Euro Area

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In November, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P in USD and in local-currency terms. For December, the model reduced its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, most of the decrease in allocation came at the expense of EM, Sweden, Netherlands, U.S., and New Zealand. The model increased its weighting in Swedish, French, U.K., and Canadian bonds. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in November, while the bond risk index improved significantly. Chart 1Model Weights Feature Performance In November, the recommended balanced portfolio lost 1.5% in local-currency terms and was down 3.4% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 1.3% for the global equity benchmark, and a 3.7% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The sharp bond selloff and weakness in EM equity markets both took a toll on the model's performance in November. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 66% to 53%, and increased its bond weighting from 26% to 47%. The allocation to cash was brought down to zero from 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model trimmed its allocation to Latin American equities by 4 points, Sweden by 3 points, and the Netherlands by 3 points. Also, weightings were reduced in U.S., New Zealand, Spanish, and Emerging Asian stocks. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Swedish paper was boosted by 12 points, France by 7 points, Canada by 5 points, the U.K. by 3 points, and Italy by 1 point. Allocation to New Zealand bonds was decreased by 6 points and U.S. Treasurys by 1 point. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of November 24, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated significantly in November following the U.S. presidential election. Our Dollar Capitulation Index spiked and is currently at levels that suggest the rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar could pause (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The momentum indicator for commodities has moved further into overbought territory, pushing up the overall risk index. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 4). The deterioration in the liquidity and momentum indicators has lifted the risk index for global equities to the highest level in over 2 years. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the fourth month in a row (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.S. stocks increased sharply in November. With stocks reaching new highs, the model trimmed its allocation to this bourse. The markets took note of the growth-positive aspects of Trump's policies, but seem complacent about the stronger dollar, higher interest rates, and the potential for trade protectionist policies (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities has ticked up slightly in November. However, unlike its U.S. peers, it remains in the low-risk zone. Above-trend growth could provide support for euro area equities. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk The risk index for Dutch equities ticked up slightly and the model has downgraded this asset. That said, the weighting in Dutch equities remains the highest among its euro area counterparts (Chart 8). Improvements in the value and momentum measures for Latin American stocks have been largely offset by a deteriorating liquidity reading. As a result, the risk index did not decline much after the selloff. The model decreased its allocation to this asset (Chart 9). Chart 8Dutch Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Latin American Stock Market And Risk Over the course of only a few months, the risk index for bonds has swung from an extremely high risk level to the low-risk zone. Momentum has been the primary driving force behind this move and currently suggests that yields could pull back in the near term (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined significantly in November. While the model used the latest selloff to boost its allocation to bonds, it preferred to add allocation to bond markets outside of Treasurys. (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk After the rise in yields, Canadian bonds are massively oversold based on our momentum measure. The extremely low-risk reading has prompted the model to allocate to this asset (Chart 12). German bonds are oversold, but the reading on the cyclical measure has become considerably more bund-unfriendly. The model opted not to include bunds in the overall boost to its bond allocation. (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13German Bond Yields And Risk The risk reading in French bonds is more favorable than for bunds. Apart from oversold momentum, the value reading has also improved. The model increased its allocation to French bonds (Chart 14). The cyclical component of the risk index for Swedish bonds keeps moving in a bond-bearish direction. But that is completely overshadowed by extremely oversold conditions. In fact, the overall risk index for Swedish bonds is the lowest within our bond universe. Much of the increase in overall bond allocation ended up in Swedish paper (Chart 15). Chart 14French Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swedish Bond Yields And Risk Following sharp gains, the 13-week momentum measure for the U.S. dollar has reached levels at which some consolidation may take place. But the recovery in the 40-week rate of change measure indicates that it would probably be a pause in the dollar bull market rather than a trend change. With the December rate hike baked in, the Fed's communication about the policy next year holds the key to the path of the dollar - in addition to the fiscal policy of the next administration (Chart 16). The Japanese yen has been a major victim of the dollar rally. The 13-week momentum measure is approaching levels that halted the yen weakening trend in 2013 and 2015. However, this time around, it is not coupled with the same signal from the 40-week rate of change measure. The BoJ is sticking to its easy monetary policy, and some additional support on the fiscal front could drag the yen lower, notwithstanding a possible hiatus in the short term. Short term the yen could benefit from an EM pullback (Chart 17). After the latest bout of depreciation, the euro seems poised for another attempt to break below 1.05. The 13-week and 40-week momentum measures do not preclude this from happening. However, it would probably take the ECB to reaffirm its dovish message to push EUR/USD technical indicators into more oversold territory (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Yen Chart 18Euro Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the FTSE100 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the pound? Stay neutral in the Eurostoxx600 versus the FTSE100. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the Nikkei225 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the yen? Overweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the Nikkei 225. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the S&P500 reduces to: will European Banks outperform U.S. Technology? Underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Feature 2016 is the year of the political shock. But for investors, some things have stayed faithfully the same. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx Vs. Nikkei Reduces To: Will Euro/Yen Weaken? Last week's report From Berlin Wall To Mexican Wall explained how the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 ushered in a great era of globalization - an era in which goods, services, capital and people have moved around the world more and more freely. Chart I-2The Globalization Of Stock Markets For investors, one major upshot is that the world's biggest companies have also become more and more globalized. The leading European stock market indexes - Eurostoxx600, FTSE100, DAX30, CAC40 and many other national indexes - are now just a collection of multinational companies with a global footprint. The same applies to major indexes outside Europe, such as the Nikkei225 and S&P500. Before the era of globalization, many companies had little exposure to economies outside their country or region of domicile. Unsurprisingly, in the 1980s, a German bank share price was more correlated with the rest of the German stock market than it was with a U.S. bank share price. But today, a large proportion of sales and profits are sourced globally. The German bank share price is now more correlated with the U.S. bank share price than it is with the rest of the German stock market! (Chart I-2) This begs the question: if Brexit and President-elect Trump are ushering in a great era of anti-globalization, will the major indexes become parochial once again? The answer is perhaps, but it will be a slow process - even assuming that the anti-globalization rhetoric does fully materialize. Sometimes, Stock Market Allocation Reduces To A Currency View For the time being, one obvious distinction between the major indexes will remain instrumental in driving performance differences. The Eurostoxx600 is denominated in euros, the FTSE100 in pounds, the Nikkei225 in yen, and the S&P500 in dollars. However, the constituent companies' sales and profits are denominated in a mixture of major global currencies, or in dollars. So all else being equal, if the local currency weakens - in other words, if other global currencies strengthen versus the local currency - then index profits will rise in local currency terms. Meaning the index value must go up. And if the local currency strengthens, the index value must go down. Simplistic as it sounds, some important asset allocation decisions just reduce to a bi-lateral currency view. Chart I-3 clearly shows that Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100 relative performance reduces to a simple question: will the euro weaken against the pound? If so, the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the FTSE100. And vice-versa. Clearly, the outlook for euro/pound has been an important question this year, and will be an equally important question next year. Chart I-3Eurostoxx Vs. FTSE Reduces To: Will Euro/Pound Weaken? Likewise, the Chart of the Week clearly shows that Eurostoxx600 versus Nikkei225 relative performance reduces to a similar simple question: will the euro weaken against the yen? If so, the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the Nikkei225. And vice-versa. Sometimes, Stock Market Allocation Reduces To A Sector View But in the case of the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500, relative performance does not reduce to the direction of euro/dollar. Since mid-2014, the euro has weakened substantially versus the dollar, yet the Eurostoxx600 has underperformed the S&P500. This is because another factor drives this relative performance pair (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Does Not ##br##Depend On Euro/Dollar... Chart I-5...Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Does Depend ##br##On Banks Vs. Technology Although major indexes are a collection of multinational companies, it doesn't follow that the sector exposures of these indexes will be the same. Comparing the Eurostoxx600 with the S&P500, the Eurostoxx600 has a marked overexposure to Banks and an especially marked underexposure to Technology (Table I-1). Table I-1Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 = Overweight##br## Banks, Underweight Technology Banks comprise 13% of the Eurostoxx600 market capitalization but only 6% of the S&P500. On the flipside, Technology comprises just 4% of the Eurostoxx600 market capitalization but a very substantial 21% of the S&P500. To repeat, multinational company share prices today are more correlated with their global sector than with their domestic stock market of listing. Recently, this has been true even for U.S. Banks - which amazingly have shown a higher correlation with European Banks than with the rest of the U.S. stock market. It follows that when two indexes are distinguished by large sector skews, these sector skews will drive relative performance. Our Special Reports Picking Countries The Right Way 1 Parts 1, 2 and 3 showed that this is the case for most head to head stock market comparisons within Europe. It is also the case for the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Put simply, for the Eurostoxx600 to outperform the S&P500 on a sustained basis, Banks must outperform Technology on a sustained basis. Or to be more precise, European Banks must outperform U.S. Technology (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Reduces To: Will European Banks Outperform U.S. Technology? Applying Reductionism To The Eurostoxx600 We can now apply investment reductionism to position the Eurostoxx600 against three other major indexes: the FTSE100, the Nikkei225 and the S&P500. 1. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the FTSE100 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the pound? For the foreseeable future, the euro/pound exchange rate hinges on the perceived severity of Brexit. In this regard, there is unlikely to be meaningful new information until the U.K. Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the legal process that the U.K. government must follow. The verdict is due in January. So for the time being, it is appropriate to stay neutral in the Eurostoxx600 versus the FTSE100. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the Nikkei225 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the yen? 2. The euro/yen exchange rate hinges on ECB/BoJ relative monetary policy. Given that the BoJ made its bold policy move a few months ago, the focus now is on whether the ECB will continue with QE beyond March 2017. Chart I-7European Banks Do Not Offer An Especially##br## Large Discount To U.S. Technology The minutes of the ECB's most recent policy meeting provide some clues. On the one hand, the central bank cautioned on the unintended consequences of extended QE: "The possible side effects of the low interest rate environment and the range of non-standard measures in place on the longer-term intermediation capacity of banks and other financial institutions had to be further examined" On the other hand, the ECB emphasised: "(QE) was set to run... in any case until the ECB saw a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim... underlying inflation, however, continued to lack clear signs of a convincing upward trend." On this basis, it seems that the ECB will extend its QE program beyond March 2017, as well as give a strong commitment to keep policy rates anchored. But the recent underperformance of the Eurostoxx600 versus Nikkei225 has discounted a sizable strengthening of euro/yen. It is appropriate to lean against this and overweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the Nikkei225. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the S&P500 reduces to: will European Banks outperform U.S. Technology? Again, the minutes of the ECB's most recent policy meeting perfectly summarized the environment for European banks: "Ongoing structural challenges to banks' balance sheets, notably arising from still high levels of non-performing loans (NPLs) in parts of the euro area banking sector, in conjunction with regulatory challenges (BRRD), and the weakness in profitability were seen to pose a risk to the transmission of monetary policy and a further recovery in credit dynamics" Or as we recently put it,2 European bank investors are fighting three long-term headwinds: BRRD, NPLs and NIRP. Yet on a price to forward earnings multiple, European Banks do not offer an especially large discount to U.S. Technology (Chart I-7). Therefore, investment reductionism says it is appropriate to underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the three European Investment Strategy Special Reports 'Picking 5 European Countries The Right Way' November 13, 2014, 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 2' March 26, 2015 and 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 3' November 12, 2015, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "All Roads Lead To Banks", dated October 6, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The recent sharp moves in markets offer another opportunity for a long plantinum / short palladium pair-trade. A similar opportunity on October 6 successfully signaled a 13% countertrend move. 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-8 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model 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 ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary agenda will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory plan will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place. We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. It will be difficult, politically, for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform. We expect a meaningful fiscal stimulus package to be passed in the U.S. that will boost growth temporarily. We cannot rule out a trade war that more than offsets the fiscal impulse. Nonetheless, Trump's desire for growth means that he may tread carefully on protectionism. A window may open next year that will favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary U.S. growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Our bias is to upgrade risk assets to overweight, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new Administration's policy intentions. In the meantime, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. The bond selloff is likely to pause until there is more concrete evidence that Congress will accept tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but global yields eventually have more upside potential. Value and relative monetary policies favor the Japanese and European stock markets versus the U.S., at least in local currencies. We are less bearish on high-yield bonds in relative terms, although we are still slightly below-benchmark. Feature Initial fears that a Trump victory would be apocalyptic for the economy and financial markets quickly morphed into an equity celebration on hopes that the Republican sweep would usher in policies that will shift American growth into high gear. Major U.S. stock indexes have broken above recent trading ranges, despite the surge in the dollar and the devastation in bond markets. Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary policies will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. In the meantime, investors should remain long the dollar and short duration within bond portfolios, although a near-term correction of recent market action appears likely. Our geopolitical strategists argued through the entire campaign that Trump had a better chance of winning than the consensus believed because he was riding a voter preference wave that is moving left. Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to white, blue collar voters by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican (GOP) orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Chart I-1Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For The Opposition The polarization of U.S. voters and comparisons with the U.K. Brexit vote are well trodden themes that we won't rehash here. The important point is that the GOP now holds both the White House and Congress. The investment implications hinge critically on how friendly Congress is to Trump's policy prescriptions. Many pundits argue that House and Senate Republican's will block Trump's ambitious tax cut and infrastructure spending plan because it would blow out the budget deficit. The reality is more complex. It will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Our post-election Special Report pointed out that, over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items.1 Moreover, the GOP is less fiscally conservative than is widely believed. Fiscal trends under the Bush and Reagan administrations highlighted that Republicans do not always keep spending in check (Chart I-1). The key pillars of Trump's campaign were renegotiating trade deals, immigration reform, increased infrastructure and defense spending, tax cuts, protecting entitlements, repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations. However, there is a big difference between election promises and what can actually be delivered. It is early going, but our first Special Report, beginning on page 19, presents a Q&A from our geopolitical team on what we know in terms of political constraints and possible outcomes in the coming year. Common Ground On Fiscal Policy We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support, as highlighted by last year's highway funding bill. Democratic senators and House Republicans have promised to work with the new President on infrastructure spending. Trump is likely to offer tax reform in exchange for his infrastructure plan. Trump wants to cut the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 39.6% to 33%), repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%). His plan also includes increased standard deduction limits and a full expensing of business capital spending. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest).2 An extra $1 trillion in infrastructure outlays over the next decade, together with a growing defense budget, could add another $100-$200 billion to total federal spending per year. The problem, of course, is that few sources of new revenue have been suggested to cover the costs of these policy changes. The Tax Policy Center's scoring of the Trump plan implies a jump in the U.S. debt/GDP ratio from 77% today to 106% in 2026. Other studies claim that the budget damage will be far less than this because government revenues will boom along with the economy. We doubt that will be the case. The outlook for U.S. trade policy is even more nebulous. Trump has threatened to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potentially place tariffs of 35% and 45%, respectively, on imports from Mexico and China (among other protectionist measures). He has even threatened to take the U.S. out of the WTO.3 These threats are no more than posturing ahead of negotiations, but Trump needs to show his base of support that he is working to "make America great again". Protectionism will probably generate more pushback from Republicans in the House and Senate than Trump's fiscal measures. The Economic Implications Of Trumponomics Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers In terms of the overall economic impact, there are many moving parts and it is unclear how much the Trump Administration will push fiscal stimulus versus trade protectionism. As discussed in the Special Report, it is possible that the tax cuts will be implemented as quickly as the second quarter of 2017, while infrastructure spending could begin ramping up in the second half of the year. However, we cannot rule out a lengthy bargaining process that would delay the economic stimulus into 2018. We doubt that Trump will get everything on his wish list. Moreover, the multiplier effects of tax cuts, which will benefit the upper-income classes the most, are smaller than for direct government spending (Table I-1). Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of what he is seeking, it could be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by up to 1% per year over a two year period. In terms of trade, Trump will undoubtedly kill the TPP immediately following his inauguration to show he means business. The President also has the power to implement tariffs without Congressional consent. It is unclear whether he can also cancel NAFTA unilaterally, but at a minimum he can impose higher tariffs and trade restrictions on Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, comments from his advisors suggest that president-elect Trump wants stronger growth above all else. This means that he may tread carefully to avoid the negative growth effects of a trade war. Some high-profile studies of the impact of the Trump economic plan paint a grim picture. The Peterson Institute points out that "withdrawal from the WTO would lead to the unraveling of all tariff negotiations and the reversion of rates to the MFN level of a preexisting agreement, conceivably all the way back to the Smoot-Hawley rates that were in effect in 1934." Another Peterson study reported the results of a simulation of the impact of returning to the Smoot-Hawley tariff levels, using a large general equilibrium global model.4 They find that U.S. real GDP would contract by about 7½%, or roughly $1 trillion. Thus, a "doomsday trade scenario" is possible, but it seems inconceivable that Trump would withdraw from the WTO given his desire for growth. More likely, he will settle for higher tariffs placed on Mexico and China. Such tariffs would undermine U.S. growth on their own, but we believe that some recent studies discussed in the press overstate the negative impact of these tariffs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest that the tariff increases would reduce U.S. real GDP by roughly 1.2%, including retaliation by Mexico and China in the form of higher tariffs on U.S. exports (see Box I-1 for more details). The negative shock would likely be stretched over a couple of years.5 Box 1 Importantly, not all of any tariff increase would be "passed-through" to U.S. businesses and households. Studies show that, historically, the pass-through of tariff increases into U.S. prices was actually quite low, at about 0.5. A large portion of previous tariff hikes have been absorbed by foreign producers as they endeavored to protect market share. This means that a 35% tariff on Mexican imports would result in a roughly 17½% rise in import prices from Mexico. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would result in a 22½% rise in import prices from China. Moreover, the import price elasticity of U.S. demand, or the sensitivity of U.S. demand to a change in the price of imported goods, is estimated to be about 1. That is, a 22½% rise in import prices from China leads to a 22½% drop in import volumes from that country. Roughly one-half of the drop in imports is replaced by purchases from other countries and one-half from U.S. sources. This so-called "expenditure switching" effect actually boosts U.S. real GDP on its own. Of course, this lift is more than offset by the fact that households and businesses suffer a loss of purchasing power due to higher import prices. Chinese and Mexican imports represent 2.7% and 1.7%, respectively, of U.S. GDP. With these figures and the elasticities discussed above, we can calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the impact of the Trump tariffs. The expenditure switching effect would boost U.S. real GDP by about 0.4%. This is offset by the purchasing power effect of -0.7% (including a multiplier of 1.5), leaving a net loss of only 0.3%. Of course, China and Mexico will retaliate by imposing higher tariffs on U.S. exports. This has a larger negative impact on the U.S. because American export volumes decline and there is no offsetting expenditure-switching effect. We estimate that retaliation with equal tariffs on U.S. exports would reduce U.S. GDP by about 1% using reasonable elasticities. Adding it all up, the proposed Trump tariffs on China and Mexico would result in a roughly 1.2% hit to U.S. real GDP. This could overstate the negative shock to the extent that the tariff revenues are spent by the U.S. government.6 Moreover, some studies of the Trump agenda assume that business spending would wither under a stronger dollar, waning business confidence and higher interest rates. We are not so pessimistic. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. Moreover, U.S. corporate capital spending has been lackluster since the Great Recession due to "offshoring". Higher tariffs would promote "onshoring", helping to lift capital spending within the U.S. economy. We are not arguing that trade protectionism will be good for the U.S. economy. We are merely pointing out that there are positive offsets to the negative aspects of protectionism, and that many studies are overly pessimistic on the impact on growth. That said, all bets are off if Trump does the unthinkable and cancels NAFTA outright and/or takes the U.S. out of the WTO. The Fed's Reaction The economic and financial market dynamics over the next couple of years depend importantly on how the Fed responds to the Trump policy mix. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked the Fed Chair and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that an investigation will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Some have raised concerns that Trump could stack the FOMC with hawks when he fills the openings next year. More likely, he will opt for doves because he will not want a hawkish Fed prematurely shutting down the expansion. The studies that warn of a major U.S. recession under Trump's policies assume that the Fed tightens aggressively as fiscal stimulus lifts the economy's growth rate. For example, the Moodys' report assumes that the fed funds rate rises to 6½% by 2018!7 No wonder Moodys' foresees a downturn that is longer than the Great Recession. No doubt, it would have been better if fiscal stimulus arrived years ago when there was a substantial amount of economic slack. With the economy close to full employment today, aggressive government pump-priming could set the U.S. up for a typical end to the business cycle; overheating followed by a Fed-induced recession. Indeed, many investors are wondering if the U.S. is overdue for a recession anyway. The current expansion phase is indeed looking long-in-the-tooth by historical standards. However, the old adage is apt: "expansions don't die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed". In Charts I-2A, Chart I-2B and Chart I-2C, we split the U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from the medium and long expansions is the speed by which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerate, and the time it takes for the unemployment rate to reach a full employment level. Long expansion phases were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession (Chart I-2C). Chart I-2ALong Chart I-2BMedium Expansions Chart I-2CA Short Expansion Of course, the Fed did not begin to tighten policy immediately upon reaching full employment in the past. The Fed began hiking rates an average of 13 months after reaching full employment in the short cycles, 30 months for medium cycles, and more than 60 months in the "slow burn" expansions (Table I-2). Even if we exclude the 1960s expansion, when the Fed delayed for too long and fell behind the inflation curve, the Fed has waited an average of 45 months before lifting rates in the other long expansions (beginning in 1982 and 1991). The longer delay compared to the shorter expansions reflected the slow pace at which inflationary pressures accumulated. During these periods, inflation-adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) expanded by an average of 25% and the real value of the S&P 500 index increased by 28%. Table I-1U.S. Expansions Can Last Long After Full Employment Is Reached The lesson is that risk assets can still perform well for a long time after the economy reaches full employment. Admittedly, however, equity valuation is more stretched today than was the case at similar points in past long cycles. Before the U.S. election, the current expansion appeared to be heading for a similar long, drawn-out conclusion. Inflationary pressures are beginning to emerge, but only slowly, and from a low starting point. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Phillips curve8 is quite flat at low levels of inflation. This implies that the Fed has plenty of time to normalize interest rates because inflation is unlikely to surge. However, a sea change in trade and fiscal policy could change the calculus. To the extent that fiscal stimulus is front-loaded relative to trade protection, and that any trade restrictions add to inflation, Trump's policy agenda could force the Fed to normalize rates more quickly. The FOMC Will Wait And See Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Yellen's congressional testimony in November revealed that the Fed is not yet preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle. There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its economic forecasts following the election. Similarly, the Fed is not making any upward revisions to its estimate of the long-run neutral rate, which remains "quite low by historical standards." The implication is that the Fed will raise rates in December, but it will keep its "dot" forecast unchanged. The FOMC is prudently awaiting the details of the fiscal package before changing its economic and interest rate projections. We doubt that the Fed will be aggressive in offsetting the fiscal stimulus. We have argued in the past that the consensus on the FOMC would not follow the Bank of Japan and officially target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, most Fed officials would not be upset if, with hindsight, they tighten too slowly and inflation overshoots modestly. The inflation target is supposed to be symmetric, which means that 2% is not meant to be a hard ceiling. Moreover, the Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have surged in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart I-3).9 Investors should continue to hold inflation protection in the bond market. A window may open sometime in 2017 in which improving economic growth is met with a cautious Fed. In this environment, we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and risk assets to outperform. The window will likely close once inflation moves up and inflation expectations converge at a level consistent with the 2% target. Bond Strategy The implications of Trump's policy agenda are clearly bond bearish, although yields have shifted a long way in a short time. The gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart I-4). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.1%, only 82 bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. The U.S. 10-year yield has already converged with two measures of fair value, although yields remain well below fair value in the other major countries according to estimates of nominal potential output growth (Charts I-5 and I-6). The fact that the gap between the Fed's dots and market expectations has almost closed, means that a lot of bond-bearish news has been discounted in the U.S. We would not be surprised to see a partial retracement of the recent bond selloff. Investors will want to see concrete plans for substantial fiscal stimulus before the next leg of the bond bear market takes place. Speculators may wish to take profits on short bond plays, but investors with a 6-12 month horizon should remain short of duration benchmarks. Chart I-4Market Expectations Converging With Dots Chart I-5Bond Fair Value Method (I) Chart I-6Bond Fair Value Method (II) On a long-term horizon, the Trump agenda reinforces our view that the secular bull market in bonds is over. Larry Summers' Secular Stagnation thesis will be challenged and investors will come to question the need for ultra-low real interest rates in the U.S. well into the next decade. A blowout in the U.S. budget deficit will temper the excess global savings story to some extent. Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, full expensing of capital goods and reduced regulation may also boost the long-run potential growth rate in the U.S. All of this suggests that equilibrium interest rates and bond yields will shift higher. Nonetheless, poor demographic trends and other impediments to both the supply- and demand-sides of the U.S. and global economies have not disappeared. The ECB is likely to extend its bond purchase program beyond next March, while the Bank of Japan has capped the 10-year JGB yield at close to zero, both of which should limit the amount by which yields in the other developed markets can rise. We could even see global yields fall back to near previous lows if the Fed winds up tightening too aggressively and sparks the next recession. Is Trump Bullish For Stocks? Chart I-7Equity Market Breakouts Developed country stock markets cheered the U.S. election outcome, presumably betting that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The main indexes in the U.S. and Japan have broken out of their trading ranges (Chart I-7). Bourses in Europe have also moved higher, but have not yet broken out. On the plus side, deregulation and stronger growth are bullish for U.S. corporate profits. Trump's proposal for a major corporate tax cut is another positive for equities, although the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at multi-decade lows. Cutting the marginal rate will thus not affect the effective rate much for large corporations. Any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises, as well as domestically-oriented S&P 500 corporations. On the negative side, dollar strength will be a headwind given that about a third of S&P 500 earnings are sourced from abroad. This raises the question of which factor will dominate profit growth over the next year; better economic growth or dollar strength? Table I-3 presents a matrix of different scenarios for the dollar and economic growth applied to our U.S. EPS model. Our base-case assumptions, implemented before the election, generated 5-6% earnings growth in 2017. We assumed that real and nominal GDP growth would be on par with the conservative IMF forecast. The bullish case assumes that real GDP growth is about a percentage point stronger, with modestly higher inflation. The opposite is assumed in the bear case. These three cases are combined with various scenarios for the dollar. The key point of Table I-3 is that the growth assumptions dominate the dollar effects. If growth is significantly stronger than the base case, then it would require a massive dollar adjustment to offset the positive impact on earnings. For example, our EPS estimate rises from 5-6% in the base case to almost 13% in the strong growth scenario, even if the dollar appreciates by 5%.10 The elephant in the room is the prospect of a trade war. Anti-globalization polices are negative for equities generally, although the boost for domestically-oriented firms provides some offset. As we argued above, higher tariffs on Mexico and China alone would not fully counteract a major fiscal push next year, especially if the trade impediments are implemented with a lag. Nonetheless, a broader anti-trade initiative that draws retaliation from many of America's trading partners cannot be ruled out. This is the main reason why we remain tactically cautious on equities. Table I-3U.S. Earnings Scenarios Country Equity Allocation In common currency terms, the U.S. equity market has a lot going for it relative to Japan and Europe. There will be spillovers from stronger U.S. growth to other countries, but the U.S. will benefit the most from Trump's fiscal stimulus plan. Continuing policy divergence will prop up the dollar, boosting returns in common-currency terms. The dollar has appreciated by about 4% in trade-weighted terms since we first predicted a 10% rise, suggesting that there is another 6% to go. Chart I-8Eurozone Still Has Lots Of Slack However, it is a tougher call in local currency terms. Monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in both Japan and Europe. As we highlighted in last month's Overview, we still expect Japan to implement a major fiscal stimulus plan. In the context of the Bank of Japan's fixing of the 10-year yield, government spending will amount to a helicopter drop policy that could generate a substantial yen depreciation. The central bank will continue to hold the yield curve down even when growth picks up, to drive real yields lower via rising inflation expectations. In the Eurozone, the ECB is likely to extend its asset purchase program beyond next March because it cannot credibly argue that inflation is on track to meet the target on any reasonable timetable. While the Eurozone economy has been growing well above trend this year, the fact that wage growth is languishing highlights that significant labor market slack persists (Chart I-8). Easy-money policies in Europe and Japan will be bullish for stocks in both markets in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Stocks are also cheaper in Japan and the Eurozone. Earlier this year, we presented a methodology for valuing Eurozone stocks relative to the U.S. from a top-down perspective. The methodology accounted for different sector weightings and the fact that European stocks generally trade at a discount to the U.S. This month's second Special Report, beginning on page 27, applies the same methodology to Japanese/U.S. relative valuation. Combining seven relative valuation measures into a single composite metric, we find that both the Eurozone and Japanese equity markets are about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). History shows that investors would have made substantial (currency hedged) excess returns if they had favored Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. on a six-month or longer investment horizon whenever our composite valuation index reached one standard deviation on the cheap side. Our recommended (hedged) overweight in Europe and Japan has not worked out yet, as tepid global growth has instead flattered the lower-beta U.S. market. That tide should turn, however, if the rise in global bond yields reflects a credibly reflationary growth pulse in the U.S. A stronger dollar would redistribute some of that growth to other countries. Chart I-10 shows that higher beta markets like Europe and Japan can outperform the U.S. when bond yields rise. The financial sectors in both Europe and Japan, so punished relative to the broad market as a result of deleveraging and negative interest rates, would then be poised to outperform as well. Chart I-9Equity Valuation Chart I-10U.S. Equities ##br##Underperform When Yields Rise Investment Conclusions: Hopes are running high that fiscal stimulus and a more business-friendly regulatory framework will stir animal spirits, rekindle business investment and lift the U.S. economy out of its growth funk. The violent reaction in financial markets to the election has probably gone too far in discounting a transformative policy change. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory agenda will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place, such as: the end of the Debt Supercycle; deteriorating demographics; elevated corporate leverage; and nose-bleed levels of government debt. A lot of good (policy) news is already discounted in equity prices, implying that the market is vulnerable to policy or economic disappointments. That said, a window may open next year that would favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Markets will front-run the growth pulse (some of it is admittedly already discounted). Our bias is therefore to upgrade these asset classes, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new administration's policy intentions. Until there is more clarity, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. EM assets appear to us like a lose-lose proposition. A trade war would obviously be disastrous for this asset class. But EM also loses if U.S. protectionism takes a back seat to growth initiatives to the extent that this results in a stronger dollar. EM risk assets have never escaped periods of dollar strength unscathed. The possibility of RMB depreciation versus the U.S. dollar adds to EM vulnerability. Our other investment recommendations include the following: avoid peripheral European government bonds within European bond portfolios due to Italian referendum risk; avoid U.S. municipal bonds, as tax cuts would devalue the tax advantage of muni debt; remain overweight inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues within government bond portfolios, as inflation expectations have more upside potential; we are marginally less bearish on high-yield bonds since better growth will temper defaults. We also see less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event. Nonetheless, concerns about corporate health still justify a slight underweight relative to Treasurys in the U.S. Overweight investment-grade corporates in Europe versus European governments due to ongoing ECB support; overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. within the U.S. equity market, remain overweight small caps since Trump's corporate tax reform will benefit small firms disproportionately. Dollar strength also favors small versus large caps. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst November 24, 2016 Next Report: December 20, 2016 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 3 World Trade Organization. 4 Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "The Payoff to America from Global Integration," Peterson Institute for International Economics. 5 These calculations capture the demand-side effects of the tariffs. There will also be supply-side effects, in terms of reduced productivity, but this will be relatively small and affect the economy largely over the medium term. 6 The elasticities and methodology for these calculations are based on the report; "Trump's Tariffs: A Dissent," J.W. Mason, November 2016. 7 "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr.Trump's Economic Policies," Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 8 The short-term tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. 9 Inflation breakeven rates have historically exceeded 2% because of the presence of risk premia. 10 The impact of dollar appreciation on profits shown in Table 3 may seem too low to some readers given that S&P 500 companies derive a third of their earnings from abroad. However, some of these earnings are hedged, while dollar strength will benefit the earnings of domestically-oriented U.S. companies. II. A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu. III. Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap? Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting intechnology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.

Highlights Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. Since 2014, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected. This remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Fiscal stimulus will be a positive development and could dominate the investment landscape for some time. But investors should not view it as a panacea for growth headwinds. Feature Investors continue to digest the ramifications of the new configuration in Washington. In this week's report, we answer the most frequently asked queries that we have received from clients. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us with yours. 1. How Has Your Forecast For Markets Changed Since November 9? We had been cautious on risk assets, we had been dollar bulls, and we had been advocating slightly underweight/neutral bond duration positions prior to the elections, as highlighted in the November 7 Weekly Report. Our cautious stance on equities, particularly large-cap stocks, has not changed. Our main worry has been that corporations continue to lack pricing power and top-line growth will struggle to grow meaningfully in 2017. In other words, profit margins are a headwind - as they often are at this point of the cycle (Chart 1). But contrary to past recoveries, persistent low growth means that top-line growth will not provide the same offset to a margin squeeze driven by rising labor costs (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Market On Fire Chart 2Profit Margin Squeeze Intact For Now Our expectations have been for earnings growth to be in the mid-single digits in 2017, with risks to the downside depending on the degree of dollar strength. True, although the above profit outlook is rather uninspiring, it does not justify an underweight allocation to equities. Monetary policy is still accommodative and a recession is unlikely. However, as the Fed drains the punchbowl, volatility will increase as the onus of equity price appreciation falls heavily on profit drivers. Leading up to the election, we made the case that any adverse reaction to a Trump win would be very short and was not the main event for financial markets on a 6-12 month time horizon. Since November 9, there has been a strong, emotional reaction to the Trump win. Our first read of potential policy outcomes is that the "new America" will be far less business-friendly than equity prices are currently suggesting. The headwinds to multinationals from trade reform and immigration constraints may well offset any positive developments from deregulation in the financial and energy sectors. Most importantly, fiscal spending is positive to the extent that new projects and spending will boost top-line growth. But as we discuss below, the violent Treasury sell-off risks crimping growth before any fiscal spending kicks in. Moreover, so far gauges of policy uncertainty have stayed subdued, but that may change quickly, given the number of unknowns ahead and potential negative reactions from other countries to the new U.S. government. Taken together, we see no reason to upgrade our view on equities. For bonds, we had been expecting that the Fed would raise rates in December, because the economic and inflation data have been sufficiently strong relative to policymakers' thresholds to proceed with a rate hike. The bond market had not been fully discounting this outcome; our view was that the 10-year Treasury could move to 2% or slightly higher, due to the re-pricing of the Fed. Our models suggested that fair value on the 10-year Treasury was around 2% and so once bond yields got that level, a trading range would be established. Treasuries were overvalued for most of this year, and a symmetric shift to undervaluation could now occur. However, we have doubts that we have entered a new bond bear market. Market expectations for U.S. interest rates are rapidly converging to the Fed's forecasts. The rise in yields should pause once the gap has closed. Finally, we have been cyclical dollar bulls for some time. Our principle reason is due to the favorable gap in interest rate differentials between the U.S. and most other major currencies. We see no reason to change our dollar bullish stance. 2. Is Fiscal Spending Really The New Panacea? Our view can be summarized as: Curb Your Enthusiasm. Fiscal stimulus is a positive development. Since the early days of the Great Recession, monetary policymakers have been working alone. Monetary policy has become ineffective at boosting growth, and currency depreciation only shifts growth between countries, it does not create more. Fiscal spending is an opportunity to increase the "GDP pie." But as we wrote two weeks ago, the type of fiscal spending matters, a lot. Income tax cuts on high income earners as well as corporate tax cuts tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Equally important is the interest rate regime that coincides with fiscal stimulus. When an economy is near full employment and there is a risk that above trend growth will create inflation, central banks tend to react, and thus dull the force of the initial stimulus. That is the current economic scenario. The bottom line is that fiscal spending will give a fillip to GDP growth for a few quarters in late in 2017 and perhaps in 2018, but investors should be careful in assuming that fiscal spending will meaningfully change the long-term U.S. growth trajectory as it is not a solution for structural headwinds, such as an aging population. Chart 3Can The Economy Handle Higher Yields? 3. What Can We Monitor To Understand The Direction Of Policy With Trump As President? Cabinet appointments will be a key area of interest for financial markets. These personnel will ultimately help shape Donald Trump's policy path. There will likely be many rumors about potential appointments, but we believe it is best to ignore near-term noise and focus on Trump's announcements in December and the Senate's official appointments in January. 4. How High Can Bond Yields Get Before The Sell-off Becomes Economically Damaging? The economic backdrop has improved over the past two years and is much closer to full employment. Thus, underlying economic growth is better positioned to withstand a rise in yields. For example, better job prospects and security will allow prospective homeowners to better absorb higher mortgage rates. Still, investors should note that some equity sectors have already responded to the tightening. Chart 3 shows that home improvement stocks are underperforming significantly. What has changed is the greater role of the currency in overall monetary condition tightening. Indeed, the tightening in monetary conditions over the past twelve months has been principally due to the dollar rise. Our U.S. fixed income team's model of fair value for government bonds is based on global PMIs as a proxy for growth, policy uncertainty, and sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The current reading suggests that 10-year Treasuries are fairly valued when at around 2.25%. Note that fair value has been moving higher in recent weeks on the back of better global economic news. Since 2014, i.e. the start of the dollar rally, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected (Chart 4). We think this remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Chart 4How Long Can Equities Shrug Off Rising Bond Yields? 5. Deregulation And Other Pro-Business Reforms Will Surely Spur Improved Business Confidence And Investor Animal Spirits? We are unsure. History has shown that periods of deregulation (the 1980s and 1990s especially) were conducive to high equity market returns and strong business growth, so this is indeed a positive factor. But there is a lot that can go wrong. Allan Lichtman, a political historian who has correctly predicted all of the past eight Presidential elections, is now predicting that Trump will be impeached within the next four years, due to previous improper business dealings. If that were to occur, we would expect market sentiment to be negative, closely akin to the Worldcom and Enron accounting scandals, which shook faith in the role of the public company CEO. One important gauge will be the global uncertainty index (Chart 5). Uncertainty leads to an increase in risk aversion, and can spur a flight into the safety of government bonds. So far, readings are benign, but should be monitored closely. Chart 5Beware A Rise In Uncertainty 6. What Are The Prospects For Fed Rate Hikes? We don't expect a major shift in the message from the Fed (i.e. the Fed dot plots) until monetary policymakers have better visibility on what the fiscal landscape will look like (Chart 6). Chart 6Fed Will Wait And See Janet Yellen's testimony last week indicates that a December rate hike is almost a certainty. However, there was no hint that the Fed is preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle thereafter. Her assessment of the economy was balanced, noting that growth improved to 3% in Q3 from 1% in H1, but downplayed the full extent of the rebound due to a rise inventories and a surge in soybean exports. She described consumer spending to be posting "moderate gains," business investment as "relatively soft," manufacturing to be "restrained" and housing construction as "subdued." There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its growth and inflation forecasts following last week's election. Yellen expects growth to continue at a "moderate pace" and inflation to return to 2% in the "next couple of years." Larger budget deficits would likely prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively, but for now, their bias is still to manage asymmetric downside risks. 7. Where Would You Deploy New Funds Today? Into cash. Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. If the new American government succeeds in implementing a pro-business strategy of lower corporate taxes, increased infrastructure spending, a lighter regulatory burden for the financial services industry, while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform, foreign policy blunders, and general decline in economic and policy uncertainty, then perhaps the current risk-on market moves make some sense. However, that is a massive list, especially for a new President without political experience. In other words, markets have overshot and policy is likely to under-deliver. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. 8. You Like Small Caps, But Are Cautious On High Yield Corporate Credit. These Two Markets Tend To Perform Similarly. Can You Comment? Historically, the absolute performance of small caps and high-yield corporate bond spreads have been tightly negatively correlated. This is because owning both investments tend to be considered a risk-on strategy. But over the past several years, this relationship has weakened and particularly, the correlation between high-yield corporate bond spreads and relative performance of small/large caps has loosened (Chart 7). This is in part because small cap sector weightings are now more closely aligned with large cap weightings. In other words, the S&P 600 index is no longer overly exposed to cyclical relative to the larger cap weightings. Chart 7Small Caps Are A Winner We expect small caps to outperform S&P 500 companies because they tend to have a domestic focus and will be more insulated from a rise in the dollar. As well, small caps, by virtue of being more geared to domestic growth, will benefit from ongoing better U.S. growth rates than global markets. Relative profit margins proxies favor small caps as well. 9. Is There A Structural Bear Market In Voter Turnout In The U.S.? A certain number of headlines have quoted a drastically lower turnout numbers for the 2016 election than in 2012. This has been reinforced by a theory of a structural downturn in voter participation. Both statements are incorrect. Early estimates for this year's election show that approximately 58.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, down from 58.6 percent in 2012.1 Note that these are just estimates. It is plausible that any decline in voter turnout in 2016 is due to the extreme unpopularity of both candidates (Chart 8). It is unlikely that this experience will be repeated in future elections. As for the longer-term picture, as Chart 9 shows that voter turnout had been, in fact, rising steadily since 2000. Chart 8Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History Chart 9Americans Like Voting, Just Not These Candidates 10. What Are Your Expectations For Upcoming Elections In Europe? A narrative has emerged in the financial industry since Donald Trump's victory and the U.K.'s decision to leave the EU: there is a structural shift towards anti-establishment movements. But we feel this is overstated. France is a case in point as Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), is reportedly enjoying a tailwind. To be sure, she can win the 2017 Presidential election, but her probability of winning has been inappropriately inflated following the U.S. election and, according to our Geopolitical experts, is approximately only 10%.2 Because Marine Le Pen is going to face off against an "establishment" candidate, she offers the alternative to the status quo that the French are seeking. But she is trailing her likely second round opponent, Alain Juppé, by around 40% in the polls. Le Pen is sticking to her negative views on the EU and euro membership. That is a formidable obstacle, since 70% of the French support the euro. The bottom line is that we do not believe that the U.S. election has had a meaningful influence on European voters. Developed nations across the globe are struggling with the same structural issues such as low growth and income inequality. It should not be surprising that common reactions and responses are occurring in various countries. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please See "United States Elections Project," available at http://www.electproject.org/2016g. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?," dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights As western society has become increasingly ethnically diverse, identity politics have flourished. Technological developments have facilitated this trend by giving like-minded people the opportunity to live in their own social bubbles. The U.S. median voter is moving to the left, while the median European voter may be set to move rightward. The "Great Transatlantic Political Convergence" is afoot. Structurally favor European over U.S. stocks. Trump's victory means more fiscal stimulus and less regulation, but could also lead to a stronger dollar and a rising threat of protectionism. Feature Lessons From Papua New Guinea As far as first jobs out of college go, one could do worse than being asked to fly first class to various tropical islands around the world. Such was my luck when I joined the IMF 16 years ago. After a brief stint in the Caribbean division, I began to cover the South Pacific, first working as the desk economist for Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is about as close to a Stone Age society as one will find on earth. It has a long history of violence. If two strangers meet while trekking through the mountainous terrain, the custom is to begin the conversation by listing one's relatives until a match is found. Without a common ancestor, there is little reason not to kill the other guy. Due to the country's long history of cannibalism, a portion of the population has developed a genetic resistance to Mad Cow Disease, which is spread through the consumption of infectious prions contained within the brain and other body parts. Like many societies, Papua New Guinea is highly tribal. Not unrelatedly, it is also one of the most corrupt. I once asked a local friend of mine why this was so. His response was both disheartening and revealing. The people did not want to send honest leaders to Parliament, he explained. They preferred to elect someone from their own tribe who would use his influence to extract as much wealth as possible, with the understanding that a portion of the booty would be shared with fellow tribe members. There were no philosophical differences between members of Parliament. It was simply a question of whose team you were on. What makes Papua New Guinea's political system interesting is not that it is unique, but that it is the norm. Politics in most countries is about identity, not ideology. And now the U.S. and much of Europe are moving in that direction. The Return Of Identity Politics If one looks past the vitriol, one of the most striking features of the U.S. presidential campaign was the lack of disagreement between Trump and Clinton over a wide range of substantive issues. Both candidates campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Both pledged not to cut sacred entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Both played up the other's Wall Street connections. Neither championed an aggressively interventionist foreign policy, with Trump, if anything, moving to the left of Clinton on the issue. Where the gulf between the two candidates was most apparent was over classic identity issues, the chief of which was immigration. Young people often assume that the Left has always supported freer immigration policy. Not so. It wasn't that long ago that Bernie Sanders described "open borders" as a "Koch Brothers idea." In 2000, The New York Times penned an editorial opposing efforts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants on the grounds that it would depress working class wages.1 Why did things change? It wasn't because voting preferences shifted all that much. As Chart 1 shows, Hispanics have preferred Democrats over Republicans by roughly the same 30-to-40 percentage-point margin for the past 40 years. What changed was that the Hispanic share of all eligible voters rose from 4% in 1980 to 13% today, and is expected to increase to 18% in 2032 (Chart 2). For the Democrats, the allure of millions of new supporters has been simply too good to pass up. Chart 1Voting Preferences By Ethnicity ##br##In Presidential Elections Chart 2The Eligible Voters Of The Past,##br##Present, And Future For the Republicans, the transformation of the U.S. into a more ethnically diverse society has led to an existential crisis of sorts. Many top Republican officials, ever focused on the next election campaign, have sought to reach out to Hispanic voters, often by talking up the prospect of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The fact that open borders means lower wages for less-skilled workers has also ensured a steady flow of campaign donations into party coffers from a variety of business interests who rely on cheap labor.2 In contrast, a large chunk of the Republican base has opposed any effort to increase the size of a voting bloc that historically favored the other party, especially if such efforts lead to lower wages. Nationalism Versus Globalism Chart 3The Huddled Masses Keep Coming The U.S. has a long history of successfully integrating immigrants. Consider the once prominent Catholic/Protestant split, which was driven in large measure by the overwhelming tendency for Irish Americans to vote Democrat. Richard Nixon won 63% of the white Protestant vote in 1960, but still lost the election due to the fact that 78% of Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy.3 By the late 1960s, the Catholic/Protestant split began to recede, to the point where few people are now aware that it ever existed. There is a good chance that the current immigration wave will prove to be no different. That being said, full integration can take a long time - the Irish, for example, overwhelmingly favored the Democrats for more than a century. Three other things complicate the picture. First, the current wave is much larger than any previous one (Chart 3). Second, it is much more ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it is coming at a time when government policy has moved away from fostering assimilation towards encouraging multiculturalism. As multiculturalism has gained ascendency, the traditional glue that held countries together - nationalism - has frayed. For many, this has been a welcome development. Nationalism produced two world wars and countless other bloody conflicts. Much better, it is argued, to replace squabbling nation states with regional institutions such as the European Union, or better yet, global bodies such as the United Nations. The problem is that it is very difficult to get people to expand their circle of loyalty by decree. Thomas Friedman famously asked in 2002: "Is Iraq the way it is today because Saddam Hussein is the way he is? Or is Saddam Hussein the way he is because Iraq is the way it is?"4 We now know that the answer was the latter. From this perspective, the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East is a natural reaction to the vacuum created by the collapse of pan-Arab nationalism. Many of today's leaders have a lot of trouble seeing this point. For them, globalism is a natural creed. What they miss is that they themselves have formed a unique subculture that makes this possible. Today's cosmopolitan elite attend the same schools, read the same books, enjoy the same movies, eat at the same restaurants, and in most cases, can easily converse in the same language: English. They are as much at home on the streets of Manhattan as they are on the streets of London and Hong Kong. However, put them in Cynthiana, Kentucky and they become a fish out of water. In short, they are multicultural only in the narrow ethnic sense of the word. In all other respects, they are the same tribe. Political Polarization Is Growing Chart 4Inequality Breeds Polarization This leads us to the crux of the problem. Today's political elites have been trying to subvert nationalist feelings without offering the masses a sufficiently attractive alternative. This has allowed once-dormant tribal cleavages to make a comeback. Technology has exacerbated this trend. When I came to Canada as a young refugee in 1979, there were just a handful of television networks to choose from, all of which were more or less the same. Today, there are hundreds of channels and countless websites. Social media has become ubiquitous. While refreshing in many respects, this trend has allowed people to live in their own social bubbles, leading to the fraying of the cultural bonds that hold society together. In some cases, it has facilitated the radicalization of impressionable youth, often with dire consequences. The polarization in the cultural realm has been mirrored in the political arena.5 According to political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is currently at its highest level since World War II (Chart 4). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension. Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study documented that the middle ground between Republican and Democratic voters is breaking apart (Chart 5). This has led to growing mutual distrust. Chart 6 shows that 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now regard the other party as a threat to the nation's well-being. Chart 5U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart 6Increasing Animosity Gerrymandering, or "redistricting," as it is euphemistically called, has made things worse. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart 7). For most incumbents, the threat is not from the other party, but from their own. As former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor learned the hard way when he lost to primary challenger Dave Brat in 2014, failing to tow the ideological line can carry a heavy price. Needless to say, such a system discourages bipartisan cooperation. Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats Trump And The Markets After a brief selloff, risk assets have rallied hard on the heels of Trump's victory. As we discussed in greater detail last week,6 a Trump administration will mean more fiscal stimulus - chiefly in the form of lower taxes and increased infrastructure and defense expenditures - as well as a softer line on energy and financial sector regulation. Republicans are also likely to push for greater private-sector involvement in health care. Equity investors should not rejoice too much, however. Trump's saber rattling over trade issues is bad news for many multinational companies. In addition, larger budget deficits are likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively. This will push up bond yields, reducing the relative attractiveness of stocks. Higher rates will also put upward pressure on the dollar. The real broad trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 3% since the election and 4% since we published "Three New Controversial Calls: Trump Will Win And The Dollar Will Rally" on September 30th.7 We expect the dollar to rise by another 7% from current levels. Chart 8Immigrants Want More Government Services A Leftward Shift In The U.S. Median Voter Perhaps more worrisome, as my colleague Marko Papic discussed in a recent report, Trump's victory signals that America's political center is moving to the left.8 The Republican Party is likely to become increasingly populist. Pro-business Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton could also turn out to be a dying breed. The future may belong more to politicians such as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown. As Wayne Gretzky likes to say, we need to look at where the puck is going, not where it has been. As noted above, this trend partly reflects demographic factors. Immigrants tend to favor redistributionist policies (Chart 8). As such, it is not surprising that California, a once solid Republican state, has become reliably Democratic. In this sense, the transformation of the U.S. electorate has parallels with the extension of the voting franchise to women in 1920. Economists John Lott and Larry Kenny have shown that this led to a substantial leftward shift in political outcomes.9 Ethnic voting preferences, however, are only one part of the story, and perhaps not even the most important part. As a larger share of the general population approaches retirement, resistance to cutting Social Security and Medicare will increase. To pay for these programs, taxes will rise. In addition, slower productivity growth and high levels of income inequality will make voters less enthusiastic about capitalism. The fact that all of this is happening in the aftermath of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression will only serve to sour free-market sentiment. The Great Transatlantic Political Convergence There are many commonalities in political trends between Europe and the United States, but also a number of critical differences. Unlike those in the U.S., European immigrants still represent a small fraction of the electorate. Their integration into labor markets is also much worse, especially in European countries with generous welfare systems (Chart 9 and Chart 10). This suggests that public support for lavish welfare programs may begin to wane, particularly in northern Europe. As Chart 11 shows, this is already happening in the U.K. Chart 9Low Levels Of Immigrant ##br##Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe Chart 10Immigration Is Straining Generous ##br##European Welfare States Chart 11British Attitudes Towards Welfare ##br##Recipients Have Hardened Other forces will also lead to a partial rollback of the European welfare state.10 The euro crisis brought home the lesson that countries with high levels of public debt are especially vulnerable to speculative attacks when they no longer have their own printing press. Going forward, euro area governments will continue trying to pay back debt in order to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. In an environment of high capital and labor mobility, fiscal tightening is likely to come more from spending cuts than tax hikes. The failure of France's "millionaire tax" to raise significant new revenue illustrates this point. The loss of an independent monetary policy that comes with having a common currency will also make it more difficult for euro area states to maintain generous welfare programs. If a country cannot respond to an adverse economic shock by cutting rates or devaluing its currency, it must perform an "internal devaluation" instead. However, successful internal devaluations require a high degree of wage and price flexibility. Generous unemployment insurance programs, high minimum wages, and strong unions are anathema to that. This is bad news for many European workers, but good news for European corporate interests. The net effect of all these changes is that European politics are likely to move to the right, while U.S. politics will move to the left. The Great Transatlantic Political Convergence is afoot. This suggests that European equities should outperform their U.S. counterparts over the long haul. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 "Hasty Call For Amnesty," The New York Times, February 22, 2000. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "The Immigration Debate: What It Means For Investors," dated February 27, 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Michael Barone, "Race, Ethnicity, And Politics In American History," in Beyond the Color Line: New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America, Hoover Institution Press (2002): pp. 343-358. 4 Thomas L. Friedman, "Iraq Without Saddam," The New York Times, September 1, 2002. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trumpenproletariat Strikes Back," dated November 11, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 John R. Lott and Larry Kenny, "Did Women's Suffrage Change The Size And Scope Of Government?," Journal Of Political Economy, Vol. 107: 6 (part 1), (December 1999): pp. 1163-1198. 10 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The End Of Europe's Welfare State," dated June 26, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends* Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The 50bps spike in the JPM global government bond yield since August constitutes one of the most aggressive tightenings since the Great Recession. Higher bond yields weaken credit growth, and weaker credit growth almost always depresses subsequent GDP growth. Maintain at most a neutral weighting to equities. Lean against the aggressive sell-offs in Healthcare, Consumer Goods, Telecoms and government bonds. Lean against the aggressive rally in Financials. Feature November 9 is an important date in the annals of history. November 9, 1989 was the day that the Berlin Wall came down. Chart of the WeekGlobalization Has Been Good For Profits, Bad For Wages Through 1961-89, the Berlin Wall divided a city. More significantly, it symbolized a divided world. So when the wall came down on November 9, 1989, it marked a new era of globalization. Goods, services, capital and people started to move around the world much more freely, resulting in greater efficiencies and lower costs. In developed economies, profits surged. Using the United States as an example, in the 27 years since the Berlin Wall came down, stock market real earnings per share have gone up 200% (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Backdrop For Populism But globalization has exacted a heavy price: the pressure on wages means that in the 27 years since the Berlin Wall came down, U.S. median household real income has gone up just 10%. By comparison, in the 28 years that the Berlin Wall stood, the median household real income went up 60% (Chart of the Week). November 9 is also the date that Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States. So exactly 27 years after one symbolic wall fell, is another one about to go up? Will Mr. Trump's promised wall with Mexico symbolize a new era of anti-globalization, and a reversal of the economic and financial trends since the Berlin Wall came down? Flaws In The Trump Plan Economists are almost unanimous that protectionism, trade barriers and tariffs - in other words, "building walls" - depresses long-term global growth. It is conceivable that protectionism could help some parts of the U.S. economy, though other parts might lose out as trading partners retaliated. It is inconceivable that protectionism would be good for the world economy as a whole. Chart I-3One Of The Most Aggressive Tightenings ##br##Since The Great Recession But what about Trump's noise about fiscal stimulus, and specifically infrastructure spending - why would anybody not get excited about that? The two word answer is: crowding out. If a dollar that is borrowed and spent by the government (or even forecast to be borrowed and spent by the government) pushes up the bond yield (Chart I-3), it makes it more expensive for the private sector to borrow and spend. If, as a result, the private sector scales back its borrowing by a dollar, the dollar of government spending would have no impact on GDP. This is because the dollar of government spending has crowded out a dollar of private sector spending. The fiscal multiplier would be zero. But doesn't the euro area debt crisis provide compelling evidence of the power of fiscal thrust and a very high fiscal multiplier? No, not exactly. The fiscal multiplier was high through the debt crisis because euro area austerity - a fiscal tightening - very unusually coincided with sharply rising bond yields - which killed private sector borrowing. In other words, fiscal tightening and private sector tightening were reinforcing each other. Through 2009-12, when the euro area debt crisis escalated, the relationship between fiscal tightening and growth in GDP per capita in 13 sampled economies had a near-perfect explanatory power (r-squared of 0.9); and its slope of 1.5 indicated an extremely high average fiscal multiplier (Chart I-4). But through 2012-15, after Mario Draghi "did whatever it takes" the unusual combination of fiscal tightening and higher bond yields no longer existed, and both the explanatory power of the relationship and fiscal multiplier collapsed (Chart I-5). Chart I-4A Very Strong Connection Between Fiscal Policy And Growth Through 2009-12... Chart I-5...But No Connection Between Fiscal Policy And Growth Through 2012-15 The lesson is that the efficacy of fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending crucially depends on its impact on the bond yield - and thereby on private sector borrowing. Now note that the 6-month increase in the U.S. (and global) 10-year bond yield constitutes one of the sharpest tightenings since the Great Recession. Higher borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the 6-month credit impulse (Chart I-6). A weaker 6-month credit impulse then almost always depresses subsequent 6-month GDP growth (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Higher Borrowing Costs Depress##br## Credit Growth... Chart I-7...And Weaker Credit Growth Depresses ##br##Subsequent GDP Growth So yes, fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending could be effective as long as the bond yield is anchored, as it is in Japan. But if the bond yield goes up sharply, the consequent drag from the private sector will partly or entirely negate any putative boost from the government. Explaining Market Shocks And Electoral Shocks In his seminal book Thinking, Fast And Slow psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman1 proposed that the human brain has evolved two separate and independent systems for decision making: a fast, rapid-response, associative way of thinking which he calls "System 1" and a slow, analytical, measured way of thinking which he calls "System 2". The two ways of thinking, fast and slow, have evolved to protect us from two types of threat to our survival: immediate, and long-term. Thousands of years ago, the immediate threat to survival might have been a sudden noise in the bushes suggesting that a predator was stalking. Today, for a bond investor, the immediate threat might be a sudden noise about aggressive U.S. fiscal stimulus, suggesting that the end of deflationary pressures is nigh. Faced with this immediate but uncertain threat, using the slow and measured thinking of System 2 could be fatal. So we obey the fast-thinking, associative, emotional System 1 and run for cover - or sell bonds. Thousands of years ago, a long-term threat might have been a war of attrition against an enemy tribe. Today, for the bond investor, the long-term threat might be the end of the debt super cycle, suggesting that deflationary pressures will persist. Faced with this long war of attrition, an over-reliance on the impulsive decisions of System 1 could also be fatal. We must use the measured analysis and strategies of slow-thinking System 2. Kahneman's System 1 and 2 is also an excellent framework to help explain how the simple messages of the Brexiteers and Donald Trump led to stunning success at the ballot box. Faced with job destruction and stagnant real wages, many people intuitively believe that less globalization, less competition and less immigration must mean more jobs and a better standard of living. Associative and emotional System 1 immediately identifies with simple messages such as "take back control" or "build a wall". The success of the Brexiteers and Donald Trump was to acknowledge the deep malaise that many people are feeling and offer simple and intuitive cures. To be absolutely clear, this is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of the Brexiteers or Donald Trump, but simply an explanation of why their message hit home. Still, as we have argued, the more analytical and measured System 2 will find that the simple and intuitive cures that the Brexiteers and Donald Trump offer are not the panaceas that they might first seem. The Immediate Investment Decision Short-term traders generally use the rapid-response, associative, emotional System 1 for their decision making. Long-term investors generally use the slow, analytical, measured System 2. But after a shock, disoriented long-term investors may also switch from System 2 to System 1 and just follow the herd. Eventually though, System 2 switches back on, and the excessive herding and trend-following reverses. At the moment, several sector trends are at or near such a point of reversal according to our excessive groupthink indicator (Chart I-8, Chart I-9, Chart I-10, Chart I-11, Chart I-12). Chart I-8Healthcare Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-9Consumer Goods Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-10Telecoms Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-11Financials Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-12Government Bond Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Specifically, on a 3-month trading view, we would lean against the aggressive sell-offs in Healthcare, Consumer Goods, Telecoms and government bonds; and we would lean against the aggressive rally in Financials. More generally, what does the Trump victory mean for European equities? In today's highly-connected financial markets, mainstream investments in Europe overwhelmingly depend on global developments, and not on parochial issues. The dominant components of the Eurostoxx600, FTSE100, DAX30, CAC40, AEX, SMI, and other major indices, are multinationals with a truly global footprint. So the answer rests on two subsidiary questions: What does the Trump victory mean for global monetary conditions? What does the Trump victory mean for global growth? As already mentioned, global monetary conditions have tightened significantly in recent months, and in accelerated fashion after the Trump victory. The 50bps tightening in the JPM global government bond yield since August constitutes one of the sharpest 3-month spikes since the Great Recession. But as in previous cases, the spike may be self-limiting given its squeeze on credit sensitive sectors and emerging markets. Since August, the dividend yield on equities is little changed - meaning that equities have become more expensive relative to bonds. But this is hard to justify as short-term growth prospects have, if anything, worsened. To repeat the powerful messages from Chart 6 and Chart 7, higher bond yields weaken credit growth; and weaker credit growth almost always depresses subsequent GDP growth. Putting all this together, asset allocators should maintain at most a neutral weighting to equities. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2002 for his work on decision making. Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. After the big recent moves in markets, four open positions were closed at their trading-rule limits, two at profit targets, two at stop-losses. 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 1-13 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model 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##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights The polls were not wrong in the Brexit and U.S. election cases, pundits were; Marine Le Pen is trailing her likely second round opponent by around 40%; She can win, but her probability of winning has been inappropriately inflated following the U.S. election; Buy EUR/USD if the euro breakup risk premium spikes again; we are not there yet, but may be soon. Feature There are two narratives that have emerged in the financial industry since the Trump victory: Polls are inaccurate and cannot be trusted. Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), has a high probability of winning the 2017 presidential election in France. In this brief Client Note, we want to address both of these narratives as they will be central to investors in 2017 - a year when Europe will hold three (maybe four) crucial elections. The French election - set to take place on April 23 and May 7 - is the most important geopolitical event of 2017. We have already addressed the election in some detail in our November Monthly Report and will continue to follow it closely for our clients.1 Polls Were Not Wrong, Pundits Were The polls did not get Brexit wrong, the pundits did. If anything, the polls were showing the Brexit camp comfortably ahead throughout the first two weeks of June. It was only once MP Jo Cox was tragically murdered on June 16 that polls favored the "Stay" vote for the last week of the vote. But on the day of the vote, the "Stay" camp was ahead by only 4%. That should not have given investors the level of confidence they had in the pro-EU vote. The probability of Brexit, in other words, should have been a lot higher than the 30% imbued by the betting markets (Chart 1). We made a case for alarm early in 2016 based on a fundamental analysis of the British electorate.2 Chart 1AOnline Betting Got Brexit Wrong... Chart 1B... Not The Polls Similarly, the national polls in the U.S. election were not wrong. Rather, the pundits and quantitative models overstated the probability of a Clinton victory. What the modelers missed is the unfavorable structural backdrop for Clinton: the challenges associated with one party holding the White House for three terms, lackluster economic growth, lukewarm approval ratings for Barack Obama, and the presence of third-party challengers. We addressed these, as well as Trump's "White Hype" strategy, early on in the electoral process.3 In addition, the modelers ignored that American polls have a consistent track record of underestimating, or overestimating, performance by about 3% (Chart 2). And crucially, that the 2016 election was different in that the level of undecided voters was nearly triple the average of the previous three elections (Chart 3).4 Chart 2Election Polls Usually##br## Miss By A Few Points Chart 3More Undecided ##br##Voters This Time Around Our quantitative and qualitative models were telling us throughout the election that the race would be close. Our model gave Trump a 41% chance of winning on the day of the election, a very high estimate versus other prognosticators. We used the exact same polls incorporated in the quantitative models of the New York Times, Reuters, and FiveThirtyEight.com. But ours did better. As we said on November 1, a Donald Trump victory would not be some sort of mathematical oddity. It wasn't. Bottom Line: The polls in both the Brexit referendum and the U.S. election were close. Yes, they overstated the establishment probability of victory. But not by an extraordinary figure. Marine Le Pen Can Win, But What Is Priced In? Marine Le Pen is going to face off against an "establishment" candidate in the second round of the French election on May 7. As such, she definitely can win the election. Once Le Pen becomes one of the two candidates contesting the election, her probability of winning is certainly not zero. However, her probability is not over 10% either. At least not yet. She is trailing her likely opponent, Alain Juppé, by around 40% in the polls (Chart 4). And yes, we are aware that Donald Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by 20% in July 2015. But there are significant differences between Trump and Le Pen: Marine Le Pen is not a political "unknown." She was her party's presidential candidate in the 2012 election. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, contested elections in 2007, 2002, 1995, and 1988. The National Front has contested elections in France since the 1970s. Voters know what they are getting with Le Pen. As we have repeatedly stressed to clients, Marine Le Pen's personal approval rating peaked in 2012 (Chart 5). She peaked despite the European refugee crisis, multiple terrorist attacks in France, and sluggish economic growth over the past two years, which should have all helped boost her popularity. Why haven't they? France conducts a two-round electoral system, primarily to prevent anyone like Marine Le Pen from coming to power. For Le Pen to win, she has to have millions of French centrist voters swing to her, rather than to her centrist opponent, in the second round. Chart 4Are Polls Underestimating Le Pen By 40%? Chart 5Le Pen's Popularity In A Secular Decline The last point is a critical problem for Le Pen as she refuses to change her rhetoric toward the EU and euro membership. The problem for Le Pen is that 70% of the French support the euro (Chart 6). Leaving the euro area would mean redenomination risk for Baby Boomer retirees, default on sovereign debt, higher interest rates, higher inflation, and an immediate economic recession. Judging by the high level of support for the euro, we suspect that the French population understands these risks.5 We therefore do not doubt that Marine Le Pen is a long-shot to win the French elections. Her subjective probability of winning is around 10%. For it to improve, we would have to see: Dramatic, and immediate upward momentum in her poll figures, particularly relative to likely centrist opponents in the second round. Le Pen's probability of victory would increase if she faced an unpopular centrist politician. For example, if the incumbent President François Hollande wins the late January primary of the French Socialist Party, and somehow manages to get into the second round. Similarly, if ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy wins the November 20-27 primary of the Republicans. Both primary elections are a two-round affair. Investors will know the center-right candidate by the end of November. A re-start of the refugee crisis, which has abated significantly since October 2015 (Chart 7). We expected the crisis to unwind and clients can read our September 2015 report titled "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," to see why.6 Marine Le Pen changes her stance on EU membership or the currency union. On the other hand, such a rhetorical shift would cease to differentiate her from the other center-right policymakers in France. Chart 6French Support The Euro Chart 7Read Our Chart: Migration Crisis Is Over Bottom Line: Marine Le Pen can win the 2017 election in France. But she remains a long-shot. The only way that Donald Trump and Brexit increase the probability of Marine Le Pen is if the polls are systemically wrong. This is not the case. Marine Le Pen would have to narrow her gap with centrist politicians to 3-5% for us to adjust our probability. Of course, the French could decide to vote for Marine Le Pen because they want to be like Americans and British. We would advise clients not to hold their breath expecting that one. Investment Implications Investors may wake up in mid-2017 to find that the U.K. is firmly on its way out of the EU and that the U.S. is embroiled in deepening political polarization. Meanwhile, France and Spain will be led by reformist governments, Italy will remain in the euro area, and Germany will be mid-way through a rather boring electoral campaign that features pro-euro establishment parties. What is keeping the European establishment in power? In early 2016, we argued that it was its large social welfare state. Unlike the laissez-faire economies of the U.S. and the U.K., European "socialism" has managed to redistribute the gains of globalization sufficiently to keep the populists at bay. As such, European voters are not flocking to populist alternatives, despite considerable challenges such as the migration crisis and terrorism. We encourage clients to re-visit our argument, which we elaborated on in our April Special Report titled, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?"7 Populists are gaining votes in Europe nonetheless. To counter that trend, we should expect to see Europe's establishment parties turn more negative towards immigration, positive on fiscal activism, and more assertive towards security and defense policy. But on the key investment-relevant issue of euro area membership and European integration, we see the public consensus continuing to support the status quo. Given our sanguine view, any upward movement in French sovereign debt yields or downward move in the euro could reflect an overstated euro breakup risk premium. We will monitor these assets carefully, since an entry point could develop for investors willing to bet against euro area dissolution. Betting against headline risks has certainly paid dividends in Europe since 2010. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Europe: Election Fever Continues," in Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "It Ain't Over Till The Fat Man Sings," dated November 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 In other words, we do not understand why the French population would otherwise support the common currency, if it were not for the risks of leaving it. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

BCA will be holding the Dubai session of the BCA Academy seminar on November 28 & 29. This two-day course teaches investment professionals how to examine the economy, policy, and markets; and also makes links between these important factors. Moreover, it represents a great networking opportunity for all attendees. I look forward to seeing you there. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights Donald Trump's victory represents a sea-change for U.S. politics as well as the economy. His expansionary fiscal policy, to be implemented as the labor market's slack evaporates, will boost demand, wages, and will prove inflationary. The Fed will respond with higher rates, boosting the dollar. EM Asian currencies will bear the brunt of the pain. Commodity currencies, especially the AUD, will also be significant casualties. EUR/USD will weaken in the face of a strong greenback, but should outperform most currencies. Key risks involve gauging whether the Fed genuinely wants to create a "high-pressure", economy as well as the potential for Chinese fiscal stimulus. Feature Trump's electoral victory only re-enforces our bullish stance on the dollar. A Trump presidency implies much more fiscal stimulus than originally anticipated. Therefore, the Fed will not be the only game in town to support growth. This strengthens our view that, on a cyclical basis, the OIS curve still underprices the potential for higher U.S. interest rates. In a Mundell-Fleming world, this suggests a much higher exchange rate for the greenback. Additionally, Trump's protectionist views are likely to hit EM economies - China in particular - harder than DM economies. We continue to prefer expressing our bullish dollar view by shorting EM and commodity currencies. Is Trump Handcuffed? Trump's victory reflects a tidal wave of anger and dissatisfaction with the current state of the U.S. economy. Most profoundly, his candidacy was a rallying cry against an increasingly unequal distribution of economic opportunities and outcomes for the U.S. population. As we highlighted last week, since 1981, the top 1% of households have seen their share of income grow by 11%. In fact, while 90% of households have seen their real income contract by 1% since 1980, the top 0.01% of households have seen their real income increase more than five-fold (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The (Really) Rich Got Richer In this context, Trump's appeal, more than his often-distasteful racial or gender rhetoric, has been his talk of protecting the middle class. But, by losing the popular vote, are his hands tied? Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, surmises in a Special Report1 sent to all BCA's clients that it is not the case. First, Trump's victory speech emphasized infrastructure spending, indicating that this is likely to be his first priority. As Chart I-2 illustrates, there is a lot of room for the government to spend on this front. At 1.4% of GDP, government investment is at its lowest level since World War II. Furthermore, according to the Tax Policy Institute, Trump's current plan includes $6.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years. Second, the Republican Party now controls Congress as well as the White House. Not only has the GOP historically rallied around the president when all the levers of power are in the party's hands, but also, the Tea party has been one of Trump's most ardent supporters. Hence, Trump's program is unlikely to be completely squelched by Congress. Third, the GOP is most opposed to government spending when Democrats control the White House. When Republicans are in charge of the executive, the GOP is a much less ardent advocate of government stringency, having increased the deficit in the opening years of the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Room To Increase##br## Infrastructure Spending Chart I-3Republicans Are Fiscally Responsible ##br##When It Suits them Finally, international relations are the president's prerogative. While there are legal hurdles to renegotiate treaties like NAFTA, Trump can slap tariffs easily, rendering previous arrangements quite impotent. Though protectionism has not been highlighted in Trump's victory speech, the topic's popularity with his core electorate highlights the risk that trade policies could be impacted. Bottom Line: Trump has a mandate to spend and got elected because of his policies that support the middle class. His surprise victory represents a sea-change, a move the rest of the Republican establishment will not ignore. Therefore, we expect Trump to be able to implement large-scale fiscal stimulus. Economic Implications To begin with, Trump is a populist politician. While populism ultimately ends badly, it can generate a growth dividend for many years. Nowhere was this clearer than in 1930s Germany, where Hitler's reign yielded a major economic outperformance of Germany relative to its regional competitors (Chart I-4).2 Government infrastructure spending played a large role in this phenomenon. Also, the Reagan era shows how fiscal stimulus can lead to a boost to growth. From the end of the 1981-82 recession to 1987, U.S. real GDP per capita outperformed that of Europe and Japan, despite the dollar's strength in the first half of the decade. Fascinatingly, the U.S. GDP per capita even outperformed that of the U.K., a country in the midst of the supply-side Thatcherite revolution (Chart I-5). This suggests that the U.S's economic outperformance was not just a reflection of Reagan's deregulatory instincts. Chart I-4Populism Can Boost Growth Chart I-5Reagan Deficits Boosted Growth Too Unemployment is close to its long-term equilibrium, and the hidden labor-market slack has greatly dissipated. Additionally, one of the biggest hurdles facing small businesses is finding qualified labor. In the context of a tight labor market, we anticipate that Trump's fiscal stimulus will not only boost aggregate demand directly, but will also exert significant pressures on already rising wages (Chart I-6). Compounding this effect, if Trump does indeed focus on infrastructure spending, work by BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy service shows that this type of stimulus offers the highest fiscal multiplier (Table I-1).3 Chart I-6Stimulating Now Will Feed Wage Growth Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Additionally, a retreat away from globalization, and a move toward slapping more tariffs and quotas on Asia and China would be inflationary. Historically, falling inflation has coincided with falling tariffs as competitive forces increase. This time, with the output gap closing, and the tightening labor market, decreasing the trade deficit could arithmetically push GDP above trend, accentuating wage and inflationary pressures. Finally, for households, a combination of rising wages, elevated consumer confidence, and low financial obligations relative to disposable income could prompt a period of re-leveraging (Chart I-7). Moreover, the median FICO score for new mortgages has fallen from more than 780 in 2013 to 756 today, an easing in lending standard for mortgages. All the factors above suggest that U.S. growth is likely to improve over the next two years, driven by the government and households. It also points towards rising inflationary pressures. As we have highlighted before, the more the economy can generate wage growth to support domestic consumption, the more it becomes resilient in the face of a stronger dollar. The tyranny of the feedback loop between the dollar and growth will loosen. This environment would be one propitious for the Fed to hike interest rates as the economy becomes less dependent on lower rates for support. In the long-run, the Trump growth dividend is likely to require a payback, but this discussion is for another day. Bottom Line: Trump is likely to boost U.S. economic activity through fiscal stimulus, especially infrastructure spending. Since the slack in the economy is now small, especially in the labor market, this increases the likelihood that the Fed will finally be able to durably push up interest rates (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Household Debt Load Can Grow Again Chart I-8Vanishing Slack = Higher Rates Currency Market Implications The one obvious effect from a Trump victory is that it re-enforces our core theme that the dollar will strengthen on a 12 to 18-months basis as the market reprices the Fed's path. However, we expect Asian currencies to be viciously hit by this new round of dollar strength. For one, compared to the drubbing LatAm currencies received, KRW, TWD, and SGD are only trading 13%, 9%, and 15% below their post 2010 highs. Most importantly though, EM Asia has been the main beneficiary of 35 years of expanding globalization. Countries like China or the Asian tigers have registered world-beating growth rates thanks to a growth strategy largely driven by exports (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Former Winners Become Losers Under Trump We expect these economies and currencies to suffer the most from Trump's retribution and from a continued structural underperformance of global trade. China, Korea, and co. are likely to be hit by tariffs under a Trump administration. Also, under a Trump administration, the likelihood of implementation of new international trade treaties is near zero. Therefore, the continuous expansion of globalization of the previous decades is over, and may even somewhat reverse. Furthermore, a move toward a more multipolar world, like the interwar period, tends to be associated with falling trade engagement. Trump's desire to diminish the global deployment of U.S. troops would only add to such worries. Regarding the RMB, the picture is murky. On the one hand, the RMB is trading 4% below fair value and does not need much devaluation from a competitiveness perspective. However, Chinese internal deflationary pressures, courtesy of much overcapacity, remain strong (Chart I-10). Easing these pressures requires a lower RMB. Moreover, the offshore yuan weakened substantially in the wake of Trump's victory, yet the onshore one did not, suggesting that the PBoC is depleting its reserves to support the currency. This tightens domestic liquidity conditions, exacerbating the deflationary forces in the country. Chart I-10Plenty Of Excess Capacity In China This means that China is in a bind as a depreciating currency will elicit the wrath of president Trump. The risk is currently growing that China will let the RMB fall substantially between now and January 20. Such a move would magnify any devaluating pressures on other Asian exchange rates. While it is difficult to be bullish MXN outright on a cyclical basis when expecting a broad dollar rally, the recent weakness in MXN is overdone. Mexico has not benefited nearly as much from globalization as Asian nations. Also, after a 60% appreciation in USD/MXN since June 2014, even after the imposition of tariffs, Mexico will still be competitive. Even then, the likelihood and severity of any tariffs enacted on Mexico might be exaggerated by markets. In fact, President Nieto's invitation to Trump last summer may prove to have been a particularly uncanny political move. Investors interested in buying the peso may want to consider doing it against the won, potentially one of the biggest losers from a Trump presidency. Outside of EM, the AUD is at risk. Australia sits in the middle of the pack in terms of economic and export growth during the globalization era, but it is very exposed to Asian economic activity. Historically, the AUD has been tightly correlated with Asian currencies (Chart I-11). Adding insult to injury, Australia is a large metals producer, which means that Australia's terms of trade are highly levered to the Chinese investment cycle, the main source of demand for iron ore, copper, etc. (Chart I-12). With China already swimming in over capacity, unless the government enacts a new infrastructure package, Chinese imports of raw materials will remain weak. Chart I-11AUD Will Suffer If Asian Currencies Fall Chart I-12China Is The Giant In The Room The NZD is also likely to suffer against the USD. The currency's sensitivity to the dollar strength and EM spreads is very high. However, we expect AUD/NZD to remain depressed. The outlook for relative terms of trades supports the kiwi as ag-prices will be less impacted by a slowdown in Chinese capex than metals. Additionally, on most metrics, the New Zealand economy is outperforming that of Australia (Chart I-13). The CAD should beat both antipodean currencies. First, it is less sensitive to the U.S. dollar or EM spreads than both the AUD and the NZD, reflecting its tighter economic link with the U.S. We also expect some softer rhetoric and actions from Trump when it comes to implementing trade restrictions with Canada than with Asia. Finally, while we are very concerned for the outlook for metals, the outlook for energy is superior. Yes, a strong greenback is a headwind for oil prices, but a Trump presidency is likely to result in strong household consumption. Vehicle-miles-driven growth would remain elevated, suggesting healthy oil demand from the U.S. Meanwhile, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects the drawdown in global oil inventories to accelerate, particularly if Saudi Arabia and Russia can agree on a 1mm b/d production cut at the upcoming OPEC meeting at the end of the month, which is bullish for oil (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Stronger Kiwi Domestic Fundamentals Chart I-14Better Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil We also remain yen bears. The isolationist stance of Trump is likely to incentivize Abe to double down on fiscal stimulus, especially on the military. Japan is currently massively outspent on that front by China (Chart I-15). With the BoJ pegging policy rates at 0% for the foreseeable future, the yen will swoon on the back of falling real yields. Moreover, if our bearish stance on Asian currencies materializes itself, this will put competitive pressures on the yen, creating an additional negative. For the euro, the picture is less clear. The euro remains the mirror image of the dollar, so a strong greenback and a weak euro are synonymous. Additionally, Trump stimulus, if enacted, will ultimately result in higher nominal and real yields in the U.S. relative to Europe, especially as the euro area does not display any signs of being at full employment (Chart I-16). That being said, the euro is currently very cheap, supported by a current account surplus, and the ECB might begin tapering asset purchases in the second half of 2017. Combining these factors together, while we remain cyclically bearish on EUR/USD - a move below parity over the next 12-18 months is a growing possibility - the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and even the yen. We are looking to buy EUR/JPY, especially considering the skew in positioning (Chart I-17). Chart I-15Japan Will Spend More On Its ##br##Military With Or Without Trump Chart I-16European Labor Market##br## Slack Is Evident Chart I-17EUR/JPY Has##br## Room To Rally Finally, the outlook for the pound remains clouded until we get a better sense of the High Court's decision on the government's appeal regarding the need for a Parliamentary vote on Brexit. We expect the court's decision to re-inforce the previous ruling, which means that the pound could strengthen as the probability of a "soft Brexit" grows. The resilience of the pound in the face of the recent dollar's strength points to such an outcome. Risk To Our View And Short-Term Dynamics The biggest risk to our view is obviously that Trump's fiscal plans never pan out. However, since our bullish stance on the dollar predates Trump's electoral victory, we would therefore remain dollar bulls, albeit less so. Nonetheless, limited fiscal stimulus would likely cause a temporary pullback in the dollar. Chart I-18A Mispricing Or A Signal? Another short-term risk is the Fed. Currently, inflation expectations in the U.S. have shot up. If the Fed does not increase rates in December - this publication currently thinks the FOMC will increase rates then - the dollar will fall as this move will put downward pressures on U.S. real rates. This is especially relevant as the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield stands at 2.8%, in line with the Fed's estimate of the long-term equilibrium Fed funds rates as per the "dots". A big risk for our EM / commodity currency view is China. China may not respond to Trump by aggressively bidding down the CNY before January 20. Instead, to counteract the negative effect of Trump on Chinese export growth, China might instigate more fiscal stimulus, plans that always have a large infrastructure component. The recent parabolic move in copper needs monitoring (Chart I-18). Bottom Line: A Trump victory is a massive boon for the dollar. However, because Trump represents a move away from globalization, the main casualties of the Trump-dollar rally will be Asian currencies and the AUD. The CAD and the NZD will also undergo downward pressures, but less so. Finally, while EUR/USD is likely to fall, the euro will outperform EM currencies, commodity currencies, and the yen. As a risk, in the short-term, an absence of Fed hike in December would represent the biggest source of weakness for the dollar. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 To be clear, while we do find some of Trump comments over the past year highly distasteful, we are not suggesting that he is a re-incarnation of Hitler or that his presidency is doomed to end in a massive global conflict. It is only an economic parallel. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We're going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it." - U.S. President Elect Donald Trump (November 9, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "I'm very skeptical as far as further interest rate cuts or additional expansionary monetary policy measures are concerned -- over time, the benefits of these measures decrease, while the risks increase" - ECB Executive Board Member Sabine Lautenschlaeger (November 7,2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "In order for long-term interest rate control to work effectively, it is important to maintain the credibility in the JGB market through the government's efforts toward establishing sustainable fiscal structures" - BoJ Minutes (November 10, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "[The impact of a weak pound on inflation]... will ultimately prove temporary, and attempting to offset it fully with tighter monetary policy would be excessively costly in terms of foregone output and employment growth. However, there are limits to the extent to which above-target inflation can be tolerated" - BOE Monetary Policy Summary (November 3, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Inflation remains quite low...Subdued growth in labor costs and very low cost pressures elsewhere in the world mean that inflation is expected to remain low for some time" - RBA Monetary Policy Statement (October 31, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Weak global conditions and low interest rates relative to New Zealand are keeping upward pressure on the New Zealand dollar exchange rate. The exchange rate remains higher than is sustainable for balanced economic growth and, together with low global inflation, continues to generate negative inflation in the tradables sector. A decline in the exchange rate is needed" - RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler (November 10, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We have studied the research and the theory behind frameworks such as price-level targeting and targeting the growth of nominal gross domestic product. But, to date, we have not seen convincing evidence that there is an approach that is better than our inflation targets" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (November 1, 2016) Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We don't have a fixed limit for growing the balance sheet; it's a corollary of our foreign exchange market interventions - which we conduct to fulfill our price stability mandate" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Banks' capital ratios have doubled since the financial crisis and liquidity has improved. At the same time, some aspects of the Norwegian economy make the financial system vulnerable. This primarily relates to high property price inflation combined with high household indebtedness" - Norges Bank Deputy Governor Jon Nicolaisen (November 2, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "...the weak inflation outcomes in recent months illustrate the uncertainty over how quickly inflation will rise. The Riksbank now assesses that it will take longer for inflation to reach 2 per cent. The upturn in inflation therefore needs continued strong support" - Riksbank Minutes (November 9, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The credibility of ECB QE is set to diminish, one way or another. Stay long euro/dollar. Expect a continued compression in the German Bund yield spread versus the U.S. T-bond. Until the U.K. Supreme Court provides further legal clarity about the Brexit process, expectations for a softer Brexit should prop up the pound. In which case, the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the FTSE100 and the FTSE250 will outperform the FTSE100. Feature Nobody saw Brexit coming on June 23, and few saw a President Trump coming on November 8. Just as in the days after June 23, financial markets are trying to regain a footing after another political earthquake. The dust will settle. Our geopolitical strategists will provide a post-election analysis in a separate report. In this report, we would like to look through the immediate haze and focus on three major institutions whose policy options and degrees of freedom were becoming constrained, irrespective of the U.S. election shock. The institutions are: the ECB, the Federal Reserve, and the U.K. government. Chart of the WeekExpected Policy Rate Differential Drives ##br##The German Bund Yield Spread Versus The U.S. T-Bond The ECB Is Facing A Lose-Lose Decision Central bank quantitative easing (QE) remains one of the most misunderstood concepts within economics and finance. Contrary to the popular myth, it is not the central bank's asset purchases per se that matter. If the central bank's act of buying assets works at all, it is because QE signals a long period of ultra-low interest rates ahead.1 This then reduces the yields on other financial assets through the so-called "portfolio balance channel." Chart I-2Through 2011-13 Markets Interpreted A Lower ##br##Flow Of QE As A Monetary Tightening As Fed Chair Janet Yellen succinctly explains, once there is ample liquidity in the banking system: "QE has no discernible economic effects aside from those associated with communicating the central bank's commitment to the zero interest rate policy" The fundamental point is that the precise amount and asset-class composition of a QE program does not matter. The program just has to be large enough to demonstrate a credible commitment to ultra-low rates. But once a central bank establishes a monthly purchase amount, for example, the current €80bn for the ECB, the flow becomes an anchor. Financial markets then interpret a decrease in that monthly flow as a weakening commitment to ultra-low rates: in effect, a monetary tightening (Chart I-2). On the other hand, if the monthly asset-purchase promise goes on indefinitely, it also loses credibility. The financial markets know full well that there is only a finite pool of safe-assets that the central bank can buy, as the recent experience of the Bank of Japan testifies. For the ECB, the so-called "degrees of freedom" are even more limited than for the Bank of Japan. Asset purchases are constrained by politically determined upper-limits to individual euro area country exposure and by liquidity determined upper-limits to individual financial asset exposure. Hence, the ECB now faces a lose-lose decision. If it signals an intention - even a delayed intention - to taper its €80bn monthly flow of QE, the financial markets will interpret it as a de facto tightening. But if it does not signal an intention to taper it will have to use more and more smoke, mirrors, and chicanery to justify how it can keep delivering on its promise to buy. Bottom Line: one way or another, the credibility of ECB QE is set to diminish. The Federal Reserve's Track Record In Predicting Its Own Policy Is Abysmal To take a position on the euro/dollar exchange rate or the yield differential between German Bunds and U.S. T-bonds, we must now consider the other central bank in the equation: the U.S. Federal Reserve. When it comes to predicting the stance of its own monetary policy, the track record of the Federal Reserve is nothing short of abysmal. The Federal Reserve's famous dot forecasts have consistently missed the mark. In fact, they have not even come close to the mark. Just two years ago, the median Fed dot was predicting ten rate hikes by now (Chart I-3). Yes, seriously - ten! Chart I-3Two Years Ago, The Median Fed Dot Was Predicting Ten Rate Hikes By Now In its own defence, the Fed might respond that its monetary policy is "data-dependent" or even "events-dependent", and that this contingency prevented it from hiking the ten times that it had forecast. That's fine. But it then raises a bigger question about credibility. If central bank policy is contingent, then is it really possible to give credible forward guidance on the level of interest rates stretching out years ahead? We think not. Indeed, by publishing dots that turn out to be so consistently and deeply wrong, the central bank is seriously damaging its own credibility and authority. Rather than relying on Federal Reserve dots or market forecasts, investors must make up their own minds about the likely path of the Fed funds rate. For bond investors, the medium-term question is: at what level will the policy rate peak in this tightening cycle? This is because at the peak of the tightening cycle, the 0-10 year yield curve tends to be more or less flat (Chart I-4). In other words, the 10-year bond yield ends up eventually trading at the same level at which the policy rate peaks. After the election shock, the knee-jerk response has been a higher 10-year T-bond yield, and this direction may continue in the near-term. But further out, the question is: will the Fed funds rate peak above or below where today's 10-year T-bond yield of 1.9% implies that it will peak? We think below. Note that a first and second interest rate hike interspersed by a full year is unprecedented in modern economic history. And now, even the intended second hike in December might be in jeopardy. Given that the Fed has struggled to get two 25bps hikes through in two years, the idea that it will succeed in hiking another four or five times in this tightening cycle really does not seem credible to us. Bottom Line: Combined with the diminishing credibility of ECB QE, stay long euro/dollar (Chart I-5); and expect a continued compression in the German Bund yield spread versus the U.S. T-bond. In other words, maintain the pair-trade: long T-bonds, short German bunds (currency hedged) (Chart of the Week). Chart I-4At The Peak Of A Tightening Cycle, ##br##The 0-10 Year Yield Curve Is Flat Chart I-5Expected Policy Rate Differential##br## Drives Euro/Dollar The U.K. Government Has Had Its Wings Clipped The U.K. Government is another institution that has suffered a huge blow to its credibility and authority. Prime Minister Theresa May brazenly thought that she could start the legal process to exit the EU using the so-called 'royal prerogative', the power granted to governments to make certain decisions without a vote from parliament. But as we presciently warned two weeks ago in The Pound: Next Stop $1.10 Or $1.35,2 the U.K. High Court has judged the government does not have the authority to overturn domestic law - in this case, the European Communities Act (1972) and European Union Act (2011) - without obtaining parliamentary approval. The irony is that the sovereignty of the U.K. Parliament is the very thing that Brexiteers supposedly are fighting for. The High Court has clipped the U.K. Government's wings by deferring the Article 50 trigger to parliament. The government is appealing the High Court decision at the Supreme Court whose verdict is expected in January. But given that the government itself concedes that the Article 50 trigger will irrevocably change domestic law, it is hard to see how the government will win the appeal. Hence, there is a high likelihood that Members of Parliament will get to scrutinise the government's negotiating hand before it is allowed to fire the Brexit starting gun. Given that the precise form of Brexit has huge implications for British people's economic future and legal rights, parliament could water down or delay Brexit before voting it through. Bottom Line: Until the Supreme Court provides further legal clarity3 in January, expectations for a softer Brexit should prop up the pound. In which case: the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the FTSE100; the FTSE250 will outperform the FTSE100; U.K. retailers, travel and real estate equities will outperform the U.K. market; but U.K. goods exporters will underperform (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6A Soft Or Hard ##br##Brexit... Chart I-7...Determines The Prospects ##br##For Most U.K. Assets Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Because while an asset-purchase program is underway, it would be difficult to raise rates. 2 Published on October 27 2016 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 3 The Supreme Court will judge the government's appeal against the High Court decision. If the appeal is lost, it may also judge what type of parliamentary approval is required to trigger Article 50: a full Bill or a simple Resolution. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade is to go long U.K. healthcare versus the market. 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-8 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model 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 ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights De-globalization is accelerating. Europe is holding together, with populism in check. China power consolidation reflects extreme risks. Brexit is more likely, not less, after court ruling. Feature Chart I-1America Has Soured On Globalization The world woke up on Wednesday to President-elect Donald J. Trump. It will take time for the markets to digest the new regime in Washington D.C., but something tells us that it will not be business-as-usual over the next four years. We give our post-mortem assessment in the enclosed In Focus Special Report, starting on page 28. The divisive campaign reached epic lows in decorum and polarization, but both candidates did have one major thing in common: They shared a negative view of globalization, representing a paradigm shift in geopolitics and macroeconomics. Investors often take policymakers to be agents of political supply. Political rhetoric is taken seriously, analyzed, and its implications for various assets are discussed with confidence. But this approach gets the causality all wrong. Politicians are merely supplying what the political marketplace is demanding. In those terms, Donald Trump was not an agent of change. He was merely a product of his environment. So what is the American median voter demanding? Judging by the success of Donald Trump - and Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary race - the answer is less free trade, more government spending, and a promise to keep entitlement spending at current, largely unsustainable levels. Americans empirically support globalization at a lower level than the average of advanced, emerging, or developing economies (Chart I-1). What is the problem with globalization? In our 2014 report titled "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," we argued that globalization was under assault due to three dynamics:1 Deflation is politically pernicious: Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history and thus exerted a strong deflationary force (Chart I-2). A persistently low growth environment that flirts with deflation is unacceptable for the majority of the population in advanced economies. Citizens have already experienced a combination of wage suppression and debt escalation. And while globalization produced disinflationary forces on the price of labor and tradeable goods, it has done little to check the rising costs of education, health care, child care, and housing (Chart I-3), which cannot be outsourced to China or Mexico. Chart I-2Globalization Was A Major Supply-Side Shock Chart I-3You Can't Ship Daycare To China The death of the Debt Supercycle: The 2008 Great Recession shifted the demand curve inward. BCA coined the "debt supercycle" framework in the 1970s to characterize the overarching trend of rising debt in a world where political leaders, with the Great Depression and Second World War in the back of their mind, continually resorted to reflationary policies to overcome each new recession. However, the 2008 economic shock permanently shifted household preferences in the West, reducing demand by turning consumers into savers (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B). This contributes to the global savings glut and reinforces the deflationary environment. Chart I-4AGlobal Demand Engine ... Chart I-4B...Is Not Coming Back Multipolarity: Global leadership by a dominant superpower can overcome ideological challenges and demand deficiencies by providing a consumer of last resort. In game-theory terms, such a global hegemon acts as an exogenous coordinator, turning a non-cooperative game into a cooperative one. But in today's world, geopolitical and economic power is becoming more diffuse. We know from history that intense competition between a number of leading nations imperils globalization (Chart I-5). This is particularly the case in a low-growth environment. Geopolitical and economic multipolarity increase market risk premiums. Chart I-5Multipolarity Imperils Globalization These factors imperiled globalization well before Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and Nigel Farage came to dominate the news flow in 2016. The macroeconomic and geopolitical context guaranteed that anti-globalization rhetoric would prove successful at the ballot box. Chart I-6Sino-American Macroeconomic Symbiosis Ended##br## In 2008 Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over In addition to these structural challenges to globalization, the next U.S. administration will also have to handle the increasingly complex Sino-American relationship. The future of the post-Bretton Woods macroeconomic and geopolitical system will be decided by these two great powers. And we fear that both economic and geopolitical tensions will worsen.2 China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart I-6). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth - moving the economy up the value chain. Or, they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers to trade - to defend their domestic market from competition.3 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West. The problem with this choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into global trade (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open up its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle class, which makes China potentially the world's second largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism.4 What should investors expect in a world that has less globalization, more populism, and rising Sino-American tensions? We think there are five structural investment themes afoot: Chart I-7Globalization And MNCs: A Tight Embrace Inflation is back: Globalization has been one of the most important pillars of a multi-decade deflationary era. If it is imperiled, political capital will swing from capitalists to the owners of labor. Sovereign bonds are not pricing in this paradigm shift, which is why investors should position themselves for the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market."5 We are long German 10-year CPI swaps as a strategic play on this theme. USD strength: The market got the USD wrong. Trump is not bad for the greenback. More government spending and higher inflation will allow U.S. monetary policy to be tighter than that of its global peers. Furthermore, U.S. policymakers will not look to arrest the dollar bull market. "Main street" loves a strong dollar, particularly U.S. households and consumers. King Dollar will be the righteous agent of plebeian retribution against the patrician corporations used to getting their way on Capitol Hill. And finally, more geopolitical risk will mean more safe haven demand. RMB weakness: China needs to depreciate its currency in order to ease domestic monetary policy and is therefore constrained by its slowing and over-leveraged economy. But in doing so, it will export deflation and ensure that a trade war with the U.S. ensues. In addition, China's EM peers will suffer as their competitiveness vis-à-vis their main export market - China - declines. We expect that China will hasten its ongoing turn towards protectionism itself. This means that if investors want to take advantage of China's rise, they should buy Chinese companies, not the foreign firms looking to grab a share of China's middle-class market. Long defense stocks: Global multipolarity is correlated with armed conflict. We have played this theme by being long U.S. defense / short aerospace equities. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, recommends investors initiate a structural overweight in the global defense index.6 Long SMEs / Short MNCs: A world with marginally less free trade, and marginally more populism, will favor domestically oriented sectors. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the U.S., for example. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have particularly benefited from free trade and laissez faire economics. The relationship between globalization and S&P 500 operating earnings has been tight for the past 50 years (Chart I-7). Not anymore. In the new environment, investors will want to be long domestically-oriented sectors and economies against externally-oriented ones. These are structural themes supported by structural trends. We would have recommended these five investment themes irrespective of who won the U.S. election. In this Monthly Report, we focus on leadership races around the world. Our In Focus section gives a post-mortem on the U.S. presidential election. The rest of this Global Overview focuses on upcoming elections in Europe (as well as the December 4 Italian constitutional referendum) and the impending Chinese leadership rotation in 2017. We also give our two cents on recent developments related to Brexit in the U.K. Europe: Election Fever Continues Chart I-8Italian Referendum: Likely A 'No' The Netherlands, France, Germany, and potentially, Italy could all hold elections over the next 12 months, a recipe for market volatility. These four countries are part of the EMU-5 and account for 71% of the currency union's GDP and 66% of its population. Should investors expect a paradigm shift? We think the answer is yes, but surprisingly, not towards more Euroskepticism. Our view is that continental Europe - unlike its Anglo-Saxon peers, the U.K. and the U.S. - is actually moving marginally towards the center.7 The median voter in Europe is not becoming more Euroskeptic and even appears to support modest, pro-business, structural reforms! Wait... what? Indeed. Read on. Italy The constitutional referendum being held on December 4 remains too close to call, although we suspect that it will fail (Chart I-8). However, we doubt very much that the defeat of the government's position will initiate a sequence of events that takes Italy out of the euro area. As we argued in a recent Special Report titled "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," Italian policymakers are using Euroskepticism to extract concessions from Europe. But Italy is structurally constrained from exiting European institutions because of its bifurcated economy.8 Moreover, a failed referendum outcome is not a strategic risk to Europe: Euro support: Italians continue to support euro area membership, albeit at a lower level than in the past (Chart I-9). As such, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) has political reasons to become less opposed to euro area membership, as its anti-establishment peers have done in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Bicameralism: If the constitutional referendum fails, then the Senate will remain a fully empowered chamber in the Italian Parliament. Given Italy's complicated electoral laws, M5S will be unable to capture both houses in Italy's notoriously bicameral legislative body, unless it does very well in the next election. But M5S has consistently trailed the incumbent, pro-establishment Democratic Party (PD) in the polls (Chart I-10). Sequence: As Diagram I-1 shows, the contingent probability of the December constitutional referendum leading to an Italian exit from the euro area is 1.2%. Chart I-9Italy & Euro: OK (For Now) Chart I-10Italy: Euroskeptics Peaking? Diagram I-1From Referendum To Referendum: Contingent Probability Of Italy ##br##Leaving The Euro Area Following The Constitutional Referendum Vote Investors should not translate our sanguine view into a positive view of Italy. As we outlined in the above-cited Special Report, we remain skeptical that Italy can improve its potential growth rate by boosting productivity. But there is a big leap between more-of-the-same in Italy and a euro area collapse. The Netherlands The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) is set to perform poorly in the upcoming March 15 Dutch election. Polls suggest that it will roughly repeat its 10% performance from the 2012 election (Chart I-11). This is extremely disappointing given its polling earlier in the year. PVV's support has collapsed recently, most likely the result of the immigration crisis abating (Chart I-12) and the Brexit referendum in June. Many Dutch may be interested in casting a protest vote against the establishment, but a large majority still support euro area membership (Chart I-13). As such, they are put off by the vociferous Euroskepticism represented by the PVV. Chart I-11The Netherlands: Euroskeptics Collapsing Chart I-12Read Our Chart: Migration Crisis Is Over Chart I-13The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair The Netherlands is a very important euro area member state. Its economy is large enough that its views matter, despite its small population. Euroskepticism in the Netherlands is notable, but it does not mean that the country's leadership will contemplate a referendum on membership. More likely, the establishment will seek to counter the populist PVV by becoming stricter on immigration and looser on budget discipline. Investors can live with both. France The French election is a two-round affair that will be held on April 23 and May 7. The key question is who will win the November 20 primary of the center-right party, Les Républicains, formerly known as the Union for a Popular Movement. According to the latest polls, former Prime Minister (1995-1997) Alain Juppé is set to win the primary over former President Nicolas Sarkozy (Chart I-14). Who is Alain Juppé? The 70-year old has been the mayor of Bordeaux since 2006, but he is better remembered for the failed social welfare reforms (the Juppé Plan) that caused epic strikes in France back in 1995. He is pro-euro, pro-EU, and pro-economic reforms. In other words, he is everything that Brexit and Trump/Sanders/Corbyn are not. According to the latest polls, Juppé is a heavy favorite against the anti-establishment candidate Marine Le Pen (Chart I-15). This is unsurprising as Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013, as we have been stressing to clients for years (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Please Google Alain Juppe... Chart I-15...The Next President Of France Chart I-16Le Pen's Popularity In A Secular Decline Why has Le Pen struggled to gain traction in an era of terrorism, migration crises, and the success of anti-establishment peers such as Brexiters and Donald Trump? There are two major reasons. First, she continues to oppose France's membership in the euro area, despite very large support levels for the common currency in the country (Chart I-17). Second, she is holding together a coalition of northern and southern National Front (FN) members. This coalition pins together a diverse group. Northern right-wing FN members are more akin to their Dutch peers, or the "alt-right" movement in the U.S. They are anti-globalization, anti-political correctness (PC), and anti-immigration - specifically, further immigration of Muslims to France. However, this northern FN faction is ambivalent on social issues such as homosexuality (in fact, many of Le Pen's closest advisors from the north of France are openly gay), and they oppose Islam from a position that Muslim immigrants are incompatible with French liberal values. The southern FN faction is far more traditionally conservative, drawing their roots from the old anti-Gaullist, staunchly Catholic right wing. When Le Pen loses the 2017 presidential election, it will spell doom for the National Front. The only thing holding the two factions together is her leadership. Therefore, not only is France likely to elect a pro-reform president from the political establishment, but also its anti-establishment, Euroskeptic movement may be facing an internal struggle. Germany The German federal election is expected to be held sometime after August 2017. Chancellor Angela Merkel faces a decline in popularity (Chart I-18) and a challenge from the populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which performed well in two Lander (state) elections this year. Nonetheless, the migration crisis that rocked Merkel's hold on power has abated. As Chart I-12 shows, migrant flows into Europe peaked at 220,000 last October and began to plummet well before the EU-Turkey deal that the press continues to erroneously cite as the reason for the reduction in migrant flows. As we controversially explained at the height of the crisis, every migration crisis ultimately abates as border enforcement strengthens, liberal attitudes towards refugees wane, and the civil wars prompting the flow exhaust themselves.9 Germany's centrist parties maintain a massive lead over the upstart AfD and Die Linke, the left-wing successor of East Germany's Communist establishment (Chart I-19). However, AfD's successes in Mecklenburg West Pomerania and Berlin have prompted investors to ask whether it will garner greater national support in the general election. Chart I-17France & Euro: Loveless Marriage,##br## But Together For The Kids Chart I-18Merkel's Popularity Has Suffered,##br## But Stabilized Chart I-19There Is A##br## Lot Of Daylight... We doubt it. Both states are sort of oddballs in German politics. For example, Mecklenburg West Pomerania is known for a strong anti-establishment sentiment. AfD largely took votes away from the National Democratic Party (ultra-far-right, neo-Nazis) and Die Linke. These two parties won a combined 25% of the vote in 2011. In 2016, the combined anti-establishment vote, including AfD, was 33%. Clearly this is a notable gain for the non-centrist parties, but it is hardly a paradigm shift. In Berlin, the AfD gained a solid 14% of the vote, but the sensationalist media conveniently avoided mentioning that it came in fifth in the final count. By our "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, AfD managed to take only about 8% of the vote from establishment parties. The bulk of its success once again came from taking votes from other populist parties. For example, Berlin's Pirate Party - yes, "pirates" - took 8% of the vote in the last election and none in 2016. Nonetheless, we suspect that time may be running out for Angela Merkel. She has been in power since 2005 and many voters have lost confidence in her. Merkel may choose not to contest the election at the CDU party conference in early December, or she may step aside as the leader following the election. Why? Because polls suggest that Merkel's CDU will have to once again rely on a Grand Coalition with its center-left opponent, the SPD, to govern. Politically, this is a failure for Merkel as the Grand Coalition was always intended to be a one-term arrangement. If Merkel decides to retire, how will the ruling CDU choose its successor? The process is relatively closed off and dominated by the party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU selects the candidates for chairperson and the party delegates must choose the leader with a majority. The outcome is largely preordained, and Merkel has typically won above 90% of the party congress delegate vote. The possibility of a chancellor from the CDU's Bavarian sister-party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), is also decided by the elites. Therefore, the likelihood of an anti-establishment candidate hijacking the CDU/CSU leadership is minimal. How will the markets react to Merkel's resignation? Investors are overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of euro area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent euro area fiscal backstop mechanism due to upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. In addition, her likely successor will not mark a paradigm shift in terms of Germany's pro-euro outlook (Box I-1). Bottom Line: Investors may wake up in mid-2017 to find that the U.K. is firmly on its way out of the EU and that the U.S. is embroiled in deepening political polarization. Meanwhile, France and Spain will be led by reformist governments, Italy will remain in the euro area, and Germany will be mid-way through a rather boring electoral campaign featuring pro-euro establishment parties. What is keeping the European establishment in power? In early 2016, we argued that it was its large social welfare state. Unlike the laissez-faire economies of the U.S. and the U.K., European "socialism" has managed to redistribute the gains of globalization sufficiently to keep the populists at bay. As such, European voters are not flocking to populist alternatives, despite considerable challenges such as the migration crisis and terrorism. Populists are gaining votes in Europe nonetheless. To counter that trend, we should expect to see Europe's establishment parties turn more negative towards immigration, positive on fiscal activism, and more assertive towards security and defense policy. But on the key investment-relevant issue of euro area membership and European integration, we see the consensus remaining with the status quo. China: Xi Is A "Core" Leader... So What? Chinese President Xi Jinping's recent designation as the "core" of the Chinese leadership should be seen as a marginally market-positive event in an otherwise bleak outlook. Not because the president has a new title, but because of the underlying reality that he is consolidating power ahead of the 19th National Party Congress. Set for the fall of 2017, the Congress will feature a major rotation of top Communist Party leaders and mark the halfway point of his 10-year administration. The new title was not a surprise when it trickled out of the Chinese Communist Party's Sixth Plenary meeting on October 24-27. But the media took the opportunity once again to decry President Xi's "ever-expanding power."10 As our readers know, we do not think there has been a palace coup in China. That is, we do not think Xi has overthrown the "collective leadership" model, i.e. rule by the Politburo Standing Committee, established after the death of Chairman Mao.11 Instead, we think he is presiding over a major centralization phase in Chinese politics. Xi's status as the "core" feeds into the broader idea of re-centralization that we identified as a key theme for this administration when it began its term back in 2012.12 The Sixth Plenum reinforced this view in various ways:13 Xi is clearly in charge: A smattering of local party officials started calling him the core leader earlier this year, but now it has been endorsed in official documents at the highest level. Again, it is not the title itself that matters, but the fact that Xi compelled the whole party to give him the title. This distinguishes him from his two predecessors, Presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, and in this way he resembles his mighty predecessor Deng Xiaoping. Xi already developed a strong track record for re-centralizing the political system prior to receiving the new title.14 Collective leadership persists: Deng invented the idea of the "core" leader specifically as a way to assert the need for a top leader or chief executive without reverting to Maoist absolutism. The core leader is the supreme leader within a collective leadership system. This interpretation was expressly reaffirmed by the communique issued at the Sixth Plenum, which denounced ruling by a single person and praised the current system.15 Corruption purge has not split the party: The focus of the plenum was the Communist Party's rules for disciplining its own members. This specifically highlighted Xi's harsh anti-corruption campaign, which has netted numerous party officials, and has not yet concluded (Chart I-20). The fact that this campaign has continued longer than expected without prompting significant resistance shows that centralization is acceptable to the party (and anti-corruption is positive for the party's public image). Policy coherence could improve: A rash of rumors suggest that Xi will not only promote his allies but also tweak party rules and norms in order to ensure he retains a factional majority on the Politburo Standing Committee after 2017. This should be positive for policymaking since the cohort of leaders ready to rise up the ranks is weighted against his faction as a result of the previous administration's appointments. These developments would be negative if Xi avoids appointing successors next year and thus appears ready to cling to power beyond 2022.16 Unified government is a plus amid crisis: Deng initiated the "core leader" concept in the dark days after the Tiananmen massacre, when the party faced internal rifts and potential regime collapse. In other words, it is in times of crisis that the party needs to reaffirm that rule-by-committee still requires a final arbiter at the top. This latter point is the most relevant for investors. It suggests that China's party leadership perceives itself to be in the midst, or on the brink, of a crisis. Why should this be the case? There has been an improvement in China's economic situation in 2016 - stimulus efforts have stabilized the economy and growth momentum is picking up (Chart I-21). Economic relations with Asian nations are also improving. All of this information has supported the China bulls, who argue that China is not particularly overleveraged, still has a long way to go in terms of economic development, and needs to stimulate demand in order to outgrow any problems it faces from debt and overcapacity (Chart I-22). Chart I-20Anti-Corruption ##br##Campaign Reaccelerating Chart I-21Chinese Economy##br## Improved This Year Chart I-22Chinese Capacity Utilization: ##br##A Historical Perspective Nevertheless, the latest reflation efforts have peaked (Chart I-23), and there are clear warning signs for what lies ahead. The RMB continues to weaken, capital outflows may reaccelerate as a result, the yield curve is flattening, and economic policy uncertainty remains markedly elevated (Chart I-24). As such, the China bears argue that exorbitant credit growth cannot continue indefinitely (Chart I-25). When credit growth slows, the credit-reliant economy will slow too, and China will face a cascade of bad loans and insolvent companies and banks. Chart I-23Latest Mini-Stimulus##br## Is Over Chart I-24China:##br## Who Is Driving This Bus? Chart I-25China's Corporate And Household Credit: ##br##The Sky's The Limit? While economists can argue over the nature of things, politicians do not have that luxury: China's government must be prepared for the worst-case scenario. The China bears may be right even if their economic analysis proves overly pessimistic or poorly timed, because policymakers may eventually decide they must do more to tackle excessive leverage and overcapacity. Chart I-26Rebalancing Is Slowing Down An optimistic long-term assumption about Xi's consolidation of power has been that he eventually intends to use that power to pursue painful structural reforms, as outlined at the Third Plenum in 2013.17 However, the intervening three years have shown that he is pragmatic and does not want to impose aggressive reforms that would undercut an already weak and slowing economy (Chart I-26). Thus, deep reforms are only going to occur if they are forced upon the leaders as a result of an intense bout of instability, uncertainty, and market riots. The implication of this is that Xi is concentrating power in preparation for further crisis points that may be thrust upon his administration. For instance, if recent efforts to tamp down on property prices end up bursting the bubble, then eventually China could be plunged into socio-political (as well as financial) turmoil. By that time, the party would not be able to re-centralize and consolidate power carefully and gradually. It would either have loyal tools at its disposal already, or would lose precious time (and likely make mistakes) trying to assemble them. Thus Xi's moves to consolidate power are marginally market-positive in an overall negative climate. He is making himself and the Politburo Standing Committee better prepared to handle a crisis, which suggests that he believes that a crisis is either occurring or close at hand. In short, the Communist Party is girding for war; a war for regime stability if and when the massive credit risks materialize. What about the 19th National Party Congress, set to take place next fall? We will revisit this topic in the future, but for now the key point is this: It would require a surprise and/or a new political dynamic to prevent Xi from getting his way in forming the Politburo Standing Committee next year. While there is a mixed record of policy stimulus for the years preceding the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle, we certainly do not expect aggressive structural reforms to occur before then (Chart I-27). Policy tightening in the real estate sector and SOE restructuring efforts will be gradual. Chart I-27Unimpressive Record Of Stimulus Before Five-Year Party Congresses Only around the time of the party congress will it be possible to find out whether Xi wants his administration to be remembered for anything other than power consolidation - such as ambitious reforms. One reform effort we are confident will continue amid rising centralization, however, is tougher government policy against pollution. Pollution threatens social stability, especially among the restless new middle class, and stimulus efforts perpetuate the heavily polluting industries. Environmental spending has been the biggest growth category in government spending under Premier Li Keqiang.18 To capitalize on the darkening short-term outlook for stocks and Xi's policy momentum, we suggest shorting Chinese utilities, whose profit margins and share prices trade inversely with rising environmental spending (Chart I-28). Bottom Line: We remain overweight China relative to EM: The government has resources and is unified. However, the long-term outlook is mixed. Investors should steer clear of Chinese risk assets in absolute terms. Short utilities as a play on rising environmental spending and regulation, and stay short the RMB. Brexit Update: The "Legion Memorial" Is Alive And Well Chart I-28Anti-Pollution Push Hurts Utilities The Brexit movement encountered its first apparent setback last week when the country's High Court ruled that parliament must vote on invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to initiate the withdrawal from the European Union. We have always held a high-conviction view that parliament approval would ultimately be necessary, as we wrote in July.19 But, politically, it matters a great deal whether parliament votes before or after the exit negotiations. The High Court ruling is an obstacle to the government's Brexit plan because it could result in (1) the parliament's outright blocking Brexit, though this outcome is highly unlikely; (2) the parliament's insisting on a "soft Brexit" that leaves U.K.-EU relations substantially the same as before the referendum on matters like immigration and market access. However, the saga is nowhere near finished. The government is appealing the ruling, the Welsh assembly is contesting the appeal, and the Supreme Court will decide the matter in December. Until then, we expect U.K. markets to benefit marginally, ceteris paribus, from the belief that the odds of a soft Brexit are rising. Investors could be encouraged by the continuation of monetary stimulus and a new blast of fiscal stimulus, which we think will surprise to the upside on November 23 when the annual Autumn Statement is released by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The High Court-prompted rebound in U.K. assets will remain vulnerable for the following reasons: The Supreme Court has not yet ruled: It is not certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court's insistence on a parliamentary role. Both views have legitimate arguments and the issue is not settled until the Supreme Court rules. Parliament's role is political, not merely legal: Assuming parliament gets to vote on whether to trigger the process of leaving the EU, the decision will depend on politics. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the Commons will flatly reject the popular referendum, and the House of Lords can at best delay it. Yes, parliament is sovereign, but that is because it represents the people. While the 1689 Glorious Revolution established the Bill of Rights and parliamentary supremacy, in as early as 1701 there was a crisis over whether parliament should flatly overrule popular will. At that time, the writer Daniel Defoe, representing "the people," delivered the so-called Legion Memorial directly to the Speaker of the Commons. It read: "Our name is Legion, for we are Many."20 Parliament backed down. The politics of the moment favor the government: Polling shows a stark divergence in popular opinion since the referendum in favor of the Tories (Chart I-29). This is a clear signal - on top of the referendum outcome and the sweeping Tory election win in 2015 - that the popular will favors leaving the European Union. It is also a clear signal that Prime Minister Theresa May has the mandate to do it her way. Her approval rating has waned a bit (Chart I-30), but she is still supported by nearly half the population. If the government fails to win parliamentary support on Brexit, it would likely lead to a vote of no confidence and early elections. Yet the current dynamics suggest an early election would return a Conservative majority with a clear mandate to vote for Brexit. Until those dynamics undergo a change, "Brexit means Brexit." Economics favor the government: One danger for the anti-Brexit coalition is that the Supreme Court may compel a parliamentary vote in the near future. The economy has not yet suffered much from Brexit, whatever it may do in future, so there is little motivation for widespread "Bregret," i.e. the desire to reverse course and stay in the EU. By contrast, in two years' time, the negative economic consequences and uncertainties of the actual exit plan, combined with ebbing popular enthusiasm, would likely give parliament a stronger position from which to soften or reverse Brexit. Although Article 50 is arguably irrevocable, it seems hard to believe that the EU would not find a way to allow the U.K. to stay in the union if its domestic politics shifted in favor of staying, since that is clearly in the EU's interest. The President of the European Council Donald Tusk has implied as much.21 Chart I-29Brexit Helped Tories, Hurt Labour Chart I-30Prime Minister May's Popularity Still Strong From the arguments above we can draw three conclusions. First, parliament will not simply repudiate the popular referendum. Second, if parliament must vote, the political context suggests it will vote on a bill that substantially favors the government's approach toward Brexit. If that happens, the High Court ruling this week will be only a pyrrhic victory for the Bremain camp. However, parliamentary involvement does imply a softer Brexit than otherwise, and it is possible that parliament could extract major concessions. Third, the High Court ruling makes Brexit more, not less, likely. This is because it is forcing parliamentarians to vote on Brexit so early in the process, when Brexit's negative consequences are yet not evident. What do the latest Brexit twists and turns portend for European and global growth? We do not see them as particularly damaging. The British turn toward greater fiscal spending adds yet another to the list of those countries supporting one of our key investment themes: "The Return of G," or government spending.22 As we predicted, Canada is overshooting its budget deficits, Japan is engaging in coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, and Italy is expanding spending and daring Germany and the European Council to stop it, especially in the face of badly needed earthquake reconstruction and the ongoing immigration crisis (Chart I-31). Chart I-31G7 Fiscal Thrust Is Going Up This leaves the United States and Germany as two outstanding questions. The U.S. election means that Trump will launch potentially large spending increases with a GOP-held Congress. As for Germany, the CDU/CSU appears to be shifting toward more government spending, but the direction will not be clear until the election in the fall of 2017. Bottom Line: The High Court ruling has made Brexit more rather than less likely. By forcing the parliament to make a ruling on Brexit before the economic damage is clear, the High Court has put parliamentarians in the difficult position of going against the public. We are closing our long FTSE 100 / short FTSE 250 Brexit hedge in the meantime. The market may, incorrectly, price a lower probability of Brexit, while domestic stimulus will aid the home-biased FTSE 250. Nonetheless, we remain short U.K. REITs to capitalize on the long-term uncertainty, as well as negative cyclical and structural factors that are affecting commercial real estate. We also expect the GBP/USD to remain relatively weak and vulnerable relative to the pre-Brexit period. We would expect the GBP/USD to retest its mid-October-low of 1.184 over the next two years. BOX I-1 Likely Successors To German Chancellor Angela Merkel If Merkel decides to retire, who are her potential successors? Wolfgang Schäuble, Finance Minister (CDU): The bane of the financial community, Schäuble is seen as the least market-friendly option due to his hardline position on bailouts and the euro area. In our view, this is an incorrect interpretation of Schäuble's heavy-handedness. He is by all accounts a genuine Europhile who believes in the integrationist project. At 74 years old, he comes from a generation of policymakers who consider European integration a national security issue for Germany. He has pursued a tough negotiating position in order to ensure that the German population does not sour on European integration. Nonetheless, we doubt that he will chose to take on the chancellorship if Merkel retires. He suffered an assassination attempt in 1990 that left him paralyzed and he has occasionally had to be hospitalized due to health complications left from this injury. As such, it is unlikely that he would replace Merkel, but he may stay on as Finance Minister and thus be as close to a "Vice President" role as Germany has. Ursula von der Leyen, Defense Minister (CDU): Most often cited as the likely replacement for Merkel, Leyen nonetheless is not seen favorably by most of the population. She is a strong advocate of further European integration and has supported the creation of a "United States of Europe." Leyen has gone so far as to say that the refugee crisis and the debt crisis are similar in that they will ultimately force Europe to integrate further. As a defense minister, she has promoted the creation of a robust EU army. She has also been a hardliner on Brexit, saying that the U.K. will not re-enter the EU in her lifetime. While the markets and pro-EU elites in Europe would love Leyen, the problem is that her Europhile profile may disqualify her from chancellorship at a time when most CDU politicians are focusing on the Euroskeptic challenge from the right. Thomas De Maizière, Interior Minster (CDU): Maizière is a former Defense Minister and a close confidant of Chancellor Merkel. He was her chief of staff from 2005 to 2009. Like Schäuble, he is somewhat of a hawk on euro area issues (he drove a hard bargain during negotiations to set up a fiscal backstop, the European Financial Stability Fund, in 2010) and as such could be a compromise candidate between the Europhiles and Eurohawks within the CDU ranks. However, he has also been implicated in scandals as Defense Minister and may be tainted by the immigration crisis due to his position as the Interior Minister. Julia Klöckner, Executive Committee Member, Deputy Chair (CDU): A CDU politician from Rhineland-Palatinate, Klöckner is a socially conservative protégé of Merkel. While she has taken a more right-wing stance on the immigration crisis, she has remained loyal to Merkel otherwise. She is a staunch Europhile who has portrayed the Euroskeptic AfD as "dangerous, sometimes racist." We think that she would be a very pro-market choice as she combines the market-irrelevant populism of anti-immigration rhetoric with market-relevant centrism of favoring further European integration. Hermann Gröhe, Minister of Health (CDU): Gröhe is a former CDU secretary general and very close to Merkel. He is a staunch supporter of the euro and European integration. Markets would have no problem with Grohe, although they may take some time to get to know who he is! Volker Bouffier, Minister President of Hesse (CDU): As Minister President of Hesse, home of Germany's financial center Frankfurt, Bouffier may be disqualified from leadership due to his apparent close links with Deutsche Bank. Nonetheless, he is a heavyweight within the CDU's leadership and a staunch Europhile. Fritz Von Zusammenbruch, Hardline Euroskeptic (CDU): This person does not exist! Section II: U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications Highlights Trump won by stealing votes from Democrats in the Midwest. His victory implies a national shift to the left on economic policy. Checks and balances on Trump are not substantial in the short term. U.S. political polarization will continue. Trump is good for the USD, bad for bonds, neutral for equities. Favor SMEs over MNCs. Close long alternative energy / short coal. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." — Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and a potential Secretary of State pick), was asked on NBC's Meet the Press two days before the U.S. election whether he still thought that "competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." Gingrich made the original statement in January 2001, merely weeks after one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history was resolved by the Supreme Court. Gingrich's answer in 2016? "I think, tragically, we have drifted into an environment where ... it will be a continuing fight for who controls the country." Despite an extraordinary victory - a revolution really - by Donald J. Trump, the fact of the matter remains that the U.S. is a polarized country between Republican and Democratic voters. As of publication time of this report, Trump lost the popular vote to Secretary Hillary Clinton. His is a narrower victory than either the epic Richard Nixon win in 1968 or George W. Bush squeaker in 2000. Over the next two years, the only thing that matters for the markets is that the U.S. has a unified government behind a Republican president-elect and a GOP-controlled Congress. We discuss the investment implications of this scenario below and caution clients to not over-despair. On the other hand, we also see this election as more evidence that America remains a deeply polarized country where identity politics continue to play a key role. What concerns us is that these identity politics appear to transcend the country's many cultural, ethical, political, and economic commonalities. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are fusing into almost ethnic-like groupings. To bring it back to Gingrich's quote at the top, that would suggest that the U.S. is no longer that much different from Bosnia or Northern Ireland.23 Election Post-Mortem Chart II-1Election Polls Usually##br## Miss By A Few Points Donald Trump has won an upset over Hillary Clinton, but his campaign was not as much of a long-shot as the consensus believed. U.S. presidential polls have frequently missed the final tally by +/- 3% of the vote, which was precisely the end result of the 2016 election (Chart II-1). Therefore, as we pointed out in our last missive on the election, Trump's victory was not a "wild mathematical oddity."24 Why Did Trump Win The White House? Where Trump really did beat expectations was in the Midwest, and Wisconsin in particular. He ended up outperforming the poll-of-polls by a near-incredible 10%!25 His victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were well within the range of expectations. For example, the last poll-of-polls had Trump leading in both Florida (by a narrow 0.2%) and Ohio (by a solid 3.5%), whereas Clinton was up in Pennsylvania by the slightest of margins (just 1.9% lead). He ended up exceeding poll expectations in all three (by 2% in Florida, 6% in Ohio, and 3% in Pennsylvania), but not by the same wild margin as in Wisconsin. When all is said and done, Trump won the 2016 election by stealing votes away from the Democrats in the traditionally "blue" Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This was a far more significant result than his resounding victories in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) or Florida (where Obama won only narrowly in 2012). Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the Global Investment Strategy, correctly forecast that Trump would be competitive in all three Midwest states back in September 2015! We highly encourage our clients to read his "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," as it is one of the best geopolitical calls made by BCA in recent history.26 As Peter had originally thought, Trump cleaned up the white, less-educated, male vote in all of the three crucial Midwest states. He won 68% of this vote in Michigan, 71% in Pennsylvania, and 69% in Wisconsin. To do so, Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to the blue-collar white voter by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Instead, Trump promised to outspend Clinton and protect entitlements at their current levels. This mix of an outsider, anti-establishment, image combined with a left-of-center economic message allowed Trump to win an extraordinary number of former Obama voters. Exit polls showed that Obama had a positive image in all three Midwest states, including with Trump voters! For example, 30% of Trump voters in Michigan approved of the job Obama was doing as president, 25% in Pennsylvania, and 27% in Wisconsin. That's between a quarter and a third of eventual people who cast their vote for Trump. These are the voters that Republicans lost in 2012 because they nominated a former private equity "corporate raider" Mitt Romney as their candidate. Romney had famously argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that he would have "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama repeatedly attacked Romney during the 2011-2012 campaign on this point. Back in late 2011, we suspected that this message, and this message alone, would win President Obama his re-election.27 Why is the issue of the Midwest Obama voters so important? Because investors have to know precisely why Donald Trump won the election. It wasn't his messages on immigration, law and order, race relations, and especially not the tax cuts he added to his message late in the game. It was his left-of-center policy position on trade and fiscal spending. Trump is beholden to his voters on these policies, particularly in the Midwest states that won him the election. Final word on race. Donald Trump actually improved on Mitt Romney's performance with African-American and Hispanic voters (Table II-1). This was a surprise, given his often racially-charged rhetoric. Meanwhile, Trump failed to improve on the white voter turnout (as percent of overall electorate) or on Romney's performance with white voters in terms of the share of the vote. To be clear, Republicans are still in the proverbial hole with minority voters and are yet to match George Bush's performance in 2004. But with 70% of the U.S. electorate still white in 2016, this did not matter. Table II-1Exit Polls: Trump's Win Was Not Merely About Race Congress: No Gridlock Ahead Republicans exceeded their expectations in the Senate, losing only one seat (Illinois) to Democrats. This means that the GOP control of the Senate will remain quite comfortable and is likely to grow in the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats. Of the 25 Senate seats they will defend, five are in hostile territory: North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and Missouri. In addition, Florida is always a tough contest. Republicans, on the other hand, have only one Senate seat that will require defense in a Democrat-leaning state: Nevada (and in that case, it will be a Republican incumbent contesting the race). Their other seven seats are all in Republican voting states. As such, expect Republicans to hold on to the Senate well into the 2020 general election. In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain its comfortable majority. The Tea Party affiliated caucuses (Tea Party Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus) performed well in the election. The Tea Party Caucus members won 35 seats out of 38 they contested and the House Freedom Caucus won 34 seats out of 37 it contested. The race to watch now is for the Speaker of the House position. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the incumbent House, is likely to contest the election again and win. Even though his support for Donald Trump was lukewarm, we expect Republicans to unify the party behind Trump and Ryan. A challenge from the right could emerge, but we doubt it will materialize given Trump's victory. The campaign for the election will begin immediately, with Republicans selecting their candidate by December (the official election will be in the first week of January, but it is a formality as Republicans hold the majority). Bottom Line: Trump's victory was largely the product of former Obama voters in the Midwest switching to the GOP candidate. This happened because of Trump's unorthodox, left-of-center, message. Trump will have a friendly Congress to work with for the next four years. How friendly? That question will determine the investment significance of the Trump presidency. Investment Relevance Of A United Government Most clients we have spoken to over the past several months believe that Donald Trump will be constrained on economic policies by a right-leaning Congress. His more ambitious fiscal spending plans - such as the $550 billion infrastructure plan and $150 billion net defense spending plan - will therefore be either "dead on arrival" in Congress, or will be significantly watered down by the legislature. Focus will instead shift to tax cuts and traditional Republican policies. We could not disagree more. GOP is not fiscally conservative: There is no empirical evidence that the GOP is actually fiscally conservative. First, the track record of the Bush and Reagan administrations do not support the adage that Republicans keep fiscal spending in check when they are in power (Chart II-2). Second, Republican voters themselves only want "small government" when the Democrats are in charge of the White House (Chart II-3). When a Republican President is in charge, Republicans forget their "small government" leanings. Chart II-2Republicans Are##br## Not Fiscally Responsible Chart II-3Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For Opposition Presidents get their way: Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Congress can block some but probably not all of president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed in their second term. Clinton lost on healthcare, but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). Median voter has moved to the left: Donald Trump won both the GOP primary and the general election by preaching an unorthodox, left-of-center sermon. He understood correctly that the American voter preferences on economic policies have moved away from Republican laissez-faire orthodoxies.28 Yes, he is also calling for significant lowering of both income and corporate tax rates. However, tax cuts were never a focal point of his campaign, and he only introduced the policy later in the race when he was trying to get traditional Republicans on board with his campaign. Newsflash: traditional Republicans did not get Trump over the hump, Obama voters in the Midwest did! Investors should make no mistake, the key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalization, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. And he will pursue all three with GOP allies in Congress. What are the investment implications of this policy mix? USD: More government spending, marginally less global trade, and pressure on multi-national corporations (MNCs) to scale back their global operations should be positive for inflation. If growth surprises to the upside due to fiscal spending, it will allow the Fed to hike more than the current 57 bps expected by the market by the end of 2018. Given easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, and lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth surprise in the U.S. should be positive for the dollar in the long term. At the moment, the market is reacting to the Trump victory with ambivalence on the USD. In fact, the dollar suffered as Trump's probability of victory rose in late October. We believe that this is a temporary reaction. We see both Trump's fiscal and trade policies as bullish. BCA's currency strategist Mathieu Savary believes that the dollar could therefore move in a bifurcated fashion in the near term. On the one hand, the dollar could rise against EM currencies and commodity producers, but suffer - or remain flat - against DM currencies such as the EUR, CHF, and JPY.29 Bonds: More inflation and growth should also mean that the bond selloff continues. In addition, if our view on globalization is correct, then the deflationary effects of the last three decades should begin to reverse over the next several years. BCA thesis that we are at the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" should therefore remain cogent.30 As one of our "Trump hedges," our colleague Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, suggested a 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener. This hedge is now up 18.7 bps and we suggest clients continue to hold it. Fed policy: Trump's statements about monetary policy have been inconsistent. Early on in his campaign he described himself as "a low interest rate guy", but he has more recently become critical of current Federal Reserve policy - and Fed Chair Janet Yellen in particular - claiming that while higher interest rates are justified, the Fed is keeping them low for "political reasons." What seems certain is that Janet Yellen will be replaced as Fed Chair when her term expires in February 2018. Yellen is unlikely to resign of her own volition before then and it would be legally difficult for the President to remove a sitting Fed Chair prior to the end of her term. But Trump will get the opportunity to re-shape the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors as soon as he is sworn in. There are currently two empty seats on the Board need to be filled and given that many of Trump's economic advisers have "hard money" leanings, it is very likely that both appointments will go to inflation hawks. Equities: In terms of equities, Trump will be a source of uncertainty for U.S. stocks as the market deals with the unknown of his presidency. In addition, markets tend to not like united government in the U.S. as it raises the specter of big policy moves (Table II-2). However, Trump should be positive for sectors that sold off in anticipation of a Clinton victory, such as healthcare and financials. We also suspect that he will continue the outperformance of defense stocks, although that would have been the case with Clinton as well. Table II-2Election: Industry Implications In the long term, Trump's proposal for major corporate tax cuts should be good for U.S. equities. However, we are not entirely sure that this is the case. First, the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at its multi-decade lows (Chart II-4). As such, any corporate tax reform that lowers the marginal rate will not really affect the effective rate. Why does this matter? Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates. Any lowering of the marginal rate will therefore benefit the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then Trump's policy will not necessarily benefit all firms in the U.S. equally. Chart II-4How Low Can It Go? Investors have to keep in mind that Trump has not run a pro-corporate campaign. He has accused American manufacturing firms of taking jobs outside the U.S. and tech companies of skirting taxes. It is not clear to us that his corporate tax reform will therefore necessarily be a boon for the stock market. In the long term, we like to play Trump's populist message by favoring America's SMEs over MNCs. If we are ultimately correct on the USD and growth, then export-oriented S&P 500 companies should suffer in the face of a USD bull market and marginally less globalization. Meanwhile, lowering of the marginal corporate tax rate will benefit the SMEs that do not get the benefit of K-street lobbyist negotiated tax loopholes. Global Assets: The global asset to watch over the next several weeks is the USD/RMB cross. China is forced by domestic economic conditions to continue to slowly depreciate its currency. We have expected this since 2015, which is why we have shorted the RMB via 12-month non-deliverable forwards (NDF). Risk to global assets, particularly EM currencies and equities, would be that Beijing decides to depreciate the RMB before Trump is inaugurated on January 20. This could re-visit the late 2015 panic over China, particularly the narrative that it is exporting deflation. Our view is that even if China does not undertake such actions over the next two months, Sino-American tensions are set to escalate. It is much easier for Trump to fulfill his de-globalization policies with China - a geopolitical rival with which the U.S. has no free trade agreement - than with NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. This will only deepen geopolitical tensions between the two major global powers, which has been our secular view since 2011. Finally, a quick note on the Mexican peso. The Mexican peso has already collapsed half of its value in the past 18 months and we believe the trade is overdone. Investors have used the currency cross as a way to articulate Trump's victory probability. It is no longer cogent. We believe that the U.S. will focus on trade relations with China under a Trump presidency, rather than NAFTA trade partners. Our Emerging Markets Strategy believes that it is time to consider going long MXN versus other EM currencies, such as ZAR and BRL. Investors should also watch carefully the Cabinet appointments that Trump makes over the next two months. Since Carter's administration, cabinet announcements have occurred in early to mid-December. Almost all of these appointments were confirmed on Inauguration Day (usually January 20 of the year after election, including in 2017) or shortly thereafter. Only one major nomination since Carter was disapproved. These appointments will tell us how willing Trump is to reach to traditional Republicans who have served on previous administrations. We suspect that he will go with picks that will execute his fiscal, trade, and tax policies. Bottom Line: After the dust settles over the next several weeks, we suspect that Trump will signal that he intends to pursue his fiscal, trade, immigration, and tax policies. These will be, in the long term, positive for the USD, negative for bonds (including Munis, which will lose their tax-break appeal if income taxes are reduced), and likely neutral for equities. Within the equity space, Trump will be positive for U.S. SMEs and negative for MNCs. This means being long S&P 600 over S&P 100. Lastly, close our long alternative energy / short coal trade for a loss of -26.8%. Constraints: Don't Bet On Them Domestically, the American president can take significant action without congressional support through executive directives. Lincoln raised an army and navy by proclamation and freed the slaves; Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese; Truman tried to seize steel factories to keep production up during the Korean War. Truman's case is almost the only one of a major executive order being rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The Reagan and Clinton administrations have shown that a president thwarted by a divided or adverse congress will often use executive directives to achieve policy aims and satisfy particular interest groups and sectors. Though the number of executive orders has gone down in recent administrations (Chart II-5), the economic significance has increased along with the size and penetration of the bureaucracy (Chart II-6). The economic impact of executive orders is always debatable, but the key point is that the president's word tends to carry the day.31 Chart II-5Rule By Decree Chart II-6Executive Branch Is Growing Trade is a major area where Trump would have considerable sway. He has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade. The U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Congressionally approved agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cannot be revoked by the president, but Trump could obstruct its ongoing implementation.32 He would also have considerable powers to levy tariffs, as Nixon showed with his 10% "surcharge" on most imports in 1971.33 Bottom Line: Presidential authority is formidable in the areas Trump has made the focus of his campaign: immigration and trade. Without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override him, or an activist federal court, Trump would be able to enact significant policies simply by issuing orders to his subordinates in the executive branch. Long-Term Implications: Polarization In The U.S. Does the Republican control of Congress and the White House signal that polarization in America will subside? We began this analysis by focusing on the investment implications when Republicans control the three houses of the American government. But long-term implications of polarization will not dissipate. Investors may overstate the importance of a Republican-controlled government and thus understate the relevance of continued polarization. We doubt that Donald Trump is a uniting figure who can transcend America's polarized politics, especially given his weak popular mandate (he lost the popular vote as Bush did in 2000) and the sub-50% vote share. And, our favorite chart of the year remains the same: both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have entered the history books as the most disliked presidential candidates ever on the day of the election (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level since World War II (Chart II-8). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension.34 Chart II-8The Widening Ideological Gulf In The U.S. Congress Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study has shown that Republicans and Democrats are moving further to the right and left, respectively. Chart II-9 shows the distribution of Republicans and Democrats on a 10-item scale of political values across the last three decades. In addition, "very unfavorable" views of the opposing party have skyrocketed since 2004 (Chart II-10), with 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now seeing the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being"! Chart II-9U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-10Live And Let Die Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the mounting polarization in America.35 Our view remains that politics in a democracy operates on its own supply-demand dynamic. If there was no demand for polarized politics, especially at the congressional level, American politicians would not be so eager to supply it. We believe that five main factors - in our subjective order of importance - explain polarization in the U.S. today: Income Inequality and Immobility The increase in political polarization parallels rising income inequality in the U.S. (Chart II-11). The U.S. is a clear and distant outlier on both factors compared to its OECD peers (Chart II-12). However, Americans are not being divided neatly along income levels. This is because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to fix income inequality. For Donald Trump voters, the solutions are to put up barriers to free trade and immigration while reducing income taxes for all income levels. For Hillary Clinton voters, it means more taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, while putting up some trade barriers and expanding entitlements. This means that the correlation between polarization and income inequality is misleading as there is no causality. Rather, rising income inequality, especially when combined with a low-growth environment, shifts the political narrative from the "politics of plenty" towards "politics of scarcity." It hardens interest and identity groups and makes them less generous towards the "other." Chart II-11Inequality Breeds Polarization Chart II-12Opportunity And Income: Americans Are Outliers Generational Warfare The political age gap is increasing (Chart II-13). This remains the case following the 2016 election, with 55% Millennials (18-29 year olds) having voted for Hillary Clinton. The problem for older voters, who tend to identify far more with the Republican Party, is that the Millennials are already the largest voting bloc in America (Chart II-14). And as Millennial voters start increasing their turnout, and as Baby Boomers naturally decline, the urgency to vote for Republican policymakers' increases. Chart II-13The Age Gap In American Politics Chart II-14Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Geographical Segregation Noted political scientist Robert Putnam first cautioned that increasing geographic segregation into clusters of like-minded communities was leading to rising polarization.36 This explains, in large part, how liberal elites have completely missed the rise of Donald Trump. Left-leaning Americans tend to live in a left-leaning community. They share their morning cup-of-Joe with Liberals and rarely mix with the plebs supporting Trump. And of course vice-versa. University of Toronto professors Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander have more recently shown in their "Segregated City" research that "America's cities and metropolitan areas have cleaved into clusters of wealth, college education, and highly-paid knowledge-based occupations."37 Their research shows that American neighborhoods are increasingly made up of people of the same income level, across all metropolitan areas. Florida and Mellander also show that educational and occupational segregation follows economic segregation. Meanwhile, the same research shows that Canada's most segregated metropolitan area, Montreal, would be the 227th most segregated city if it were in the U.S.! This form of geographic social distance fosters increasing polarization by allowing voters to remain aloof of their fellow Americans, their plight, needs, and concerns. The extreme urban-rural divide of the 2016 election confirms this thesis. Immigration Much as with income inequality, there is a close correlation between political polarization and immigration. The U.S. is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country, with the percent of the white population expected to dip below 50% in 2045 (Chart II-15). Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to continue rising for the rest of the century. For many Americans facing the pernicious effects of low-growth, high debt, and elevated income inequality, the rising impact of immigration is anathema. Not only is the country changing its ethnic and cultural make-up, but the incoming immigrants tend to be less educated and thus lower-income than the median American. They therefore favor - or will favor, when they can vote - redistributive policies. Many Americans feel - fairly or unfairly - that the costs of these policies will have to be shouldered by white middle-class taxpayers, who are not wealthy enough to be indifferent to tax increases, and may be unskillful enough to face competition from immigrants. There is also a security component to the rising concern about immigration. Although Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population, many voters perceive radical Islam to be a vital security threat to the nation. As such, immigration and radical Islamic terrorism are seen as close bedfellows. Media Polarization The 2016 election has been particularly devastating for mainstream media. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly." This is the lowest level in Gallup polling history. The decline is particularly concentrated among Independent and Republican respondents (Chart II-16). With mainstream media falling out of favor for many Americans, voters are turning towards social media and the Internet. Facebook is now as important for political news coverage as local TV for Americans who get their news from the Internet (Chart II-17). Chart II-15Racial Composition Is Changing Chart II-16A War Of Words Chart II-17New Sources Of News Not Always Credible The problem with getting your news coverage from Facebook is that it often means getting news coverage from "fake" sources. A recent experiment by BuzzFeed showed that three big right-wing Facebook pages published false or misleading information 38% of the time while three large left-wing pages did so in nearly 20% of posts.38 The Internet allows voters to self-select what ideological lens colors their daily intake of information and it transcends geography. Two American families, living next to each other in the same neighborhood, can literally perceive reality from completely different perspectives by customizing their sources of information. Chart II-18Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats In addition to these five factors, one should also reaffirm the role of redistricting, or "gerrymandering." Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter) have redrawn geographical boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart II-18). This improves job security for incumbent politicians and legislative-seat security for the party; but it also discourages legislators from reaching across the ideological aisle in order to ensure re-election. Instead, the main electoral challenge now comes from the member's own party during the primary election. For Republicans, this means that the challenge is most often coming from a candidate that is further to the right. Incumbent GOP politicians in Congress therefore have an incentive to maintain highly conservative records lest a challenge from the far-right emerges in a primary election. Given that the frequency of elections is high in the House of Representatives (every two years), legislators cannot take even a short break from partisanship. Redistricting deepens polarization, therefore, by changing the political calculus for legislators facing ideologically pure electorates in their home districts. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is a product of structural factors that are here to stay. Trump's narrow victory will in no way change that. But How Much Worse? Chart II-19Party Is The Chief Source Of Identity Political polarization is not new. Older readers will remember 1968, when social unrest over the Vietnam War was at its height. Richard Nixon barely got over the finish line that year, beating Vice-President Hubert Humphrey by around 500,000 votes.39 Another contested election in a contested era. Our concern is that the Republican and Democrat "labels" - or perhaps conservative and liberal labels - appear to be ossifying. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats. This has not always been the case, as Chart II-19 shows. We suspect that the data would be even starker today, especially after the divisive 2016 campaign that has bordered on hysterical. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become real and almost "sectarian" in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Why is this happening? We suspect that the shift in urgency and tone is motivated at least in part by the changing demographics of America. Two demographic groups that identify the most with the Republican Party - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are in a structural decline (the first in absolute terms and the second in relative terms). Both see the writing on the political wall. Given America's democratic system of government, their declining numbers (or, in the case of suburban whites, declining majorities) will mean significant future policy decisions that go against their preferences. America is set to become more left-leaning, favor more redistribution, and become less culturally homogenous. Not only are Millennials more socially liberal and economically left-leaning, but they are also "browner" than the rest of the U.S. As we pointed out early this year, 2016 was an election that the GOP could reasonably attempt to win by appealing exclusively to white and older voters. The "White Hype" strategy was mathematically cogent ... at least in 2016.40 It will get a lot more difficult to pursue this strategy in 2020 and beyond. Not impossible, but difficult. We suspect that conservative voters know this. As such, there was an urgency this year to lock-in structural changes to key policies before it is too late. Donald Trump may have been a flawed messenger for many voters, but it did not matter. The clock is ticking for a large segment of America and therefore Trump was an acceptable vehicle of their fears and anger. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is likely to increase. Two key Republican/conservative constituencies - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are backed into the corner by demographic trends. But it also means that a left counter-revolution is just around the corner. And we doubt that the Democratic Party will chose as centrist of a candidate the next time around. Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned 1. Economics trump PC: Civil rights remain a major category of the American public's policy concerns. However, the Democratic Party's prioritization of social issues on the margins of the civil rights debate has not galvanized voters in the face of persistent negative attitudes about the economy. More specifically, the surge in cheap credit since 2000 that covered up the steady decline of wages as a share of GDP has ended, leaving households exposed to deleveraging and reduced purchasing power (Chart II-20). American households have lost patience with the slow, grinding pace of economic recovery, they reject the debt consequences of low inflation with deflationary tail risks, and they resent disappointed expectations in terms of job security and quality. Concerns about certain social preferences - as opposed to basic rights - pale in comparison to these economic grievances. Chart II-20Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income 2. Polls are OK, but beware the quant models that use them: On two grave political decisions this year, in two advanced markets with the "best" quality of polling, political modeling turned out to be grossly erroneous. To be fair, the polls themselves prior to both Brexit and the U.S. election were within a margin of error. However, quantitative models relying on these polls were overconfident, leading investors to ignore the risks of a non-consensus outcome. As we warned in mid-October - with Clinton ahead with a robust lead - the problem with quantitative political models is that they rely on polling data for their input.41 To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." But combining polls is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The philosophy behind the methodology is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening. Well, something bad did happen. The quantitative models were massively wrong! We tried to avoid this problem by heavily modifying our polls-based-model with structural factors. Many of these structural variables - economic context, political momentum, Obama's approval rating - actually did not favor Clinton. Our model therefore consistently gave Donald Trump between 35-45% probability of winning the election, on average three and four times higher than other popular quant models. This caused us to warn clients that our view on the election was extremely cautious and recommend hedges. In fact, Donald Trump had 41% chance of winning the race on election night, according to the last iteration of our model, a very high probability.42 3. Professor Lichtman was right: Political science professor Allan Lichtman has once again accurately called the election - for the ninth time. The result on Nov. 8 strongly supports his life's work that presidential elections in the United States are popular referendums on the incumbent party of the last four years. Structural factors undid the Democrats (Table II-3), and none of the campaign rhetoric, cross-country barnstorming, or "horse race" polling mattered a whit. The Republicans had momentum from previous midterm elections, Clinton had suffered a strong challenge in her primary, the Obama administration's achievements over the past four years were negligible (the Affordable Care Act passed in his first term). These factors, along with the political cycle itself, favored the Republicans. Trump's lack of charisma did not negate the structural support for a change of ruling party. Investors should take note: no amount of mathematical horsepower, big data, or Silicon Valley acumen was able to beat the qualitative, informed, contemplative work of a single historian. Table II-3Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* 4. Non-linearity of politics: Lichtman's method calls attention to the danger of linear assumptions and quantitative modeling in attempting the art of political prediction. Big data and quantitative econometric and polling models have notched up key failures this year. They cannot make subjective judgments regarding whether a president has had a major foreign policy success or failure or a major policy innovation - on all three of those counts, the Democrats failed from 2012-16. There really is no way to quantify political risk because human and social organizations often experience paradigm shifts that are characterized by non-linearity. Newtonian Laws will always work on planet earth and as such we are not concerned about what will happen to us if we board an airplane. Laws of physics will not simply stop working while we are mid-air. However, social interactions and political narratives do experience paradigm shifts. We have identified several since 2011: geopolitical multipolarity, de-globalization, end of laissez-faire consensus, end of Chimerica, and global loss of confidence in elites and institutions.43 5. No country is immune to decaying institutions: The United States has, with few exceptions, the oldest written constitution among major states, and it ensures checks and balances. But recent decades have shown that the executive branch has expanded its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. Moreover, executives have responded to major crisis - like the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis - with policy responses that were formulated haphazardly, ideologically divisive, and difficult to implement: the Iraq War and the Affordable Care Act. The result is that the jarring events that have blindsided America over the past sixteen years have resulted in wasted political capital and deeper polarization. The failure of institutions has opened the way for political parties to pursue short-term gains at the expense of their "partners" across the aisle, and to bend and manipulate procedural rules to achieve ends that cannot be achieved through consensus and compromise. 6. U.S. is shifting leftward when it comes to markets: Inequality and social immobility have, with Trump's election, entered the conservative agenda, after having long sat on the liberals' list of concerns. The shift in white blue-collar Midwestern voters toward Trump reflects the fact that voters are non-partisan in demanding what they want: they want to retain their existing rights, privileges, and entitlements, and to expand their wages and social protections. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 28, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refuges, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 The BBC is exemplary of the mainstream Western press on this point. Please see Stephen McDonell, "The Ever-Growing Power Of China's Xi Jinping," BBC News, China Blog, dated October 29, 2016, available at www.bbc.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 12, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see the "Eighteenth Communist Party Of China Central Committee Sixth Plenary Session Communique," dated October 27, 2016, available at cpc.people.com.cn. 14 Jiang Zemin, China's ruler from roughly 1993 to 2002, was also referred to as the "core" leader, but he received this moniker from Deng Xiaoping. Xi is following in Deng's footsteps by declaring himself to be the core and winning support from the party. As for his centralizing efforts, prior to being named the "core leader," Xi had already waged a sweeping crackdown on political opponents and dissidents. He had used his position as head of the party, the state bureaucracy, and the armed forces to reshuffle personnel in these bodies extensively. He had already created new organizational bodies, including the National Security Commission, and initiated plans to restructure the military to emphasize joint-operations under regional battle commands. A weak leader would not have advanced so quickly. 15 Deng named Mao the "core" of the first generation of leaders, but it was evident that he sought a different leadership model. 16 Specifically, Xi could prevent the preferment of successors for 2022, he could reduce the size of the Politburo Standing Committee further to five members, or he could modify or make exceptions to the informal rule that top officials must not be promoted if they are 68 or older. Please see Minxin Pei, "A Looming Power Struggle For China?" dated October 28, 2016, available at www.cfr.org. 17 Please see "Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China," dated January 15, 2014 [adopted November 12, 2013], available at www.china.org.cn. 18 Please see "China: The Socialist Put And Rising Government Leverage," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit Update: Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?" dated July 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For the High Court ruling, please see the U.K. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, "R (Miller) -V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union," dated November 3, 2016, available at www.judiciary.gov.uk. 20 At that time a Tory majority in the House of Commons had enraged the populace by imprisoning a group of petitioners from Kent. Both the Kentish Petition and the Legion Memorial demanded that parliament heed the will of the populace. 21 Presumably, the European Council could vote unanimously under Article 50 to extend the negotiation period for a very long time. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Except that it is better armed. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 However, Wisconsin polling was rather poor as most pollsters assumed that it was a shoe-in for Democrats. One problem with polling in Midwest states is that they were, other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, assumed to be safe Democratic states. Note for example the extremely tight result in Minnesota and the absolute dearth of polling out of that state throughout the last several months. 26 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. General Elections And Scenarios: Implications," dated July 11, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It," dated November 4, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Only a two-thirds majority of Congress, or a ruling by a federal court, can undo an executive action, and that is exceedingly rare. The real check on executive orders is the rotation of office: a president can undo with the stroke of a pen whatever his predecessor enacted. Congress has the power of the purse, but it is sporadic in its oversight and has challenged less than 5% of executive orders, even though those orders often re-direct the way the executive branch uses funds Congress has allocated. More often, Congress votes to codify executive orders rather than nullify them. 32 Trump is not alone in calling for renegotiating or even abandoning NAFTA. Clinton called for renegotiation in 2008, and Senator Bernie Sanders has done so in 2016. 33 In Proclamation 4074, dated August 15, 1971, Nixon suspended all previous presidential proclamations implementing trade agreements insofar as was required to impose a new 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods entering the United States. He justified it in domestic law by invoking the president's authority and previous congressional acts authorizing the president to act on behalf of Congress with regard to trade agreement negotiation and implementation (including tariff levels). He justified the proclamation in international law by referring to international allowances during balance-of-payments emergencies. 34 The "primary dimension" of Chart II-8 is represented by the x-axis and is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. The "second dimension" (y-axis) depends on the era and is picking up regional differences on a number of social issues such as the civil rights movement (which famously split Democrats between northern Liberals and southern Dixiecrats). 35 We have penned two such efforts ourselves. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Polarization In America: Transient Or Structural Risk?," dated October 9, 2013, and "A House Divided Cannot Stand: America's Polarization," dated July 11, 2012," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. 37 Please see Martin Prosperity Institute, "Segregated City," dated February 23, 2015, available at martinprosperity.org. 38 Please see BuzzFeedNews, "Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate," dated October 20, 2016, available at buzzfeed.com. 39 Nonetheless, due to the third-party candidate George Wallace carrying the then traditionally-Democratic South, Nixon managed to win the Electoral College in a landslide. 40 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 41 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!," dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 For comparison, Steph Curry, the greatest three-point shooter in basketball history, and a two-time NBA MVP, has a career three-point shooting average of 44%. With that average, he is encouraged to take every three-pointer he can by his team. In other words, despite being less than 50%, this is a very high percentage. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, and "Strategy Outlook 2016 - Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar