not perfect, correlation between broad money and inflation as depicted in Chart I-10. In China, money aggregates in 2015-16 were distorted by the LGFV debt swap. Outside this episode, there is a reasonable relationship, as one would expect: broad money growth explains swings in inflation. The key message from this chart is that the rise in inflation is possible in the near term but is unlikely to prove sustainable and lasting in these largest three world economies if broad money growth continues downshifting. The reason behind the drop in broad money growth is a notable slowdown in bank loans in the U.S. and China (Chart I-11). Chart I-9Broad Money Growth Across World Chart I-10Broad Money Growth And Inflation Chart I-11Bank Loan Growth Slowdown In The U.S. And China It is a safe bet that with more upside in global and local interest rates, bank loan growth is likely to slump in China/EM. Furthermore, given the credit bubble in China and the authorities' efforts to contain risks, odds are that bank loan and overall credit growth will decelerate by the end of this year. On another note, the sheer size of the credit bubble in China is also corroborated by the amount of outstanding broad money. In common currency (U.S. dollar) terms, the outstanding amount of broad money (M2) is almost two times larger in China than M2 in the U.S. and M3 in the euro area (Chart I-12). This is despite the fact that China's nominal GDP is US$11 trillion, smaller than U.S. GDP of US$19 trillion, and comparable to euro area GDP of US$12 trillion. In fact, the outstanding broad money supply in China in absolute U.S. dollar terms is only slightly less than the combined broad money supply in the U.S. and euro area. Chart I-13 illustrates broad money as a share of country GDP in all three economies. The upshot is that Chinese commercial banks have created much more money relative to GDP than U.S. and euro area banks. Chart I-12China's Money Supply Is ##br##Enormous In U.S. Dollars And... Chart I-13...Relative To GDP The question is why China has not had high inflation despite such immense money overflow. The answer is that China has been investing a lot, and the supply of goods and services in China has risen very rapidly too. That said, this money has created a property market bubble in China. We will discuss/debate the issues surrounding China's money, credit and savings in a forthcoming China Debate piece with our BCA colleagues. Bottom Line: What ultimately drives economic cycles and inflation is money created by commercial banks, not central bank liquidity provisioning to banks. China/EM broad money growth is still unsustainably strong and it will fall further. Growth Scare Before Year End? Chart I-14China: Corporate Bond Prices Are Falling If EM/China credit growth decelerates, as we expect to happen toward the end of this year, it will not only cap inflation but also cause a growth scare. Although U.S. and euro area growth could soften a notch from current levels, the main downside to global growth stems from EM/China, as we have repeatedly written. Given China's onshore corporate bonds rallied dramatically in 2015-'16 on the back of massive investor-buying, a further drop in these bond prices might trigger an exodus of funds and a meaningful push-up in corporate bond yields. In fact, the price of onshore corporate bonds continues to make new lows, and is already down 8% from its peak in November 2015 (Chart I-14). Chart I-15U.S. And German Bond Prices More Downside? This will in turn cause corporate bond issuance and other non-bank financing to slump. This will occur at time when bank loan growth is already decelerating, and the authorities are aiming to reduce speculative activity in the financial system via a regulatory clampdown. Ultimately, higher borrowing costs along with regulatory tightening of banks' off-balance-sheet operations will cause a slowdown in China's domestic credit flows in the second half of 2017. The rest of EM will decelerate on the back of a China slowdown, which will reverberate via lower mainland imports and declining commodities prices. In addition, the banking systems in many EMs have not adjusted following the credit boom of the preceding years. Unhealthy banking systems and higher global interest rates will cause further retrenchment in domestic credit creation. Bottom Line: A renewed slump in China/EM growth later this year will trigger growth disappointments globally. Investment Strategy It seems global stocks and bonds have priced in a goldilocks scenario - strong growth and low inflation/interest rates. DM bond yields will likely rise further. Remarkably, both U.S. and German 30-year bond prices have already fallen by 23% from their July highs and there might be more downside (Chart I-15). BCA's Relative Risk Indicator for U.S. stocks versus U.S. Treasurys is over-extended at a very high level (Chart I-16). When this indicator has historically been at similar levels underweighting stocks versus bonds has paid off. Notably, when inflation is rising equity multiples should shrink. This has often been the case in the U.S., though not lately (Chart I-17). Chart I-16U.S. Stocks-To-Bonds Relative Risk Indicator Chart I-17Rising Inflation = Compressing Multiples Chart I-18A Number Of EM Currencies Are Facing Resistance EM risk assets warrant an underweight position across equities, credit and currencies. The list of our country allocation within the EM universe for stocks, credit and local bonds is provided on page 14. Commodities prices in the near term are at risk from a strong U.S. dollar and later in the year from a slowdown in Chinese growth. Several EM currencies are at a critical technical juncture (Chart I-18). We expect these resistance levels not to be broken. We recommend shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, CLP and COP. On a relative basis, we overweight RUB, MXN, THB, TWD, INR, PLN, HUF and CZK. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on the process of money and credit creation, please refer to Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment, titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses" dated October 26, 2016, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB", dated November 23, 2016 and "Do Credit Bubbles Originate From High National Savings?", dated January 18, 2017, links available on page 16. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Geopolitics will not spoil the stock rally yet; European election risks remain overstated; In China, look beyond the National Party Congress; China's reforms could re-launch in 2018 ... ... But India's reforms are gaining momentum now. Feature The global economy continues to surprise to the upside, with the latest round of global purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) confirming that the business cycle continues to accelerate (Chart 1). In the context of firming global growth, the Fed's decision to hike rates may not produce as violent of a reaction from the dollar as last year, giving way to further upside in stocks. And while investors continue to fret about valuations, U.S. stocks are expensive only relative to history, not relative to competing assets, as our colleague Lenka Martinek of the U.S. Investment Strategy service points out (Chart 2).1 Chart 1Because I'm Happy Chart 2U.S. Stocks Pricey By History, Not Peers What geopolitical news could break up the party over the next six months? Europe: As we argued three weeks ago, the European electoral calendar is unusually busy (Table 1).2 However, we have also posited in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that Europe will be a red herring this year, allowing risk assets to "climb the wall of worry."3 The first test of this thesis comes today, with the Dutch general elections taking place. The polls suggest that the Dutch electorate is not following the populist trend of the Brexit referendum and U.S. election (Chart 3), but rather in the footsteps of the little noticed Austrian presidential election in December, which saw the populist presidential candidate defeated. Dutch Euroskeptics, who have led the polling throughout the last twelve months, are bleeding support as election day approaches. Meanwhile, in France, Marine Le Pen is struggling to keep momentum going with only a month and a half to the first round. Thus far, our thesis on Europe is holding. Table 1Busy Calendar For Europe This Year Chart 3Dutch Euroskeptics Are An Overstated Threat The U.S.: Investors will finally get to put numbers to President Trump's rhetoric when the White House announces its budget on March 16. As we argued last week, President Trump is who we thought he was: an economic populist looking to shake up America's status quo. That suggests he will err on the side of greater deficits and large middle-class tax cuts. We do not think Congress will bar his way, as it has rarely restrained a Republican president from profligacy (Chart 4). We could be wrong, but it is unclear if a more fiscally responsible budget would be negative for the markets. On one hand, it may disappoint optimistic growth projections, but on the other, it would mean that the Fed would have no reason to err on the side of more rate hikes in 2017. Meanwhile, while we continue to fear protectionism's impact on the market, it is unlikely that the Trump White House will focus on trade when so many domestic priorities are looming this summer. Russia: As we argued in a Special Report with the Emerging Markets Strategy group last week, Russia may be entering a low-beta paradigm - escaping from its close embrace with oil prices - due to the combination of orthodox monetary policy, modest structural reforms, and growing confidence in its geopolitical predicament.4 This is not the time for President Putin to rattle nerves in the West. He does not want to give Europe and the U.S. a reason to cooperate. We therefore expect Russia's geopolitical risk premium to continue to decline, a boon for European risk assets (Chart 5). Chart 4Budgets: Republican Presidents##br## Get What They Want Chart 5Russia's Calm##br## Is Europe's Profit From a tactical perspective, we believe that the confluence of geopolitical forces supports our continued overweight of developed-market equities versus those of emerging markets. Within developed markets, the BCA House View is to prefer euro-area equities due to overstated geopolitical risks and favorable valuations relative to the U.S. equity market. BCA's Global Investment Strategy has pointed out that euro-area equities are one standard deviation undervalued relative to the U.S., when one applies U.S. sector weights to them (Chart 6). In addition, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service believes that Treasury yields have more room to rise, with growth putting upward pressure on inflation and the Fed in a rate-hike cycle. This makes sense to us given that no major geopolitical risk is materializing and considerable upside risk exists in U.S. growth due to Trump's populist policies. Chart 6European Stocks Still A Buy Relative To U.S. In what follows, we take a break from poring over geopolitical risks in Europe and the U.S. and focus on emerging markets. Since January, very few investors have asked us about EM politics, save for the occasional question about Brazil. However, the two Asian giants - China and India - are both a source of risk: the first a downside, left-tail risk and the second an upside, right-tail risk. China: What Comes After The Party Congress This Fall? Since 2013, we have been outspoken in our low expectations for China's structural reforms.5 This view was confirmed with a series of stimulus efforts that displaced reforms, including the local government debt swap program in 2014 and extensive fiscal and monetary easing in 2015 and especially 2016.6 The upside of weak reforms was better-than-expected growth in the short run, as stimulus took effect. Indeed, China has pulled off a remarkable economic turnaround since early last year: infrastructure and housing investment have increased, the weaker yuan has boosted exports, and the global recovery in commodity prices has helped producer prices to recover, easing deflationary pressures (Chart 7). Chart 7Deflationary Pressures Easing Chart 8Stimulus Dropped Off Accordingly, Chinese policymakers, who are attempting to strike a balance between stimulus and restructuring, have begun leaning against the economy's gathering momentum. Government spending has collapsed now that a 6.5% GDP growth "floor" has been established (Chart 8). A new round of property market regulatory tightening began last fall, though it has had little impact so far. Also, the People's Bank of China has begun draining some liquidity (Chart 9). Signals coming out of the "Two Sessions" over the past two weeks, namely the National People's Congress, suggest that the Chinese leadership is content with the current state of affairs. Policymakers set their growth targets for 2017 a little lower than last year's targets and a little higher than last year's actual performance (Table 2).7 It is a line so thin that it is almost imperceptible. They do not want significant change. Chart 9PBoC Draining Liquidity Table 2China's Economic Targets For 2017 This stance fits with a deeper desire to keep the economy on an even keel during a pivotal year for Chinese politics. The legislative session took place under the shadow of the Communist Party's impending 19th National Party Congress - the "midterm" meeting of the party that happens every five years and features extensive promotions, rotations, and retirements for the party leadership. This year's congress promises to be especially influential because of Xi Jinping's ascendancy and the fact that around 70% of the upper tier of leaders will be replaced. Chart 10, which we have been showing clients over the past year to dampen expectations of stimulus, reveals that the party congress is not normally an excuse to throw open the floodgates of credit and government spending. Rather, it is a reason to avoid anything that might rock the boat, whether stimulus or reform. Chart 10Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Five-Year Party Congresses Thus while government spending has declined, it should be expected to rise again if growth slows down too much for too long. There may be a period of slowdown and market jitters before the leaders reach for the fiscal lever again, but the "Socialist Put" remains in place. Meanwhile, we are not surprised that structural reforms continue to suffer. It is not that China has eschewed all reforms but rather that its reforms have focused on centralizing power for the ruling party and alleviating some outstanding social grievances. These are positive in themselves but they do not address the key concerns of foreign investors relating to economic openness, financial stability, and the role of the state. The recent imposition of capital controls and a host of non-tariff barriers in the name of "state security" exemplify a negative trend. The delayed rollout of the property tax is also a sign of Beijing's proclivity to delay policies that may be financially risky.8 And Beijing has only tentatively attempted to cut back state-owned enterprises. Simply put, a push to overhaul any significant sector or sub-sector does not fit Beijing's priorities at the moment. However, if growth, debt, or asset prices should climb too rapidly, then we expect countermeasures to tamp them down. Even on the geopolitical front - where we have a high conviction view that tail risks to financial markets are higher than the market perceives them to be, both in China and the broader Asia Pacific - there have been some signs of the U.S. and China playing ball on a shared desire for "stability," at least for the moment.9 While we expect a negative geopolitical shock, the market will only believe it when it sees it. All of the above suggest that China will focus on "maintaining stability" this year even more than usual due to the party congress. This is clearly bullish, especially given improving U.S. and global growth. However, the mantra of "stability" and "party congress" should not prevent investors from looking beyond October or November of this year. Chart 11China Needs More##br## Credit For Same Growth Chart 12China Gets Old ##br##Before It Gets Rich Even assuming that China experiences no significant internal or external economic shocks from now until this fall, it is important to remember that China's growth potential is still slowing for structural reasons. Productivity is collapsing and credit dependency is rising (Chart 11). The slowdown stems from deep shifts such as the end of the debt supercycle in the U.S. (weak external demand), the tipping point in Chinese demographics (higher dependency ratio) (Chart 12), and the extremely rapid build-up in corporate debt (Chart 13). Chart 13Corporate Debt Skyrockets Chart 14As Good As It Gets This is what leads our colleague Mathieu Savary, of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, to surmise that China is at the peak of its current economic mini-cycle. This is "as good as it gets," as he shows in Chart 14. Barring a situation in which Xi somehow fails to consolidate power at the party congress, the market impact will depend on which of two scenarios follows: First scenario: Xi achieves a dominant position in all party and state organs, yet 2018 sees a continuation of the current pattern of mini-cycles of stimulus, lackluster reform, and foreign policy aggressiveness. Xi implicitly deems the strategic cost of reform too great, as we argued he would do over the past four years, and dedicates his stint in office to the accumulation of power. Perhaps a successor will be able to use these powers to enact painful reforms in the mid-2020s; that is not Xi's immediate concern. This is short-term bullish for global and Chinese growth, long-term bearish for Chinese assets. Second scenario: Xi achieves a dominant position and uses his power to reinvigorate the country's stalled reforms. Hints of big measures emerge in the wake of the party congress in November or December, and January 2018 begins with a bang. This would necessarily mean that Xi accepts slower growth, or even that he imposes it through tighter fiscal policy, real credit control, SOE failures, and aggressive overcapacity cuts. However, Chinese productivity would begin to recover. This is short-term bearish for Chinese and global growth. However, it is the most bullish outcome for the long-term performance of Chinese assets. In China's current state - with capital controls newly reinstituted (Chart 15), Xi lauding the "central role" of SOEs in development, and Xi's administration still focused on purging the party and controlling the media - the second scenario admittedly seems far-fetched. Chart 15Are Capital Controls Working? Moreover, Xi seems averse to risky experiments at home that could weaken the country in the face of unprecedented strategic threats from the United States and Japan. Nevertheless, a 2018 reform push should not be dismissed out of hand. Why? Because an overbearing state, credit excesses, and weak productivity really do threaten the sustainability of the Chinese economy and hence the Communist Party's grip on power. Xi must keep them in check, as the current gestures toward tighter policy indicate. The government has overseen a massive monetary and credit expansion to protect the country from faltering external demand since 2008. As the current account surplus has declined, the country's massive savings have built up at home in the form of debt (Chart 16).10 Yet the investment avenues are restricted by the role of the state. As a result, the inefficient state-supported sector is getting propped up while the shadow financial sector grows wildly and creates murky systemic risks that are difficult to monitor and control. The PBoC has undertaken further extraordinary actions to keep financial conditions loose (Chart 17). Chart 16Savings Invested At Home Chart 17PBoC Lends A Helping Hand What signposts should investors watch for to see which path Xi will take after the party congress? Jockeying ahead of the party congress: The latest NPC session saw some political maneuvering. Several sixth generation leaders made appearances and spoke to media.11 Xi's supposed favorite, Chen Min'er, Party Secretary of Guizhou, distinguished himself by cutting reporters short at a press conference. Meanwhile former President Hu Jintao appeared publicly alongside his apprentice, Hu Chunhua, Party Secretary of Guangdong. Elite party gatherings in the summer, especially any retreat at Beidaihe, should be watched closely for any clues of who may be up and who down, and what general policy trajectory may be forthcoming. Xi's future: First, will Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang establish clear successors for their top two positions in 2022?12 A failure to do so will suggest that Xi intends to stay in power beyond his de facto term limit of 2022. This would mean that Xi will prioritize his own future over painful structural reforms. On the other hand, a clear commitment to a leadership transition in five years may re-focus the Xi-Li administration towards their initial commitment to economic restructuring. National Financial Work Conference: This conference is held every five years, usually connected with a major new financial reform or regulatory push, and due sometime in 2017. The government is looking into serious changes to financial regulation - including the creation of a super-ministry to house the various regulatory agencies. This, or the broader attempt to ensure adequate capitalization of banks, could be behind the delay. New central banker: Central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan, in office since 2002, may step down this fall. He could be replaced with another technocrat to little fanfare, but his exit introduces the opportunity for shaking up the PBoC regime as a whole. Other new officials: A slew of other appointments and reshuffles will take place this year as a generation of leaders born before the Revolution retires. A new director of the state economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, was just named, while late last year a new finance minister took his post. These officials have yet to make their mark. Their statements should be watched closely for any shifts in economic policy emphasis. Time frames for reforms: The market is still waiting for concrete proposals and time frames for major reform initiatives, particularly opening up to foreign competition and restructuring state-owned enterprises. Overcapacity cuts have also had mixed results. We do not expect major advances on big structural reforms this year due to the party congress, but details that can be gleaned about the process and timetables could be important. Bottom Line: Watch for signs of a renewed reform drive after the nineteenth National Party Congress. Xi is not going to reverse what he has done so far. And China is not going to become a market economy on the ideal western model. But a pivot point could be in the cards next year for China to pursue some pro-efficiency reforms that it has already set out for itself in a more resolute way. Xi's decision to stay in power beyond 2022 would be bearish for reforms as it would incentivize the current "Socialist Put" model of policymaking over a genuine paradigm shift. India: What Comes After Modi's Big Win? Prime Minister Narendra Modi has won a crushing victory in India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, positioning himself, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) coalition very well for the 2019 general elections. Policymaking is going to become easier for the ruling party - though there are still serious political and economic constraints. We have been long Indian equities relative to EM equities since the "Modi wave" began with Modi's victory in the Lok Sabha or lower house in 2014.13 The end of the commodity bull market signaled an opportunity for India, which imports about a third of its energy. The decline of global trade also heralded the outperformance of domestic demand-driven economies like India. Further, Modi's sweeping victory held out the promise for a reform agenda of tighter monetary and fiscal policy that would reduce inflation and make room for private investment to grow. This would make Indian risk assets attractive, especially relative to other EMs, which were at that time either lagging at reforms or failing to undertake them entirely. Since then we have seen Modi rack up a key legislative victory - the passage of the Goods and Services Tax, in the process of implementation - and engineer a surprise "demonetization" effort late last year to increase bank deposits, bring the country's gray markets into the open, and flush out crime and corruption.14 The ruling coalition's gains in Uttar Pradesh and a few other state elections this year are a striking vindication of popular support after this highly unconventional and controversial maneuver.15 Uttar Pradesh is the most important of these elections. It was slated to be a grand testing ground for Modi well before demonetization. It is the most populous Indian state, with about 200 million people, and the third largest state economy (producing about 10% of GDP). It is the second-poorest state, with a GDP per capita of about $730, it has the highest proportion of "scheduled castes" (untouchables), and ranks around the middle of states in terms of the Hindu share of population - all challenges for the landed, pro-business, Hindu nationalist BJP (Map 1). Politically, aside from its inherent heft in population and centrality, Uttar Pradesh sends the most representatives of any state to India's upper house (31 seats), the Rajya Sabha, where Modi lacks a majority. It is thus a key source of federal power and an important state ally. Map 1Modi's Saffron Wave Takes The Indian Core Given the above, it is hugely bullish that Modi's BJP romped to a historic victory in the state election, winning 312 out of 403 seats (about 39.7% of the vote), up from 47 seats previously. His coalition rose to 324 seats total (Chart 18). The BJP now has the largest majority of any party in the state since 1980. These results were not anticipated. A close election was predicted and opinion polls had BJP winning 157 seats, short of the 202 needed for a majority. This was only slightly ahead of its closest rival, an alliance made up of the local Samajwadi Party and its national partner, the left-leaning Indian National Congress (INC). Exit polls even suggested that the Samajwadi-INC coalition had edged ahead of the BJP. The immediate takeaway is that Modi will have better luck governing Uttar Pradesh itself now that the state government is on his side. Individual states hold the key to reform in India because of the country's size and socio-economic disparities. The state will now be expected to implement Modi's policies faithfully and push approved policies forward on its own. The second takeaway is that while Uttar Pradesh will not give Modi control of India's upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha, it will give him a better position there. The BJP has 56 seats in the upper house (fewer than the INC's 59), and the ruling coalition has 74, out of a total of 250. The coalition needs 52 seats for a simple majority. Uttar Pradesh will deliver 10 seats at most by the 2019 general election. Modi would have to win almost every seat of the 56 non-allied seats coming open between now and 2019 in order to win the upper house by that time (Chart 19). That is unlikely, but Modi is moving in the right direction and an upper-house majority cannot be ruled out in the long run. Chart 18Modi's Big Win In Uttar Pradesh Chart 19Modi's National Position Improves Of course, Modi has already shown with the Goods and Services Tax that he can pass very difficult legislation through the upper house without controlling a majority there. This achievement last year was perhaps an even greater surprise than the victory in Uttar Pradesh, which reinforces it. Modi also has a secret weapon: in case of a national emergency, however defined, he can call a joint session of parliament, where his coalition would carry the day. This is now more likely because it is the Indian president who is responsible for calling a joint session, and Modi is now more likely to get his candidate into that position due to the win in Uttar Pradesh. President Pranab Mukherjee, who is affiliated with the INC, will step down on July 25. Though Modi does not have all the votes in the electoral college to choose the president outright, smaller parties may fall in line now that the BJP has so much national momentum.16 Controlling the presidency will also give Modi greater influence over constitutional obstacles and gradually over the legal system. Separately, in August, Modi's alliance will be able to choose the vice president as well. More broadly, the Uttar Pradesh election marks a victory for Modi's style of appealing to voter demand for greater economic development as a general priority over longstanding religious and caste grievances that frequently determine electoral outcomes in state elections. This is a hugely significant indication for India's economic structural reform and nation building. Bottom Line: Modi's victory in Uttar Pradesh is proof that for all of India's sprawling inefficiencies, its political system is capable of responding to the large public demand for economic development. Do not underestimate reform momentum now. Modi's political capital remains high. Investment Conclusions The conventional wisdom has for decades been that China is better at reforming its economy because of its authoritarian regime, whereas India democratized too early and has thus lagged at reforms. We have never agreed with this simplistic view of economic reforms. Structural reforms are always and everywhere painful. As such, they require political capital. As our "J-Curve of Structural Reforms" posits, reforms deplete political capital as the pain spreads through the economy and opposition mounts among both the elite and the common man (Chart 20). Eventually, the government is faced with a "danger zone" in which the pain of reforms lingers, the benefits remain beyond the horizon, and all political capital is exhausted. Many leaders chose to water down the reforms, or back off from them altogether, at this point. Chart 20The J-Curve Of Structural Reform On the surface, authoritarian regimes have massive political capital with which to burst through the danger zone of reform. But this assumption is not entirely correct. In China's case, the political capital for reform came after disastrous performances by the "conservative" political forces. Reformers in China were buoyed by the failures of the "Cultural Revolution" (which ended in 1976) and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Each political and social crisis gave the reformers an opening - following a consolidation period - to pursue controversial economic reforms at the expense of "conservative" forces. The fruit of these reform efforts has been the growth of China's middle class. And while this middle class expects reforms in the delivery and quality of public services, it is not interested in seeing a slowdown in economic growth, no matter how temporary or healthy it may be. As such, Chinese leaders are faced with a significant hurdle to their reform preference: how to convince the public that a slowdown is needed in order to restructure the economy. We are unsure whether the upcoming party congress will make a difference. However, we can see a scenario where President Xi decides to pursue market-friendly reforms because he sees an increase in his political capital. In particular, he may feel that he has cemented his personal dominance over his intra-party rivals and that the aggressive foreign and trade policy emanating from the Trump White House gives him a foil to blame for any downturn in growth. Reform would also be a return to Xi's original agenda, and would conform to the playbook of former president Jiang Zemin, whose precedents Xi has followed in some other areas. Given Xi's modus operandi, a post-consolidation reform drive would be executed relatively effectively and would therefore present short-term risks to Chinese and hence global growth, despite the long-term improvement. Markets are definitely not expecting such a policy pivot at the moment. China bulls are content with the current reforms, while China bears see no chance of the Xi administration changing tack. While we are just beginning to see the potential for a turn in Chinese policymaking towards reforms, India is a much clearer example of a reformist administration. Modi will feel empowered by the Uttar Pradesh election, a political recapitalization of sorts. Foreign investment will likely continue cheering Modi's ongoing revolution (Chart 21). The question now is whether Modi intends to use the infusion of political capital for genuine reforms. After all, the economy is not looking up (Chart 22). Chart 21Foreign Investors Cheer On Modi Chart 22Indian Economy Still Weak The evidence is mixed. First, Modi has not maintained strictness on fiscal spending and the budget deficit is creeping back to where it was when he took over the reins (Chart 23). Rising government spending along with higher commodity prices suggest that inflation will continue making a comeback (Chart 24). Poor food production is also driving up inflation. And higher spending and inflation pose a key threat to the sustainability of the reform agenda, since rising government bond yields will crowd out private investment. Chart 23Losing Budgetary Discipline? Chart 24Inflation Makes A Comeback Second, the RBI will be less likely to pursue a tighter monetary policy with both political influence and weak growth pressing on it. Moreover, Indian stocks are not all that cheap. In 2014, valuations were favorable and the backdrop included cheap commodities, fiscal prudence, and Modi's electoral success. Today, India is trading at its historical mean relative to EM (Chart 25), but using the equal sector weighted P/E ratio, by which India was very cheap back in 2014, India is at a 52% premium now (Chart 26). Chart 25Indian Stocks Trading##br## At Mean Against EM Chart 26Indian Stocks Pricey##br## Versus EM Sector-Weighted We are therefore taking this opportunity to close our long India / short EM trade for a 28% gain (since May 2014). We will reassess Modi's structural reform priorities in future research and gauge whether a new entry point is warranted. We remain optimistic on India in the long run as Modi certainly has the political capital for reforms. The question is whether he plans to use it. Meanwhile, we remain skeptical about China's long-term trajectory. To become fully optimistic about Chinese risk assets in absolute terms, we need to see the Xi administration chose short-term pain for long-term gain. For the time being, China continues to repress its structural problems rather than deal with them head on, relying on minimal openness, high and rising leverage, and state-owned banks and companies. India may be lagging in its reform effort, but it has at least established market reforms as a priority. And the Modi administration has built political capital through the slow and painful democratic process. Over the long term, India's approach is more sustainable. If President Xi wastes the opportunity afforded to him by the upcoming party congress, we suspect that China will face a much higher probability of left-tail economic risks than India over the long term. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks?," dated March 13, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: Entering A Lower-Beta Paradigm," dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and "China: The Socialist Put And Rising Government Leverage" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "Messages From The People's Congress," dated March 9, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Chong Koh Ping, "No plans for NPC to discuss property tax," Straits Times, March 5, 2017, available at www.straitstimes.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 China's leadership is typically referred to in terms of "generations," with Mao Zedong and his peers the first generation, Deng Xiaoping and his cohort the second, Jiang Zemin the third, Hu Jintao the fourth, and Xi Jinping the fifth. The fifth generation was born in the early 1950s, the sixth generation was born in the early 1960s. 12 Xi may tweak retirement norms to let close allies, like Wang Qishan, the anti-graft attack dog, stay on the Politburo Standing Committee. This might also suggest that Xi himself intends to overstay his age limit in 2022. 13 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Long Modi, Short Jokowi," dated August 28, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Long Indian / Short Indonesian Stocks," dated July 30, 2014, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see "India: Demonetization And Opportunities In Equities," in Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Untenable Divergences," dated December 21, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 15 Though the mixed results also indicate persistent regional differences. Modi's coalition won seats in Uttarakhand and Manipur but lost them in Goa and Punjab. Gujarat, Modi's home state, will hold elections later this year. Himachal Pradesh will also vote this year and will be a subsequent testing ground. 16 Please see Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar, "BJP Sweep in UP Will Impact Decision on President, Rajya Sabha Numbers," The Wire, March 12, 2017, available at https://thewire.in/116044/bjp-sweep-will-impact-decision-president/

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will lift rates this week, but will likely leave its median forecast for three hikes this year unchanged. With inflation still below target the Fed has an incentive to take it easy. Curve steepeners, TIPS breakeven wideners and overweight spread product positions will benefit. Duration: The growth outlook is improving and the 10-year Treasury yield could soon move higher, breaking out of its recent trading range. An already elevated economic surprise index should not be a deterrent. High-Yield: Junk spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. Feature Chart 1How Much Hawkishness ##br##Can Markets Take? In early November, just prior to the U.S. election, money markets were still only discounting one rate hike before the end of 2017. The Fed has already raised rates once since then and the market is now almost priced for another three hikes before year-end (Chart 1). Encouragingly, financial markets digested the shift up to two 2017 rate hikes without much of a hiccup - the yield curve steepened, TIPS breakevens widened and junk spreads tightened - but the journey from two to three hikes has not gone down quite as easily (Chart 1, bottom panel). The yield curve has now started to flatten, breakevens have leveled off and junk spreads have edged wider. The worry is that a further shift in expectations - from three to four hikes in 2017 - might cause markets to choke. Fed Will Take It Slow Markets are already priced for a rate hike at this week's FOMC meeting along with no change to the Fed's median forecast for three hikes in 2017. As such, we would not expect much of a market reaction if that outcome is delivered. If the Fed were to increase its median forecast from three to four hikes in 2017, then we would anticipate at least some tightening of financial conditions. In other words, we would expect the yield curve to flatten, TIPS breakevens to narrow, the dollar to strengthen and credit spreads to widen. As we have written several times,1 with core inflation and TIPS breakevens still below target, the Fed must ensure that the economic recovery continues. It will therefore be quick to back away from any nascent hawkishness if financial conditions start to tighten. With markets already showing some signs of stress, we expect the Fed to err on the side of caution this week. This means the Fed will lift rates, but also leave the median forecast of three 2017 rate hikes unchanged. This notion that the Fed should be lifting rates, but only very slowly, is confirmed by our Fed Monitor (Chart 2). The Fed Monitor is a composite of 32 indicators that track the evolution of U.S. economic growth, inflation pressures and financial market conditions. Historically, a positive reading from the monitor has coincided with rate hikes, and vice versa. Chart 2BCA Fed Monitor Suggests A Slow Pace Of Rate Hikes The Fed Monitor just recently moved above zero, suggesting that only modestly tighter monetary policy is required. As an aside, we view the strongly positive readings from the Fed Monitor in 2011 and 2012 as anomalous and an artifact of the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. Since interest rates could not be lowered as much as would have been necessary (according to the Fed Monitor) in 2009, they also could not be raised as quickly as the monitor suggested in 2011. With the base effects from the financial crisis now out of the data, the Fed Monitor should go back to providing a useful signal about the future course of monetary policy. Chart 3BCA Fed Monitor Components We gain further insight from splitting the Fed Monitor into its three key components: growth, inflation and financial conditions (Chart 3). The growth component has accelerated strongly into positive territory but the inflation component still suggests that an easy policy stance is required. Financial conditions are also consistent with modest Fed tightening but have ticked down in recent weeks as the market has discounted a more rapid pace of hikes. Judging from the prior two cycles, an acceleration of the inflation component will be necessary for the Fed to deliver on its current expected path of rate hikes. While the Fed has sometimes started to lift rates with the inflation component below zero, that component has always surged into positive territory soon after hikes began (Chart 3, panel 2). While economic growth is accelerating, below-target inflation means that the Fed must continue to nurture the economic recovery. Investors should position for a steeper curve, wider TIPS breakevens and tighter credit spreads until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. This means at least until long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range and core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2%. Bottom Line: The Fed will lift rates this week, but will likely leave its median forecast for three hikes this year unchanged. With inflation still below target the Fed has an incentive to take it easy. Curve steepeners, TIPS breakeven wideners and overweight spread product positions will benefit. Consolidation Complete? The 10-year Treasury yield has been stuck in a tight range below 2.6% since mid-December (Chart 4), but recent trends in the economic data suggest that it could be on the verge of breaking through this key resistance level. Economic surprises are positively correlated with changes in the 10-year Treasury yield and currently appear extended (Chart 4, bottom panel). While not a mean-reverting series by construction, economic surprises tend to follow a mean reverting pattern because investors revise their expectations higher as the economic data outperform. Eventually, expectations are bound to become excessive and the series will mean revert. However, we have found that economic surprises are usually first reflected in Treasury yields. In fact, changes in the 10-year Treasury yield tend to lead the economic surprise index by several weeks. This means that stagnant yields during the past few months have already foreshadowed a reversal in the surprise index. In other words, some mean reversion in economic surprises is already in the price and should not prevent yields from rising in the coming weeks. More important is that economic growth should be sustainably above trend on a 6-12 month horizon. This will continue to put upward pressure on inflation and ensure that the Fed remains in a rate hike cycle. Judging from recent data, not only is growth sustainably above trend, but it is probably even accelerating. Last week's February employment report showed that nonfarm payrolls rose by 235k, the second consecutive month of gains above 200k. The rate of change of employment growth is now threatening to reverse the downtrend that started in early 2015, and aggregate hours worked have accelerated suggesting that GDP growth will be strong in Q1 (Chart 5). Chart 410-Year Yield Facing Resistance Chart 5Labor Market Points To Stronger Growth... Financial conditions are also supportive of a further acceleration in growth. We found that the financial conditions component of our Fed Monitor provides a strong indication of near-term trends in GDP growth (Chart 6). This highlights that growth should be strong during the next few months but also that the Fed must respond to any tightening in financial conditions if it wants growth to remain robust. Chart 6...So Do Financial Conditions Bottom Line: The growth outlook is improving and the 10-year Treasury yield could soon move higher, breaking out of its recent trading range. An already elevated economic surprise index should not be a deterrent. The Value Is Back In High-Yield One of our key themes for 2017 is that the uptrend in the high-yield default rate is due for a pause.2 With the first quarter of the year nearly complete, all the indicators that make up our Default Rate Model are showing noticeable improvement (Chart 7). Chart 7Default Rate Indicators Are Showing Improvement Interest coverage remains elevated A strong Manufacturing PMI points to a rebound in after-tax cash flow Lending standards have rolled over and are now just barely in "net tightening" territory An improving sales/inventory ratio portends a return to positive industrial production growth Job cut announcements have fallen back to 2011 levels on a trailing 12-month basis Meantime, even though the default outlook continues to improve, junk spreads have actually widened during the past couple of weeks. The average option-adjusted spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index has widened from a low of 344 basis points up to 378 bps (Chart 8). Some of that spread increase is likely attributable to declining oil prices, as energy sector credits have indeed underperformed the overall index. However, the underperformance of the energy sector also started before the sharp drop in oil prices (Chart 8, bottom panel). In any event, our commodity strategists are not expecting the current decline in oil prices to persist and their estimates show that the oil market has recently shifted from an environment of excess supply to one of excess demand. U.S. crude oil inventories are poised to decline later this month and the OPEC / non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Russia at the end of last year should be met with high compliance.3 If this view is correct, then the energy sector will not drag overall junk spreads wider in the months ahead. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default outlook has led to an increase in our preferred gauge of value for high-yield bonds - the default-adjusted spread (Chart 9). The default-adjusted spread is calculated by subtracting an ex-ante estimate of default losses from the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index. Chart 8Energy Contributed To Junk Sell-Off Chart 9Some Value Returns To High-Yield To arrive at an estimate of default losses we use the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate and our own forecast for the recovery rate based on the historical relationship between recoveries and defaults. With the release of February's default report, the Moody's baseline default rate forecast fell to 3.14% for the next 12 months. Based on this forecast we estimate that the recovery rate will be 44%. Combining the default and recovery rate forecasts gives an estimate for default losses of 3.14% x (1- 0.44) = 176 bps for the next 12 months. Since the average option-adjusted spread of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is currently 378 bps, we calculate the default-adjusted spread to be: 378 bps - 176 bps = 202 bps. A default-adjusted spread of 202 bps is 60 bps higher than the reading of 142 bps that prevailed just last week. This 60 bps spread advantage makes a considerable difference in terms of projected excess returns. Chart 10 shows the relationship between 12-month excess returns and the starting default-adjusted spread. We observe a reasonably strong correlation and note that, using a linear regression, an extra 60 bps of spread translates to an extra +251 bps of excess return on average over a 12-month period. Chart 1012-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. ##br##Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Table 1 provides more detail in terms of what excess returns have historically been associated with different levels of the default-adjusted spread. We see that when the default-adjusted is between 100 bps and 150 bps, high-yield bonds earn positive excess returns 64% of the time over the following 12 months. When the default-adjusted spread is between 200 bps and 250 bps, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 71% of the time. Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Given our upbeat assessment of the trend in defaults and a wider junk spread than we have seen in a while, we think it is a good time to upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. The key near-term risk to this view is that the Fed will be more hawkish than we anticipate at this week's meeting. If the Fed's median forecast is revised up to four hikes in 2017, then it is possible that the recent bout of junk spread widening will have a bit further to run. However, given still-low inflation readings, the Fed would eventually be forced to back away from its hawkish rhetoric and support renewed spread tightening. In our view, the main risk to upgrading junk this week is that we are a bit too early. Bottom Line: Junk spreads have widened even though default rate indicators continue to show improvement. With valuations now looking more attractive, we upgrade high-yield from neutral to overweight. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Fed's Pre-Emptive Hike Will Hit Gold, Not Oil", dated March 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Feature Dear Client, Instead of our usual weekly report, we are sending you a report written by my colleague Matt Gertken, Associate Editor of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. In this piece, Matt argues that there is more than a 50% chance that the Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) will pass and Donald Trump's support will be the decisive factor. There are also high chances that trade retaliation would unfold likely detracting from the trade benefits of the proposed tax. In addition, given the likelihood of the BAT implementation, we are highlighting U.S. equity sector investment implications and ranking industries on three variables: taxes, margins and foreign sales exposure. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best Regards, Anastasios Avgeriou There are good chances that the border adjustment tax (BAT) will pass as the House GOP has a governing trifecta. Trump has not yet endorsed the BAT, which will be critical, and carve-outs will likely be made to reduce the impact on low- and middle-income households. Still, we can draw some sectoral implications from the known GOP proposal. While a lot of ink has been spilled on potential direct winners and losers from the BAT and what is priced in by the markets, we focus our sector analysis on the sweet spot of tax rates, profit margins and international sales exposure. Chart 1 shows a Venn diagram of these three factors, with the overlap representing the optimally positioned sector. We deem that industries with a combination of high tax rates, high profit margins and low or no foreign sales exposure will be prime beneficiaries of the BAT. Chart 1Sweet Spot At first glance this backdrop may appear counterintuitive, especially the international revenue exposure angle, given the preferential treatment that exporters would receive with the BAT implementation. Almost immediately upon Trump's election and news of BAT the market bought companies/industries with negative net import share and discarded sectors with high net import content (Chart 2A & Chart 2B). Chart 2AInvestors Have Been... Chart 2B... Preferring Exporters To Importers Watch The U.S. Dollar And Emerging Markets Nevertheless, what is worrisome is the market's neglect of a U.S. dollar knee jerk appreciation as our sister Global Investment Strategy service outlined in the January 20th Special Report titled: "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017." Chart 3U.S. Dollar And EM Risks It is difficult to fathom why a greenback surge will not be disruptive especially for the emerging markets (EM) and U.S. cyclical sector proxies trading in tandem with EM. According to the Bank for International Settlements, U.S. "Dollar credit to non-banks outside the United States reached $9.8 trillion at end-Q2 2015. Borrowers resident in EM accounted for $3.3 trillion of this amount, or over a third."1 The EM still have a large stock of U.S. dollar denominated debt to service, both interest payment and principal repayments/refinancing (Chart 3). While the FX straight jacket is not in place as in the 1990s, at least a mini EM crisis seems inevitable if the trade-weighted U.S. dollar moved up 10% from current levels as is likely owing to a BAT. Keep in mind that recent U.S. dollar moves of a similar magnitude (as in 2015), (Chart 3) have been rather unsettling, causing tremors in the EM that reverberated across the globe. Tack on uncertainty surrounding the Chinese renminbi that would only aggravate the U.S. dollar's rise and factors are falling into place for another troublesome EM episode. As a result, global final demand may come under pressure and U.S. exporters may initially suffer more than they benefit from the export subsidy they would enjoy. Another U.S. dollar induced global manufacturing recession would bode ill for U.S. cyclicals exposed to the EM. A Few Words On Manufacturing While the intent of bringing back manufacturing jobs to U.S. shores is appealing, practically it will prove very difficult. Developed economies are services oriented economies with manufacturing dwindling toward 10-15% of GDP (Chart 4). Moreover, the U.S. is a closed economy dominated by PCE comprising 70% of the overall economy. Thus, shifting the U.S. more toward a net export driven economy is also likely to prove challenging. Chart 4Tough To Shift The U.S. Economy's Profile Chart 5Will Capex Revive? Finally, manufacturing is tightly linked to capital expenditures and a recent post by the Atlanta Fed2 tried to shed some light as to why investment in the U.S. has lagged especially versus previous recoveries when the economy was near full employment (Chart 5 & Table 1). Interestingly, the biggest hindrance against boosting capex has been lack of skilled labor, and not the lack of financing or poor sales outlook or low return on investment for example. In fact the larger the firm (in terms of sales) the more pronounced the inaccessibility to qualified staff as a factor constraining investment. While tax reform aims to boost capex by accelerated depreciation schedule in the first year, it does not address the small business complaint of inability to find skilled labor. Table 1Impact Of "High Pressure" Labor Conditions On Capital Spending BAT Winners Therefore, we would want to bulletproof the portfolio by identifying industries that would do well owing to the BAT and resulting U.S. dollar appreciation. U.S. domestic services oriented firms fit the bill, and there is room for sizable outperformance if our thesis proves accurate. Chart 6 highlights 47 sub-industries from 9 GICS1 sectors (energy & materials are excluded) that we singled out that satisfy the domestic and services oriented prerequisite (See Appendix on page 8 for more details). U.S. manufacturers with little or no foreign sales exposure would also stand to get an earnings boost, especially relative to the broad market and to their internationally geared peers. Homebuilders, select construction materials and building products companies would be included in this category. Energy is a special case (please refer to Box 1 on page 6). Meanwhile, high profit margin businesses with sticky pricing power and high effective tax rates also come out on top of our analysis as these outfits would benefit more from overall tax reform. Table 2 shows the top 11 sectors in the S&P 500 on the three metrics. Chart 6Buy Domestic Services Table 2 Health care, utilities, and telecom services score well on all three counts. Real estate and financials also get high marks. In contrast, technology, materials, energy and industrials get poor grades on most of our metrics, with the balance of sectors falling somewhere in between. Box 1 Energy Is A Special Case Chart 7U.S. Remains A Net Importer Of Oil The energy sector is a special case. The U.S. still imports north of 7 MMb/d of oil and represents about 10% of the trade deficit (Chart 7). Were energy to be included in the BAT legislation, WTI crude oil prices would likely shoot higher by ~$10/b as U.S. oil consumers (refiners) would seek to avoid the $10+ BAT on imported light sweet crude by buying domestic oil, and U.S. oil producers would try to benefit from the export subsidy. U.S. exploration & production companies and energy servicers would be clear winners, while refiners would be losers. Nevertheless, the dollar jump would be an offsetting factor. Given the outsized impact on the consumer (gasoline price inflation sapping discretionary spending power) and the close political and energy-security relationship with Canada (60% of net U.S. petroleum imports), there is a high likelihood that energy would be exempt from the BAT. In fact, small and medium businesses (SME) would disproportionately benefit from lower corporate taxes especially compared with S&P 500 constituents that are privileged with a lower effective tax rate. Large capitalization multinationals with sizable foreign sourced sales/profits already use the "double Irish" or "Dutch sandwich" to bring down their tax bills. Keep in mind that SMEs also tend to have low or no foreign sales exposure insulating them from the looming U.S. dollar appreciation. Thus, small caps have a considerable advantage versus their large cap brethren upon implementation of the BAT and general tax reform, and we continue to recommend a small cap tilt in our size bias. For reference purposes Table 3 highlights small cap GICS1 sectors on an operating profit margin and effective tax rate basis. What follows in the appendix is a list of sub-industries per GICS1 sector we have identified that would likely stand to benefit from the BAT implementation assuming a U.S. dollar appreciation. Table 3 Bottom Line: We are comfortable maintaining a defensive versus cyclically exposed portfolio, that would shield us from the BAT implementation, especially if a greenback induced correction materialized in the coming months. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy & U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 "Dollar credit to emerging market economies" by Robert Neil McCauley, Patrick McGuire and Vladyslav Sushko, 6 December 2015, Bank for International Settlements, Quarterly Review, December 2015, available at: http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1512e.htm 2 http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2017/02/can-tight-labor-markets-inhibit-investment-growth.html Appendix Consumer Discretionary Advertising Broadcasting Cable & Satellite Casinos & Gaming Movies & Entertainment Publishing & Printing Restaurants Specialized Consumer Services Consumer Staples Food Distributors Financials Asset Management & Custody Banks Consumer Finance Diversified Banks Insurance Brokers Investment Banking & Brokerage Life & Health Insurance Multi-line Insurance Multi-Sector Holdings Property & Casualty Insurance Regional Banks Health Care Health Care Distributors & Services Health Care Facilities Life Sciences Tools & Services Managed Health Care Industrials Diversified Support Services Environmental & Facilities Services Human Resource & Employment Services Railroads Research & Consulting Services Trading Companies & Distributors Trucking Information Technology Data Processing & Outsourced Services Electronic Manufacturing Services Internet Software & Services IT Consulting & Other Services Real Estate Health Care REITs Hotel & Resort REITs Industrial REITs Office REITs Real Estate Services Residential REITs Retail REITs Specialized REITs Telecommunication Services Alternative Carriers Integrated Telecommunication Services Utilities Electric Utilities Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders Multi-Utilities Highlights The U.S. Border Adjustment Tax is likely to pass; Yet the political pieces are not in place; Trump himself will be the decisive factor; Trade retaliation would detract from trade benefits of the tax; Stay long volatility; small caps versus large caps; and long USD versus EM currencies. Remain short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks, and German exporters versus consumer services. Feature Donald Trump is a trend-setter. After winning the U.S. election on a protectionist platform that played well to voters in the Midwest, Trump has established an anti-globalization brand of politics. His success has revealed the preferences of the American "median voter."3 Other U.S. politicians are taking notice. The "Border Adjustment Tax" (BAT) is part of this new political trend, though it did not originate with Trump. The House GOP leadership has presented it as a response to economic dislocation in the American heartland, which propelled Trump to the White House. Is it protectionism? Yes, and in this analysis we explain why. The rest of the world is highly unlikely to treat the BAT as a standard Value Added Tax (VAT). It will therefore spark trade retaliation unless Congress addresses outstanding issues. So far President Trump is on the fence, and his support is necessary for passage. We think he will ultimately go with the proposal. The prospect of turning the tables on the U.S.'s trade partners, while spurring domestic investment and capital spending, speaks to his core promises to his voters. Trump's support for the plan should be read as a headwind for markets in the short term due to the uncertainties of implementation and trade disputes. If he should oppose the plan, it would be bullish for U.S. stocks in the short term, since it would mean cutting the corporate tax without radically altering the global status quo. It would signal that he is more interested in economic growth and corporate profits than changing the world or balancing the U.S. budget. Why Reform The Corporate Tax System? American policymakers have long struggled with the country's corporate income tax system. Leaving aside party politics, there are three main complaints:4 Corporate tax revenues are weak: Revenues have disappointed as companies have shifted profits to tax havens and used deductions and loopholes to avoid paying the 35% statutory rate. This erosion of the tax base has contributed to budget deficits as well as public dissatisfaction with governing institutions (Chart 1). U.S. companies have lost competitiveness: American businesses are overtaxed relative to their developed-market peers, taking a toll on competitiveness both at home and abroad (Chart 2). The middle class is losing out: U.S. workers are not as well compensated as their developed-market peers and have lost their share of American wealth in recent decades (Chart 3). The corporate tax contributes to this because companies foist the tax onto workers. The Republican Party examined fundamental tax reform in 2005 but could not make progress on it - instead it settled for the Bush tax cuts, which focused primarily on cutting household tax rates.5 Now that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government again, its leaders are attempting broad tax reform anew. The GOP is primarily concerned with corporate competitiveness, but they also need to appease the middle class - the source of the populist angst that supported both Obama and Trump (the former being the Republicans' arch-nemesis, the latter a strange bedfellow). The GOP also wants to raise some revenue to make their desired tax rate cuts "revenue neutral," i.e. somewhat fiscally defensible, at least enough to pass the bill. Enter Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and their "Better Way" tax plan, which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system.6 The core idea is to pay for tax cuts by transforming the current corporate income tax system into a "destination-based cash-flow tax" (DBCFT) with border adjustability ("border adjustment tax" or BAT for short).7 We will get to the definition of that, but first, what is the ultimate point? The plan would purportedly drive corporate investment and economic growth by allowing companies to write off the expense of new investments immediately, the first year, rather than gradually through depreciation. (Depreciation schedules often mean that the tax write-off barely covers the cost of investment, thereby causing companies to err on the side of risk-aversion.) The plan would also remove the preferential treatment of corporate debt over equity, which is built into the current tax code through the deduction of interest - this change would discourage corporate indebtedness and encourage equity financing. Finally the plan would not allow U.S. companies to write off the expense of imported goods, as currently, and as such is essentially a tax on the U.S. trade deficit. Roughly, it could yield about $108 billion in revenue (assuming a 20% rate on the $538 billion deficit). The BAT is the chief tax uncertainty today for investors. That is because there are few constraints on the GOP passing some kind of corporate tax cut this year. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. There is every reason to think it will happen fast. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In other words, Trump and his party would need to have a train wreck to fail to pass something this year. That is not beyond belief! But the overriding question is whether the tax reform will be focused on cutting rates, or transforming the system. Currently, the market seems to think the BAT will go through. A basket of stocks based on potential winners and losers suggests that investors believe it will pass (Chart 4). Meanwhile, however, the share prices of high-tax companies (who should benefit the most if taxes are cut) have fallen back from the pop after Trump's election. This could signal the opposite expectation, or that that investors recognize that many high-tax sectors stand to lose from a tax on imports (Chart 5). There is considerable uncertainty in this measure. We think the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's BAT proposal. But the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show. We expect dollar volatility, which is relatively restrained at present, to rise as the BAT debate intensifies, given that the proposal is bullish for the greenback (Chart 6). Bottom Line: The Trump administration and GOP would have to be unusually incompetent to fail to achieve tax reform this year. The question is whether it will be mere rate cuts or a radical reform to the tax system as a whole. This is critical to the U.S. and global economy - especially given that the passage of a BAT will intensify trade disputes with the U.S. Why Is A Border Adjustment Tax "Protectionist"? Diagram 1 provides a simple illustration of how the current U.S. corporate tax works compared to the proposed BAT. The current system is a "worldwide" corporate income tax. The U.S. government taxes American companies based on their global profits (global revenues minus global costs). No matter where they incur costs, they can write them off, and no matter where they make profits, they must pay tax on them, at least in principle. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The new system, by contrast, would be a "destination-based" tax in which the government taxes companies only on domestic profits (domestic revenues minus domestic costs). This means that revenues earned abroad from exports or sales in foreign jurisdictions would be free from tax. However - and here is the tricky part - it also means that costs incurred abroad, imports or purchases in foreign jurisdictions, would be ignored by the tax authority, i.e. they could not be written off like domestic costs. As the "rebate" in the Diagram shows, the BAT is effectively a tax on imports and subsidy to exports. This is not as egregiously protectionist as it sounds at first, because it is very similar to a Value-Added Tax (VAT), which is the dominant tax system across the world. The U.S. is a massive outlier for not having a VAT. But notice that the amount of the rebate to the exporting company in the diagram is higher (at $40) than the amount of tax that would be due if it paid a tax on its foreign profits, since ($200 - $100) x 20% = $20. The WTO may rule against the law if it believes major U.S. exporters will pay net negative taxes as a result of the rebate. Moreover, the BAT has certain differences from a VAT that ensure that the world will see it as a protectionist affront. The BAT is a combination of a VAT, which is a tax on consumption, and an income tax, which is the current system. However, the BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current system. Under VAT systems, this is not possible because wages are not consumption and therefore not deductible.8 If the GOP proposal becomes law without addressing this difference - that is, without denying corporates the wage deduction, or taxing them in some other way to compensate - it will likely prompt global trade retaliation. While the World Trade Organization may deem the BAT legal by interpreting it as a VAT, it will not do so if U.S. companies cannot show that they are not getting a leg up on their international rivals by retaining the wage deduction from the former corporate income tax code. Wages are obviously a very large part of a company's expenses. They make up about 68-72% of U.S. companies' costs (Chart 7), and have grown at about 2-4% each year for the export-oriented sector (Chart 8). If U.S. companies can write off the wage expense in their exported goods, then foreign countries will have to adjust, possibly by imposing duties to counteract the share of taxes avoided by that write-off. Bottom Line: The BAT is a hybrid of tax systems. It is likely that the WTO and U.S. trading partners will object to it as an import tax and export subsidy, particularly because of the wage deduction. The House GOP could adjust the proposal ahead of time or afterwards to avoid this conflict, but that has not happened yet. In addition, corporate lobbying against removing wage deductions would be severe. Will A BAT Get Passed Into Law? Currently, the House GOP leaders face a rising wave of criticism about the BAT proposal and have begun to signal greater flexibility in drafting the law so as to win over various stakeholders. A salient point to remember about U.S. tax legislation is that it is very rare in recent decades for a ruling party to bungle it. Only eight pieces of tax legislation have been vetoed by presidents since 1975, only two of which were serious bills, and in both cases the president vetoed the legislation pushed by an opposition-controlled Congress (Table 2). By the time a serious tax bill makes it to the president's desk, a veto is unlikely, especially if the president and Congress belong to the same party. Table 2Major Tax Legislation Is Set Up For Success Even more salient, only 23 pieces of tax legislation since 1975 have been struck down in either of the two houses. Of these, seven were attempts to amend the constitution (not likely to pass), nine were attempts to amend the internal revenue code for highly specific things (spirits, cigars, the holding of conventions on cruise ships). Only seven were major bills, and in only one of these cases did the Senate strike down the bill, which was a case of a Republican Senate defending a Republican president from an opposition Congress. In only one case did the ruling party in the House kill a serious tax bill proposed by one of its own members, but it is not comparable to the tax reform in question today.9 What this means is that the BAT is highly likely to be passed into law if the House remains loyal to its leader Paul Ryan, and to the Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, the two authors of the BAT proposal. However, Trump could derail Ryan's best laid plans. Trump seemed to throw a wrench in the gears when he cast doubt on border adjustment tax, saying that it was too complicated. However, the Trump administration has recently made comments favorable to the BAT. Peter Navarro, chief of the new National Trade Council, highlighted it as a way to bring manufacturing supply chains back into the U.S. (note the protectionist angle of the comment). Meanwhile Sean Spicer, Trump's spokesman, said it would be a good way to make Mexico pay for the infamous wall to be constructed on the border (again, note that the angle is protectionist and populist, not about balancing the budget).10 In each case, the Trump team has gone to pains to emphasize that the BAT is only one option among many. Yet the fact that they have repeatedly brought it up as a solution to their own populist promises is suggestive. We think Trump will ultimately hew to the Republican Party leadership on tax reform.11 Why? Time's a'wastin': Party control of all three branches is a fleeting boon and 2018 mid-term campaigning would make the BAT harder to pass because it could hike the prices of consumer goods. Republicans have a plan ready to go, the House ultimately controls the purse, and Trump wants to move fast on tax cuts and boosting the economy. Furthermore, Republicans remember how short-lived the Democrats' control of Congress was after 2008. Trump wants to be transformative, not merely transactional:12 Trump was elected in a populist revolution and has vowed to improve American manufacturing and trade. His protectionist and mercantilist vision is fundamentally aligned with the chief aims of the BAT: remove the "tax" on corporate investment to improve U.S. capital stock and productivity, and remove incentives to locate, operate, and stash profits offshore. There is at least some positive correlation between higher VAT rates and positive trade balances, and the law is simultaneously supposed to boost productivity (Charts 9 and 10). Trump needs domestic and international "legitimacy": His protectionist platform will stand on firmer ground if he adopts policy that is at least debatable at the WTO, as opposed to imposing tariffs willy-nilly through bare executive power, which is eventually vulnerable to congressional and judicial oversight. Domestic courts have already shown an inclination to halt Trump's controversial executive orders.13 By contrast, they would almost certainly defer to Congress even on the most radical tax reforms. Trump needs a tradeoff for infrastructure spending: Unpopular presidents cannot set the legislative agenda.14 But Trump may be able to trade GOP-style corporate tax reform - which offsets tax cuts with new revenue provisions, such as the BAT - in return for infrastructure spending, which the GOP is reluctant to embrace. Trump is willing to lead a crusade against the WTO: This may be a necessary prerequisite for the passage of this bill, and Trump is heaven-sent to play the role. He would be to the WTO what George W. Bush was to the United Nations. It would be disastrous for the U.S.-built international liberal order, but it would give Trump the ability to pursue protectionism while rallying the public around the flag against America's "globalist" enemies. (Sovereignty over taxation is a cause that is hard to beat in the U.S.)15 BAT allows Trump to save face on the "Wall" with Mexico: As the White House spokesman hinted, Trump may use creative accounting to satisfy his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Moreover, if Trump comes out in support of the BAT, it will likely get passed: Precedent: President John F. Kennedy's and Jimmy Carter's efforts at tax reform failed because Congress was not supportive, which is not a problem today; whereas Ronald Reagan's personal support for the 1986 tax reform - despite his reservations about the attempt to transform the system and broaden the base - proved critical in helping the bill move through Congress.16 Political science: The political context is a better determinant of presidential success than individual talents, and rising political polarization in the U.S. has created an environment in which "majority presidents," those whose party has a majority in Congress, are even more likely to be successful, while "minority presidents" are more likely to fail on key initiatives. The relevant factors of political context are the party's grip on Congress, the extent of polarization, and, somewhat less significantly, whether the president is in his "honeymoon period" and enjoys public support.17 Of these factors, Trump is only weak on public support, though not among conservatives (Chart 11), who could vote their representatives out of office if they defy Trump on tax reform. The Senate could still cause a serious hang-up. But if Trump and the House GOP stand behind the legislation then Senate Republicans would have to be suicidal to oppose it.18 What about the corporate lobbies that oppose the BAT? Certainly it is highly controversial at home. The tax could hurt import-heavy U.S. businesses and punish citizens with a high propensity to consume - i.e. the poor and elderly, both constituents that make up an important part of Trump's base. But that suggests that there will be carve-outs or phased implementation for key imports like food, fuel, and clothing. Such compromises will be messy, and will mitigate any dollar appreciation and reduce the tax revenues to be gained, but would probably enable the bill to get passed. The opposition of retailers like Wal-Mart and Target is overrated in terms of their power as a lobby. Importers form a slightly larger lobby than exporters, which makes sense given that the U.S. is a net importing economy, but neither of them comprises a large share of total lobbying (Chart 12). The sectors that suffer the most from the import tax also tend to pay higher effective tax rates and thus stand to benefit from the rate cuts (Chart 13). The opposition of the Koch brothers is also overrated, given their unhelpful attitude toward Trump's candidacy for president! Bottom Line: The BAT is a radical plan to spur corporate investment and production in the United States, and that goal matches Trump's vision. Trump will be hard pressed to find a more effective, structural way of achieving his goals. And the two-year window with assured GOP control of government will close faster than one might think. Risks To The View A major risk to the BAT is that Trump will fear the repercussions on his political base of higher consumer prices, as hinted above. Consumer pain is a necessary consequence of his mercantilist vision of rebalancing the U.S. from consumption to investment and bringing down the U.S. trade deficit, so Trump will have to decide whether he means what he says. Moreover, if the dollar rises sharply as a result of the BAT, as expected, it would cause pain for the economy and S&P 500 companies, which source 44% of earnings outside the U.S. According to BCA's Global Investment Strategy, the impact of a much stronger dollar on U.S. assets denominated in foreign currencies could amount to a loss worth of 13% of U.S. GDP! (Not to mention Trump's personal wealth from overseas.) Given the huge uncertainties of a totally new tax system, and potential disruption to the economy, it would be perfectly understandable if Trump refused to hitch his fate as president to this wonkish grand experiment. Further, it is not as if there is no alternative to the BAT. Since Republicans will be humiliated if they fail to deliver on tax cuts, Trump's opposition to the BAT would force the House GOP to go back to good ol' fashioned tax cuts without significant revenue raising measures, and specific add-ons to deal with concerns like corporate inversions. Trump would still likely get the repatriation of overseas earnings, a political win, and the economy would experience an increase in investment from tax rate cuts without the uncertain consequences of deeper change. Ronald Reagan's administration offers a precedent for this sequencing, since he began his term with simple tax cuts in 1981 and only later attempted the dramatic tax overhaul of 1986. There is also a risk that the business lobby against the BAT proves stronger than expected and gains traction in the media and popular opinion as a result of the feared consequences on consumer prices. Tax reform is never going to be easy and will always hang in a precarious balance. These are serious risks, but we think Trump and the GOP will move now rather than make any assumptions about their ability to win subsequent elections and enact massive tax reform. The fact that the GOP controls all three branches of government, the BAT plan is well in the making, and Trump is looking to reshape the American economy in ways that align with the BAT, make the odds of passage higher than 50%. Unfortunately, this also means the world should brace for a sharp spike in trade disputes. Bottom Line: There are plenty of reasons to think the BAT plan could collapse of its own weight. The path of least resistance is certainly not the BAT. But we think the preponderance of power in GOP hands in Washington favors radical change, even if it ends up being a policy mistake. Investment Implications: Trade War The WTO is supposed to presume innocence with a country's laws, and it might also approve the BAT on the basis that proponents argue: the U.S. imposing the BAT is not much different from a VAT country increasing its VAT rate while simultaneously slashing the payroll tax (as France has done under President Hollande's administration). This view is misguided. The WTO will rule on the statute and international trade treaties, not the special pleading of the advocates. It may or may not accept that the BAT is equivalent to a VAT; it may or may not object to the wage deduction as a holdover from the "direct" tax on income. The GOP has not yet introduced a draft law, but given the express intention - in the Ryan plan, not even to mention Trump - to put "America first" with a "pro-America approach for global competitiveness," it seems likely that a clash of interests is in the making. In other words, American proponents of the tax are not even hiding its overt protectionist intentions. The WTO will probably discover a subsidy for U.S. exporters and a violation of the principle of trade neutrality with respect to imports. WTO litigation will take years. When the European Union sued the U.S. over its use of Foreign Sales Corporations, a comparable dispute, the proceedings began in 1999 and the WTO ruled against the U.S. in 2002. Ultimately, the U.S. Congress amended the law to avoid retaliation in 2004.19 Trump and the GOP would be less likely to amend their pet project in the current environment, especially if the litigant is the EU at the WTO! Trump, as mentioned, would be inclined to take the fight to the WTO - he has even threatened to withdraw the United States from it. His support group feeds on conflict with supra-national bodies and he may see foreign retaliation as a convenient reason to impose tariffs of his own. The trade environment would deteriorate in the meantime. In 2002, it was assumed that the U.S. and EU could work out an agreement without punitive measures, but that assumption does not hold today. And it would not only be the EU leveling complaints. In short, the U.S. would face foreign retaliation, during the proceedings and likely as a consequence of the WTO ruling. The Trump administration would attempt to mitigate the blowback through a series of bilateral deals, and perhaps the U.S. law would ultimately be modified, but the entire saga would have a negative impact on global trade. Financial markets had many factors to contend with during this period (like the dot-com bubble), and they will similarly respond to large currents in the coming years aside from any BAT. Nevertheless, the tax would reinforce our themes of global multipolarity, mercantilism, and protectionism - and thus reinforce several of our existing trades: We continue to favor small caps over large caps. Small caps are insulated from global trade, will benefit most from the cut in tax rates, and will suffer least from any appreciation of the dollar. Long volatility - Long VIX 20-25 call spread for expiration in March; Long USD versus short EM currencies; Short China-exposed S&P stocks; Short German exporters versus long consumer services. If Trump comes out in opposition to the BAT, he would send a bullish signal for markets in the short term. It would mean, first, that the U.S. will have corporate tax cuts without the broader uncertainties of the BAT; and second, that Trump is actually a pragmatist who eschews radical change if he thinks it will cause too much trouble for U.S. consumers or economic growth. However, it would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would avoid a trade conflict, given Trump's executive powers.20 Of course, the BAT's failure - which is not our baseline - would also be worse for the deficit and debt, as the GOP tax cuts would have no offsetting revenue increases but would rely purely on creative accounting, "dynamic scoring," to appear fiscally acceptable. This legislation would also likely fail to simplify the tax code as much as the BAT would. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Alan J. Auerbach, "A Modern Corporate Tax," Center for American Progress, dated December 2010, available at www.americanprogress.org. 5 Please see President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, "Final Report," dated November 1, 2005, available at govinfo.library.unt.edu. 6 Please see "A Better Way: Our Vision For A Confident America: Tax," dated June 24, 2016, available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 7 Our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy have recently provided a very helpful Q&A on the border adjustment tax (BAT), and we would refer readers to that report for a detailed discussion. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, "Back To 1913?: The Ryan Blueprint And Its Problems," Tax Notes 153: 11 (2016), 1367-47, reprinted by University of Michigan, available at www.repository.law.umich.edu. 9 Amo Houghton, a liberal-leaning Republican from New York, proposed the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002, a bill to streamline IRS administration. It failed in the Republican Congress under President Bush. 10 Please see Shawn Donnan, "Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation," Financial Times, January 31, 2017, available at www.ft.com, and Bob Bryan, "Trump press secretary says the administration is considering a 20% border tax on Mexican imports to help pay for the wall," Business Insider, January 26, 2017, available at www.businessinsider.com. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn has also indicated that the BAT is an option but not yet decided upon, see CNBC, "Squawk on the Street," February 3, 2017, available at www.cnbc.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already issued a temporary injunction against President Trump's executive orders on immigration. Please see "State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump," available at www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 14 Please see John Lovett, Shaun Bevan, and Frank R. Baumgartner, "Popular Presidents Can Affect Congressional Attention, For A Little While," Policy Studies Journal 43: 1 (2015), 22-44, available at www.unc.edu. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, and "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 17 Jeffrey E. Cohen, Jon R. Bond, and Richard Fleisher, "Placing Presidential-Congressional Relations In Context: A Comparison Of Barack Obama And His Predecessors," Polity 45:1 (2013), 105-126. 18 The Senate Financial Services Committee's support will be critical. Chairman Orrin Hatch has criticized but not yet declared against the BAT. Even if he does, it would not necessarily kill the deal. One of his predecessors, Senator Bob Packwood, initially opposed the Tax Reform Act in 1986 but was ultimately persuaded to support it. If Hatch and the Finance Committee support the initiative, it will pass the Senate. First, the tax overhaul can be accomplished by "reconciliation," a congressional trick that will enable the GOP to avoid a Senate filibuster and pass the tax reform with a simple majority. Second, the Republicans today have almost exactly the proportion of seats in the Senate as the average in previous examples of successful tax reform (see Table 1). So there would have to be a higher share of Republican defectors than in the past to overturn the bill. This is possible but unlikely if Trump and the House GOP are behind the bill. 19 Please see Congressional Research Service, "A History of the Extraterritorial Income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Export Tax-Benefit Controversy," dated September 22, 2006, available at digital.library.unt.edu. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights We discuss three "battles" that will shape the investment landscape in the euro area over the remainder of the decade. Battle #1: Reflation Versus Deleveraging - Reflation will triumph over the next 12 months. For the time being, this justifies an overweight position in euro area equities. Beyond then, the outlook is likely to darken. Battle #2: Hawks Versus Doves - The doves will win. Germany will reluctantly accept an overheated economy and higher inflation. Stay short the euro. Battle #3: Globalists Versus Populists - Marine Le Pen will lose this year's election, but Europe's populist parties will finally gain the upper hand by the end of the decade. Buy gold as a long-term hedge. Feature Market Update Global equities are technically overbought in the short term, but the longer-term cyclical (12-month) trend remains to the upside. Chart 1 illustrates the "reflation trade" in a nutshell. The Citigroup global economic and inflation surprise indices have surged and now stand at their highest combined level in the 14-year history of the series. While tracking estimates for Q1 U.S. GDP growth have fallen, this is mainly because of negative contributions from government spending, net exports, and inventories. Taken together, these three factors have shaved about 1.4 percentage points off of Q1 growth according to the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model (Chart 2). Private final domestic demand is still growing at a reasonably robust 2.6% pace, and forward-looking indicators such as the ISM indices suggest that this number could rise over the next few quarters. Chart 1The Reflation Trade In One Chart Chart 2Underlying U.S. Growth Is Still Healthy As such, it is not too surprising that U.S. equities have had little trouble digesting the prospect of a March Fed rate hike. The market is still pricing in less than three rate increases this calendar year. Four hikes would not be out of the question. Investors should remain positioned for a stronger dollar and higher Treasury yields. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets such as the euro area and Japan over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. The Battle For Europe History is often shaped by great battles. Sometimes these are of the military variety. But often they transcend physical conflict, pitting competing ideas, interests, and trends against one another. In the remainder of this week's report, we discuss three economic and political battles that will determine Europe's fortunes over the next 12 months and beyond. Battle #1: Reflation Versus Deleveraging The euro area grew faster than the U.S. in 2016, the first time this has happened since 2008. While the U.S. is likely to resume pole position in 2017, we still expect the euro area economy to expand at an above-trend pace. That should be enough to keep unemployment on a downward trajectory. The euro area economic surprise index remains in positive territory. The composite PMI rose to 56 in February - the highest level since April 2011 - with the forward-looking "new orders" component hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart 3). In addition, private-sector credit growth has sped up to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis (Chart 4). All this is good news for the region. Investors should overweight euro area equities on a currency-hedged basis over the next 12 months. Chart 3Euro Area Growth Holding Up Well Chart 4Euro Area: Accelerating Private-Sector ##br##Credit Growth Beyond then, things look murkier. The ECB's Bank Lending Standards survey showed a modest tightening in lending standards for business loans in Q4 of 2016 (Chart 5). Private-sector debt levels also remain elevated across the region, which is likely to dampen credit demand (Chart 6). Both of these factors suggest that loan growth could begin to moderate later this year. Chart 5Slight Tightening In Lending Standards ##br##For Business Loans And Mortgages In Q4 Of 2016 Chart 6Still A Lot Of Debt If the positive impulse from rising credit growth does begin to fade, GDP growth will fall off. Whether that proves to be just another run-of-the-mill "mid-cycle slowdown" or something more nefarious will depend on the policy response. On the fiscal side, the period of extended austerity has ended. The fiscal thrust in the euro area turned positive last year, the first time this has happened since 2010. The European Commission is advising member states to loosen fiscal policy further this year, but the governments themselves are targeting a modest tightening (Chart 7). With a slew of elections slated for this year, budget overruns will be hard to avoid. Nevertheless, barring a significant economic slowdown, no major European economy is likely to launch a large fiscal stimulus program anytime soon. Thus, while fiscal policy will not be a drag on growth, it will not provide much of a tailwind either. Chart 7European Commission Recommending Greater Fiscal Expansion This puts the ball back in the ECB's court. As we discuss next, monetary policy is likely to stay highly accommodative. That should help extend the cyclical recovery into 2018. Battle #2: Hawks Versus Doves Jean Claude Trichet's decision to raise rates in 2011 would have gone down as the most disastrous blunder the ECB ever made, were it not for his even more disastrous decision to raise rates in 2008. Mario Draghi has gone out of his way to avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessor. Nevertheless, the risk is that the improving growth backdrop instills a false sense of complacency. There is no doubt that Draghi has become more confident about the economic outlook. The ECB revised up its growth and inflation projections for 2017-18 at this week's meeting and signaled that it was unlikely to extend its targeted longer-term refinancing operations, or TLTROs. The ECB is also likely to further reduce the value of its monthly asset purchases in 2018 with a view towards phasing them out completely by the end of that year. It is possible that these steps could trigger a "taper tantrum" in European government debt markets of the sort the U.S. experienced in 2013. If that were to happen, we would see it as a buying opportunity. As Draghi stressed during his press conference, wage growth is anemic. Without faster wage growth, inflationary pressures will remain muted. Granted, euro area headline inflation reached 2.0% in February. However, this was mainly the result of base effects stemming from higher food and energy prices. Our expectation is that headline inflation will fall back close to 1% by the end of the year. This is where core inflation currently stands. One should also keep in mind that the trade-weighted euro has depreciated by 8% since mid-2014 (Chart 8). To the extent that a weaker euro has put upward pressure on import prices, this has caused core inflation to be higher than it would otherwise have been. In contrast, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar has appreciated by 24% over this period. Yet, despite the diverging path between the two currencies, core inflation in the euro area remains noticeably lower than in the U.S. This is true even if one excludes housing costs from the U.S. CPI in order to make it more comparable to the European estimate of inflation. Excluding shelter, U.S. core inflation is currently 43 basis points higher than in the euro area (Chart 9). The point is that the Fed is much further along the path to monetary policy normalization than the ECB. Chart 8A Stronger Dollar Has Restrained U.S. Inflation... Chart 9...Yet Core Inflation In The U.S. ##br##Is Still Higher, Even Excluding Housing If that were all to the story, it would be enough to justify the ECB's wait-and-see approach. But there is so much more. Start with the fact that the euro area's poor demographics, high debt levels, and dysfunctional institutions all imply that the neutral rate - the interest rate consistent with full employment - is lower there than in the U.S. How does one ensure that real rates can fall to a low enough level in the event of an economic slowdown? One solution is to target a higher inflation rate. If inflation is running at 1% going into a recession, it might be impossible to bring real rates down much below -1%. But if inflation is running at 3%, real rates can fall to as low as -3%. This implies that the ECB should actually target a higher inflation rate than the Fed. Then there are the internal constraints imposed by the common currency. Countries with flexible exchange rates can adjust to adverse economic shocks by letting their currencies depreciate. That is not possible within the euro area. If one or a few countries in the region are suffering while others are not, the unlucky ones have to engineer an "internal devaluation." This requires that wages and prices in the ill-fated countries decline in relation to those in the better-performing ones. However, if inflation is already low in the latter, outright deflation may be necessary in the former, something that only a deep recession can achieve. The travails experienced by the peripheral countries over the past eight years brought home this lesson in stark and painful terms. Will Germany accept higher inflation? There is little in its recent history to suggest that it won't. Mario Draghi was not the odds-on favorite to become ECB president. That job was supposed to go to Axel Weber, the former president of the Bundesbank. Weber met with Angela Merkel on February 10, 2011. During this meeting with the chancellor, he made it clear that he did not support the ECB's emergency bond buying. Merkel balked and so the next day Weber tendered his resignation. Six months after that, ECB board member and uber-hawk Jürgen Stark quit, leaving the ECB more firmly in the control of the doves.1 Chart 10Germans Turning Radically Europhile Merkel's preference for a less hawkish ECB leadership wasn't solely based on altruistic feelings towards her European compatriots. Politically, Merkel knew full well that Germany would be blamed for the breakup of the euro area. Economically, German taxpayers also stood to lose a lot from a breakup. It is easy to forget now, but Germany spent 8% of GDP during the global financial crisis on bailing out its own banks. All that effort would have been for naught if German banks had been forced to write off billions of euros in loans that they had extended to peripheral Europe. Critically, the demise of the euro would have also saddled German exporters with a much more expensive Deutsche Mark, thus blowing a hole through the country's gargantuan current account surplus. The calculus has not changed much over the last six years. Germany may not welcome higher inflation, but the alternative is much worse. If anything, the polls suggest that German voters have become even more Europhile since the euro crisis ended (Chart 10). This gives Draghi even more free rein. For investors, this implies that the ECB is unlikely to raise rates for the next two years, and perhaps not until the end of the decade. As inflation expectations across the euro area drift higher, real rates will fall. This will push down the value of the euro. We expect EUR/USD to approach parity over the course of this year. Battle #3: Globalists Versus Populists First Brexit, then Trump, and now Le Pen? The spread between French and German 10-year government bond yields briefly touched 68 basis points in February, the highest level since the euro crisis (Chart 11). While the spread has edged down since then, investors remain on edge. Betting markets are currently assigning a one-in-three chance that Le Pen will become president, close to the odds that they were giving Donald Trump before his surprise victory (Chart 12). Chart 11Investors Worried About The Coming ##br##French Election Chart 12Will Le Pen Rule? Wanna Bet? There is little doubt that populism is in a secular "bull market." However, that doesn't mean that every populist politician is going to win every single election. For all their faults, U.S. nationwide presidential election polls were not that far off the mark. The RealClearPolitics average had Clinton up by 3.2% going into the election. She won by 2.1 points. Where the polls fell flat was at the state level. They completely underestimated Trump support in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That's not an issue in France, where the presidential vote is tallied at the national level. Le Pen currently trails Macron by 26 percentage points in a head-to-head contest (Chart 13). It is highly unlikely that she will be able to close this gap between now and May 7th, the date of the second round of the Presidential contest. The only way that Le Pen could win is if one of the two leftist candidates drops out.2 However, given the animosity between Benoit Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, that is almost inconceivable. And even if that did occur, the odds would still favor Macron slipping into the final round. As such, investors should downplay risks of a populist uprising this year. Beyond then, things are likely to get messier. At some point, Europe will face another downturn, either of its own doing or the result of an external shock. Many voters have been reluctant to vote for populist leaders out of fear that the ensuing economic turmoil could leave them out of a job. But if they have already lost their jobs, that reason goes away. Chart 14 shows the strong correlation between unemployment in various French départements, and support for Marine Le Pen's National Front. If French unemployment rises, her support is likely to increase as well. The same goes for other European countries. Chart 13Macron Leads Le Pen By A Mile Chart 14Higher Unemployment Would Benefit Le Pen In addition, worries about large-scale immigration from outside Europe will continue to work to the advantage of populist leaders. Recent immigrants and their children have sometimes struggled to integrate into European society. This has manifested itself in the form of low labor participation rates, poor educational achievement, elevated involvement in criminal activity, and high welfare usage. The problem has been especially acute in European countries with very generous welfare states (Chart 15). Chart 15Many Immigrants To Europe Are Lagging Behind The reaction of establishment parties to mounting concerns about immigration has been completely counterproductive. Rather than acknowledging the problems, they have sought to censor uncomfortable "hatefacts" and stage show trials of populist leaders - such as the one Marine Le Pen will likely be subjected to for her alleged crime of tweeting graphic photos of terrorist atrocities. This strategy will backfire and the result will be a wave of populist victories towards the end of the decade. With that in mind, investors should consider buying some gold as a long-term hedge. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe: Game Was Changed A Long Time Ago,” in a Monthly Report, “Fortuna And Policymakers,” dated October 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe – Election Update, France,” in a Weekly Report, “Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was,” dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades