Policy

Highlights The Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending once-severely tested bilateral relations. The risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to show to his working-class electorates, while Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap". This offers space for compromises. Unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Feature The summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago last week was hailed by both sides as an "ice breaking" success. Even though no substantive details have been offered, the two countries have formulated a new mechanism for senior-level dialogue, and established a 100-day process for addressing bilateral trade frictions. The risk still exists that Trump could unilaterally impose punitive measures against Chinese goods with his administrative powers, and it is overly simplistic to draw too much information from one particular event. However, the Trump-Xi summit confirms a developing trend: that some of President Trump's highly controversial remarks on his campaign trail are being quickly rolled back. The risk of escalating trade tensions between the world's two largest economies has on margin abated. Trump Goes Mainstream? America's China policy under recent administrations can best be described as "congagement" - an ambiguous mixture of containment and engagement by varying degrees. Trump's remarks on the campaign trail and in his early days in office suggested he was mainly interested in confrontation. But the Trump-Xi summit, along with some recent developments, implies that Trump's China policy is coming back to the middle ground, at least for now. After setting off a fierce firestorm on the Taiwan issue late last year, Trump reaffirmed the "One China" policy in a February phone call with President Xi, re-stating long-standing U.S. policy and easing a key source of diplomatic tensions. Taiwan is still re-emerging as a source of risk.1 But it is unquestionably positive in the short-term that Trump backed away from his initial, highly provocative approach. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated in February that the Trump administration will stick to the existing statutory process in judging whether China manipulates its currency, a marked departure from Trump's repeated campaign pledges. It is almost certain that China will not be named a currency manipulator in the U.S. Treasury's upcoming semi-annual assessment due later this week.2 In his visit to Beijing last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson used Chinese verbiage to characterize the U.S.-China relationship. This verbiage was not repeated by other officials during Xi's visit to Florida, so it is unclear whether it signals the Trump administration's adoption of China's idea of a "new model of great power relations." Nonetheless, it is a drastic change from Tillerson's aggressive remarks at his congressional confirmation hearings, when he suggested blockading Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea. Separately, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, on his first trip abroad to Japan and South Korea, said he did not anticipate any "dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea. More recently, Steve Bannon, White House Chief Strategist, was removed from the National Security Council. It is futile to try to understand all the internal power struggles within the new administration. Nevertheless, Bannon's departure from the NSC is probably a positive development, viewed through the Chinese lens. Bannon not long ago openly identified China as a major threat to the U.S. and predicted a war in the South China Sea as inevitable. In short, President Trump's summit with President Xi marked continued "mainstreaming" of his China policy. Some strong anti-China rhetoric from him and his inner circle has apparently been sanded off, setting the stage for constructive negotiations with Beijing. Can China Accommodate? The restructuring of the Sino-U.S. comprehensive dialogue and the declaration of a 100-day process for addressing economic frictions are probably the most tangible outcomes from the discussions between the two leaders during the summit. Further detail deserve close attention in order to map out how relations between the world's two largest economies will evolve in the near future. In our view, China is likely to make concessions and avoid confrontations. First, trade appears to be front and center in President Trump's grand dealings with China, an important change compared with previous U.S. administrations that also focused heavily on values and ideological issues, such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. From China's perspective, the government has a lot more flexibility in making concessions on trade and economic fronts than in dealing with ideological differences. In the past, China has almost always yielded to U.S. pressure on trade-related issues. For instance, China depegged the RMB from the dollar in 2005 and allowed the RMB to continue to appreciate after the global economic recovery began, all under American political pressure. Chinese senior officials routinely led massive commercial delegations touring the U.S. with big procurement orders for everything from aircraft to agricultural goods in order to address American complaints. Both the U.S. and China understand that bilateral trade imbalances favor the U.S. in the event of an all-out trade war, which China will try its best to avoid. Strategically, President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to deliver on promises to his working-class electorate, while Xi is more interested in establishing a cooperative and productive strategic standing with the world's sole superpower. Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap" - the likelihood of conflict between a rising power and a currently dominant one - by convincing the U.S. to grant China greater global sway. In this vein, Trump's withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been viewed as an important positive development from Xi's perspective, and it is likely that Beijing will offer incentives to further discourage President Trump to "pivot to Asia". It is already rumored that Beijing has drafted investment plans in the U.S. that could create 700,000 jobs, as well as further opening up agricultural goods imports and financial market access. We suspect these deals will be announced during the 100-day negotiation period, which should give Trump a much-needed boost in his approval ratings. Economically, Trump's resentment of China's trade practices is based on the old growth model that the country no longer adheres to. Trump's version of Chinese manufacturers - "sweat shops" operating in "pollution heaven" heavily dependent on state subsidies and a cheap currency - is increasingly out of touch with today's reality, as discussed in detail in a previous report.3 In a nutshell, Chinese manufacturers have quickly climbed up the value-add ladder due to rapidly rising labor costs, and pollution control has become an urgent social issue. Meanwhile, the RMB has been under constant downward pressure in recent years, and the Chinese authorities may welcome coordinated efforts to weaken the dollar and support the yuan. In short, China will not find it too painful to accept Trump's terms and conditions, as the "sick parts" of the Chinese economy will inevitably be cleansed regardless of pressure from the U.S. The risk to this view is that Trump finds China's progress too slow and grows impatient. Previous American presidents have come to accept China's gradualism and have demurred from punitive measures. Trump, with his populist base and promises, may at some point find it politically expedient to exact a price on China for failing to deliver the desired results on his electoral timeline. Across the board tariffs on Chinese imports are unlikely, but highly symbolic sanctions and anti-dumping measures remain distinct possibility. The End Game Of Sino-U.S. Trade Imbalances However, any immediate concessions from China on trade will do little to fundamentally change the U.S.'s external imbalances. It is well known that a country's current account balance is the residual of its national savings and domestic capital spending. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect a meaningful reduction in the country's current account deficit without lifting America's domestic savings rate. Chart 1 shows the chronic nature of America's external deficit. It is worth noting that the "Nixon shock" in 1971 - the policy package of closing the gold window and imposing across-the-board tariffs on imports - was triggered when the U.S. was on track to have its first annual trade deficit since the 19th century. Fast forward 46 years later, various attempts by American administrations have failed to rescue the deteriorating trend. Many countries over the years such as Germany, Japan and newly-industrialized economies in Asia were all singled out as conducting unfair trade practices with the U.S., but none of the bilateral and multi-lateral efforts were effective with lasting impact. A fundamental change in global trade over the past four decades has been the rapid industrialization of China. In essence, China has become the final point of an increasingly integrated global assembly line, and therefore America's chronic deficit has been transferred from other countries to China. Chart 2 shows China's surplus with the U.S. has ballooned, while other countries' surpluses have dwindled. This has put China squarely under the spotlight, replacing previous scapegoats. Chart 1America's Secular Deficit... Chart 2... From Changing Sources From China's perspective, the country will continue to run a surplus with the U.S. so long as it remains in the most manufacturing-intensive phase of its development curve, though the product mix will continue to shift from lower-value-added goods to higher-value-added ones. Meanwhile, the Chinese corporate sector will shift production capacity to even lower cost countries, similar to what Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan have done in relation to China since the early 1980s when China began to open up. Already, China's direct investment to Vietnam has surged in recent years, which partially explains the sharp increase in Vietnam's trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In fact, Vietnamese trade surplus with the U.S. account for 15% of the country's GDP, even though its overall trade balance is barely positive. This means that America's demand for cheap consumer goods is the main driving forces for its deficit, rather than any particular country's unfair trade practices. The fact is that the U.S. has moved beyond industrialization and become a post-industrial society, where the service sector generates more wealth than the manufacturing sector. China's shrinking share of imports from the U.S. is the mirror image of America's shrinking share of the manufacturing sector in the overall economy (Chart 4). Furthermore, the self-imposed restrictions on some high-tech goods exports to China further limits American firms growth potential, as this is the most competitive segment of America's manufacturing sector in the global market. Without removing these restrictions, it is unrealistic to expect a material increase in sales to China. Chart 3The "China Factor" In Vietnam's##br## Growing Trade Surpluses Chart 4America's Deindustrialization And ##br##Shrinking Market Share In China For now, the Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending severely tested bilateral relations and that the risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. Trump may adopt a "good cop / bad cop" strategy that creates greater volatility. Longer term, unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Imposing tariffs on Chinese imports only pushes Chinese surpluses to other less-competitive countries; it does not bring jobs back to the U.S. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB: Back In The Spotlight," dated March 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global political risks are understated in 2018; U.S. policy will favor the USD, as will global macro trends; Trump's trade protectionism will re-emerge; China will slow, and may intensify structural reforms; Italian elections will reignite Euro Area breakup risk. Feature In our last report, we detailed why political risks are overstated in 2017.1 First, markets are underestimating President Trump's political capital when it comes to passing his growth agenda. Second, risks of populist revolt remain overstated in Europe. Third, political risks associated with Brexit probably peaked earlier this year. Next year, however, the geopolitical calendar is beset with potential systemic risks. First, we fear that President Trump will elevate trade to the top of his list of priorities, putting fears of protectionism and trade wars back onto the front burner. In turn, this could precipitate a serious crisis in the U.S.-China relationship and potentially inspire Chinese policymakers to redouble their economic reforms - so as not to "let a good crisis go to waste." That, in turn, would create short-term deflationary effects. Meanwhile, we fear that investors will have been lulled to sleep by the pro-market outcomes in Europe this year. The series of elections that go against populists may number seven by January 2018 (two Spanish elections, the Austrian presidential election, the Dutch general election, the French presidential and legislative elections, and the German general election in September). However, the Italian election looms as a risk in early 2018 and investors should not ignore it. Investors should remain overweight risk assets for the next 12 months. Our conviction level, however, declines in 2018 due to mounting geopolitical risks. Mercantilism Makes A Comeback Fears of a trade war appear distant and alarmist following the conclusion of the Mar-a-Lago summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. We do not expect the reset in relations to last beyond this year. Trump has issued a "shot across the bow" and now the two sides are settling down to business - but investors should avoid a false sense of complacency.2 Investors should remember that candidate Trump's rhetoric on China and globalization was why he stood out from the crowd of bland, establishment Republican candidates. Despite the establishment's tenacious support for globalization, Americans no longer believe in the benefits of free trade, at least not as defined by the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" of the past two decades (Chart 1). We take Trump's views on trade seriously. They certainly helped him outperform expectations in the manufacturing-heavy Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Chart 2). And yet, Trump's combined margin of victory in the three states was just 77,744 votes -- less than 0.5% of the electorate of the three states! That should be enough to keep him focused on fulfilling his campaign promises to Midwest voters, at least if he wants to win in 2020.3 Chart 1America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 2Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt In 2017, Trump's domestic agenda has taken precedent over international trade. The president is dealing with several key pieces of legislation, including the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive tax reform, the repeal of Obama-era regulations, and infrastructure spending. However, there is considerable evidence that trade will eventually come back up: President Trump's appointments have favored proponents of protectionism (Table 1) whose statements have included some true mercantilist gems (Table 2). Table 1Government Appointments Certifying That Trump Is A Protectionist Table 2Protectionist Statements From The Trump Administration Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, who is not known as a vociferous proponent of protectionism, prevented the G20 communique from reaffirming a commitment to free trade at the March meeting of finance officials in Baden-Baden, Germany.4 Such statements were staples of the summits over the past decade. The Commerce Department - under notable trade hawk Wilbur Ross - looks to be playing a much more active role in setting the trade agenda under President Trump. Ross has already imposed a penalty on Chinese chemical companies in a toughly worded ruling that declares, "this is not the last that bad actors in global trade will hear from us - the games are over." He is overseeing a three-month review of the causes of U.S. deficits, planning to add "national security" considerations to trade and investment assessments, proposing a new means of collecting duties in disputes, and encouraging U.S. firms to bring cases against unfair competition. Ross is likely to be joined by a tougher U.S. Trade Representative (who has historically been the most important driver of trade policy in the executive branch). In addition, we believe that Trump's success on the domestic policy front, in combination with the global macro environment, will lead to higher risk of protectionism in 2018. There are three overarching reasons: Domestic Policy Is Bullish USD: We do not know what path the White House and Congress will take on tax reform. We think tax reform is on the way, but the path of least resistance may be to leave reform for later and focus entirely on tax cuts in 2017. Whatever the outcome, we are almost certain that it will involve greater budget deficits than the current budget law augurs (Chart 3). Even a modest boost to government spending will motivate the Fed to accelerate its tightening cycle at a time when the output gap is nearly closed and unemployment is plumbing decade lows (Chart 4). This will perpetuate the dollar bull market. Chart 3Come What May, Trump Will Increase The Budget Deficit Chart 4A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation Chinese Growth Scare Is Bullish USD: At some point later this year, Chinese data is likely to decelerate and induce a growth scare. Our colleague Yan Wang of BCA's China Investment Strategy believes that the Chinese economy is on much better footing than in early 2016, but that the year-on-year macro indicators will begin to moderate.5 This could rekindle investors' fears of another China-led global slowdown. Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have gone forward with property market curbs and begun to tighten liquidity marginally on the interbank system. The seven-day repo rate, a key benchmark for Chinese lending terms, has surged to its highest level in two years, according to BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy. It could surge again, dissuading small and medium-sized banks from bond issuance (Chart 5). Falling commodity demand and fear of another slowdown in China will weigh on EM assets and boost the USD. European Political Risks Are Bullish USD: Finally, any rerun of political risks in Europe in 2018 will force the ECB to be a lot more dovish than the market expects. With Italian elections to be held some time in Q1 or Q2 2018 - more on that risk below - we think the market is getting way ahead of itself with expectations of tighter monetary policy in Europe. The expected number of months till an ECB rate hike has collapsed from nearly 60 months in July 2016 to just 20 months in March, before recovering to 28 months as various ECB policymakers sought to dampen expectations of rate hikes (Chart 6).6 In addition, our colleague Mathieu Savary of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has noted that a relationship exists between EM growth and European monetary policy (Chart 7), which suggests that any Chinese growth scares would similarly be euro-bearish and USD-bullish.7 Chart 5Interbank Volatility Will ##br##Dampen Chinese Credit Growth Chart 6Market Is Way Ahead Of ##br## Itself On ECB Hawkishness Chart 7EM Spreads, ECB Months-To-Hike: ##br##Same Battle The combination of Trump's domestic policy agenda and these global macro-economic factors will drive the dollar up. At some point in 2018, we assume that USD strength will begin to irk Donald Trump and his cabinet, particularly as it prevents them from delivering on their promise of shrinking trade deficits. We suspect that President Trump will eventually reach for the "currency manipulation" playbook of the 1970s-80s. There are two parallels that investors should be aware of: 1971 Smithsonian Agreement - President Richard Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."8 Less understood, but also part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. As president, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks, including Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in favor of threatening a reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan to force Berlin and Tokyo to the negotiating table.9 Economists in the cabinet opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, but policymakers favored brinkmanship.10 The eventual surcharge was said to be "temporary," but there was no explicit end date. The U.S. ultimately got other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen, but not as much as it wanted. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt Trans-Atlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination between allies. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge by December without meeting most of its other objectives, including increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the exchange-rate outcomes of the deal dissipated within two years. 1985 Plaza Accord - The U.S. reached for the mercantilist playbook again in the early 1980s as the USD rallied on the back of Volcker's dramatic interest rate hikes. The subsequent dollar bull market hurt U.S. exports and widened the current account deficit (Chart 8). U.S. negotiators benefited from the 1971 Nixon surcharge because European and Japanese policymakers knew that Americans were serious about tariffs. The result was coordinated currency manipulation to drive down the dollar and self-imposed export limits by Japan, both of which had an almost instantaneous effect on the Japanese share of American imports (Chart 9). Chart 8Dollar Bull Market And ##br## Current Account Balance Chart 9The U.S. Got What It ##br##Wanted From Plaza Accord The Smithsonian and Plaza examples are important for two reasons. First, they show that Trump's mercantilism is neither novel nor somehow "un-American." It especially is not anti-Republican, with both Nixon and Reagan having used overt protectionism as a negotiating tool in recent history. In fact, Trump's Trade Representative, the yet-to-be-confirmed Robert Lighthizer, is a veteran of the latter agreement, having negotiated it for President Ronald Reagan.11 Second, the experience of both negotiations in bringing about a shift in the U.S. trade imbalance will motivate the Trump administration to reach for the same "coordinated currency manipulation" playbook. The problem is that 2018 is neither 1971 nor 1985. The Trump administration will face three constraints to using currency devaluation to reduce the U.S. trade imbalance: Chart 10Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 11Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Economy: Europe and Japan were booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s and had the luxury of appreciating their currencies at the U.S.'s behest. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that engineers structural bull markets in the euro and RMB respectively. For Europe, the risk is that peripheral economies may not survive a back-up in yields. For China, monetary policy tightness would imperil the debt-servicing of its enormous corporate debt horde. Apex of Globalization: U.S. policymakers could negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because the promise of increased trade remained intact. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization. In 2017, however, this promise has been muted. Global trade has peaked as a percent of GDP (Chart 10), average tariffs appear to have bottomed (Chart 11), and the number of preferential trade agreements signed each year has collapsed (Chart 12). Temporary trade barriers have ticked up since 2008 (Chart 13). To be clear, these signs are not necessarily proof that globalization is reversing, but merely that it has reached its apex. Nonetheless, America's trade partners will be far less willing to agree to coordinated currency manipulation in an era where the global trade pie is no longer growing. Geopolitics: During the Cold War, the U.S. had far greater leverage over Europe and Japan than it does today over Europe and China. While the U.S. is still involved in European defense, its geopolitical relationship with China is hostile. What happens when the Smithsonian/Plaza playbook fails? We would expect the Trump administration to switch tactics. Two alternatives come to mind: Protectionism: As the Nixon surcharge demonstrates, the U.S. president has few legal, constitutional constraints to using tariffs against trade partners.12 As the Trump White House grows frustrated in 2018 with the widening trade imbalance, it may reach for the tariff playbook. The risk here is that retaliation from Europe and China would be swift, hurting U.S. exporters in the process. Dovishness: There is a much simpler alternative to a global trade war: inflation. Our theory that the USD will rally amidst domestic fiscal stimulus is predicated on the Fed hiking rates faster as inflation and growth pick up. But what if the Fed decides to respond to higher nominal GDP growth by hiking rates more slowly? This could be the strategy pursued by the next Fed chair, to be in place by February 3, 2018. We do not buy the conventional wisdom that "President Trump will pick hawks because his economic advisors are hawks" for two reasons. First, we do not know that Trump's economic advisors will carry the day. Second, we suspect that President Trump will be far more focused on winning the 2020 election than putting a hawk in charge of the Fed. Chart 12Low-Hanging Fruit Of Globalization Already Picked Chart 13Temporary Trade Barriers Ticking Up Bottom Line: Putting it all together, we expect that U.S. trade imbalances will come to the forefront of the political agenda in 2018. This will especially be the case if the USD continues to rally into next year, contributing to the widening of the trade deficit. We expect any attempt to reenact the Smithsonian/Plaza agreements to flame out quickly. America's trade partners are constrained and unable to appreciate their currencies against the USD. This could rattle the markets in 2018 as investors become aware that Trump's mercantilism is real and that chances of a trade war are high. On the other hand, Trump may take a different tack altogether and instead focus on talking down the USD. This will necessitate a compliant Fed, which will mean higher inflation and a weaker USD. Such a strategy could prolong the reflation trade through 2018 and into 2019, but only if the subsequent bloodbath in the bond market is contained. China Decides To Reform Presidents Trump and Xi launched a new negotiation framework on April 6 that they will personally oversee, as well as a "100 Day Plan" on trade that we expect will result in a flurry of activity over the next three months. One potential outcome of the meeting is a rumored plan for massive Chinese investment into the U.S. that could add a headline 700,000 jobs, complemented with further opening of China's agricultural, automotive, and financial sectors to U.S. investment and exports. Investors may be fêted with more good news, especially with President Trump slated to visit China before long. President Trump, a prominent China-basher, may decide that the deals he brings home from China will be enough to convince the Midwest electorate that he has gotten the U.S. a "better deal" as promised. This would enable him to stabilize China relations in order to focus on other issues, as all presidents since Reagan have done. However, we doubt that the Sino-American relationship can be resolved through short-term trade initiatives alone. There is too much distrust, as we have elucidated before.13 The 100-day plan is a good start but it carries an implicit threat of tariffs from the Trump administration if China fails to follow through; and China is not likely to give Trump everything he wants. Moreover, strategic and security issues are far from settled, despite some positive gestures. As such, we expect both economic and geopolitical tensions to resurface in 2018. Meanwhile Chinese policymakers may decide to use tensions with the U.S. as an opportunity to redouble efforts towards structural reforms at home. Since the Xi Jinping administration pledged sweeping pro-market reforms in 2013, the country has shied away from dealing with its massive corporate debt hoard (Chart 14) and has only trimmed the overcapacity in sectors like steel and coal (Chart 15). It fears incurring short-term pain, albeit for long-term gain. However, if Beijing can blame any reform-induced slowdown on the U.S. and its nationalist administration, it will make it easier to manage the political blowback at home, providing a means of rallying the public around the flag. Chart 14China's Corporate Debt Pile Still A Problem... Chart 15...And So Is Industrial Overcapacity China has, of course, undertaken significant domestic reforms under the current administration. It has re-centralized power in the hands of the Communist Party and made steps to improve quality of life by fighting pollution, expanding health-care access, and loosening the One Child policy. These measures have long-term significance for investors because they imply that the Chinese state is responsive to the secular rise in social unrest over the past decade. The political system is still vulnerable in the event of a major economic crisis, but the party's legitimacy has been reinforced. Nevertheless, what long-term investors fear is China’s simultaneous backsliding on key components of economic liberalization. Since the global financial crisis, the government has adopted a series of laws that impose burdens on firms, especially foreign and private firms, relating to security, intellectual property, technology, legal (and political) compliance, and market access. Moreover, since the market turmoil in 2015-16, the government has moved to micromanage the country’s stock market, capital account, banking and corporate sectors, and Internet and media. The general darkening of the business environment is a major reason why investors have not celebrated notable reform moves like liberalizing deposit interest rates or standardizing the business-service tax. These steps require further reforms to build on them (i.e. to remove lending preferences for SOEs, or to provide local governments with revenues to replace the business tax). But all reforms are now in limbo as the Communist Party approaches its “midterm” party congress this fall. Most importantly for investors, the government has still not shown it can "get off the train" of rapid credit growth that has underpinned China's transition away from foreign demand (Chart 16). The country's relatively robust consumer-oriented and service-sector growth remains to be tested by tighter financial conditions. And the property sector poses an additional, perpetual financial risk, which policymakers have avoided tackling with reforms like the proposed property tax (a key reform item to watch for next year).14 The PBoC's recent tightening efforts come after a period of dramatic liquidity assistance to the banks (Chart 17), and even though interbank rates remain well below their brief double-digit levels during the "Shibor Crisis" in 2013 (see Chart 5 above, page 6), any tightening serves to revive fears that financial instability could re-emerge and translate to the broader economy. Chart 16China's Savings Fueling Debt Buildup Chart 17PBoC Lends A Helping Hand What signposts should investors watch to see whether China re-initiates structural reforms? Already, personnel changes at the finance and commerce ministries, as well as the National Development and Reform Commission and China Banking Regulatory Commission, suggest that the Xi administration may be headed in this direction. Table 3 focuses on the steps that we think would be most important, beginning with the party congress this fall. Given current levels of overcapacity and corporate leverage, we suspect that genuine structural reform will begin with a move toward deleveraging, and involve a mix of bank recapitalization and capacity destruction, as it did in the 1990s and early 2000s. These reforms included the formation of new central financial authorities, like policy banks, regulatory bodies, and asset management companies, to oversee the cleaning up of bank balance sheets and the removal of numerous inefficient players from the financial sector.15 They eventually entailed transfers of funds from the PBoC, from foreign exchange reserves, and from public offerings as major banks were partially privatized. On the corporate side, the reforms witnessed the elimination of a range of SOEs and layoffs numbering around 40% of SOE employees, or 4% of the economically active workforce at the time. Table 3Will China Launch Painful Economic Restructuring Next Year? Chinese President Jiang Zemin launched these reforms after the party congress of 1997, just as his successor, Hu Jintao, attempted to launch similar reforms following the party congress of 2007. The latter got cut short by the Great Recession. The question now for Xi Jinping's administration is whether he will use his own midterm party congress to launch the reforms that he has emphasized: namely, deep overcapacity cuts and financial and property market stabilization through measures to mitigate systemic risks.16 Bottom Line: China may decide to use American antagonism as an "excuse" to launch a serious structural reform push following this fall's National Party Congress. Short-term pain, which is normal under a reform scenario in any country, could then be blamed on an antagonistic U.S. trade and geopolitical policy. While reforms in China are a positive in the long term, we fear that a slowdown in China would export deflation to still fragile EM economies. And given Europe's high-beta economy, it could also be negative for European assets and the euro. Europe's Divine Comedy Investors remain focused on European elections this year. The first round of the French election is just 11 days away and polls are tightening (Chart 18). Although Marine Le Pen is set to lose the second round in a dramatic fashion against the pro-market, centrist Emmanuel Macron (Chart 19), she could be a lot more competitive if either center-right François Fillon or left-wing Jean-Luc Mélenchon squeaks by Macron to get into the second round.17 Chart 18Melenchon's Rise: Comrades Unite! Chart 19Le Pen Cruisin' For A Bruisin' The risk of someone-other-than-Macron getting into the second round is indeed rising. However, Mélenchon's rise thus far appears to be the mirror image of Socialist Party candidate Benoît Hamon's demise. At some point, this move will reach its natural limits: not all Hamon voters are willing to switch to Mélenchon. At that point, the Communist Party-backed Mélenchon will have to start taking voters away from Le Pen. This is definitely possible, but would also create a scenario in which it is Mélenchon, not Le Pen, that faces off against a centrist candidate in the second round. As such, we see Mélenchon's rise primarily as a threat to Le Pen, not Macron.18 While we remain focused on the French election, we think that any market relief from that election - and the subsequent German one - will be temporary. By early next year, investors will have to deal with Italian elections. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no clarity in terms of who will win the Italian election. If elections were held today, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) would gain a narrow victory (Chart 20). However, it is not clear what electoral law will apply in the next election. The current law on the books, which the Democratic Party-led (PD) government is attempting to reform by next February, would give a party reaching 40% of the vote a majority-bonus. As Chart 20 illustrates, however, no party is near that threshold. As such, the next election may produce a hung parliament with no clarity, but with a Euroskeptic plurality. Meanwhile, the ruling center-left Democratic Party is crumbling. Primaries are set for April 30 and will pit former PM Matteo Renzi against left-wing factions that have coalesced into a single alliance called the Progressive and Democratic Movement (DP). For now, DP supports the government of caretaker PM Paolo Gentiloni, but its members have recently embarrassed the government by voting with the opposition in a key April 6 vote in the Senate. If Renzi wins the leadership of the Democratic Party again, DP members could formally split and contest the 2018 election as a separate party. The real problem for investors with Italy is not the next election, whose results are almost certain to be uncertain, but rather the Euroskeptic turn in Italian politics. First, aggregating all Euroskeptic and Europhile parties produces a worrying trend (Chart 21). And we are being generous to the pro-European camp by including the increasingly Euroskeptic Forza Italia of former PM Silvio Berlusconi in its camp. Chart 20Five Star Movement Set For Plurality Win Chart 21Euroskeptics Take The Lead Unlike its Mediterranean peers Spain and Portugal, Italian support for the euro is still plumbing decade lows -- no doubt a reflection of the country's non-existent economic recovery (Chart 22). It is difficult to see how Italians can regain confidence in European integration given that they are unwilling to pursue painful structural reforms. Chart 22Italian Economic Woes Hurt Euro Support The question is not whether Italy will face a Euroskeptic crisis, but rather when. It may avoid one in 2018 as the pro-euro centrists cobble together a weak government or somehow entice the center-right into forming a grand coalition. But even in that rosy scenario, such a government is not going to have a mandate for painful structural reforms that would be required to pull Italy out of its low-growth doldrums. As such, it is unlikely that the next Italian government will last its full five-year term. Bottom Line: Investors should prepare for a re-run of Europe's sovereign debt crisis, with Italy as the main event. We expect this risk to be delayed until after the Italian election in 2018, maybe later. However, it is likely to have global repercussions, given Italy's status as the third-largest sovereign debt market. Will Italy exit the euro? Our view is that Italy needs a crisis in order to stay in the Euro Area, as only the market can bring forward the costs of euro exit for Italian voters by punishing the economy through the bond market. The market, economy, and politics have a dynamic relationship and Italian voters will be able to assess the costs of an exit first hand, as yields approach their highs in 2011 and Italian banks face a potential liquidity crisis. Given that support for the euro remains above 50% today, we would expect that Italians would back off from the abyss after such a shock, but our conviction level is low.19 Housekeeping This week, we are taking profits on our long MXN/RMB trade. We initiated the trade on January 25, 2017 and it has returned 14.2% since then. The trade was a play on our view that Trump's protectionism would hit China harder than Mexico. Given the favorable conclusion to the Mar-a-Lago summit - and the likely easing of risks of a China-U.S. trade war in the near term - it is time to book profits on this trade. We still see short-term upside to MXN and investors may want to pair it by shorting the Turkish lira. We expect more downside to TRY given domestic political instability, which we expect to continue beyond the April 15 constitutional referendum. We see both the yes and no outcomes of the referendum as market negative. In addition, we are closing our short Chinese RMB (via 12-month non-deliverable forwards) trade for a profit of 5.89% and our long USD/SEK trade for a gain of 1.27%. Our short U.K. REITs trade has been stopped out for a loss of 5%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For this negotiating sequence, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington," dated November 24, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Trump loves to win. 4 Please see Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany, "Communique - G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting," dated March 18, 2017, available at www.bundesfinanzministerium.de. 5 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead," dated April 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 The head of the Lithuanian central bank, Vitas Vasiliauskas, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal in early April stating that "it is too early to discuss an exit because still we have a lot of significant uncertainties." This was followed by the executive board member Peter Praet dampening expectations of even a reduction in the bank's bond-buying program and President Mario Draghi stating that the current monetary policy stance remained appropriate. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?" dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org, and Barry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936 and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 9 Treasury Secretary John Connally was particularly protectionist, with two infamous mercantilist quips to his name: "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first," and "the dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." 10 Paul Volcker, then Undersecretary of the Treasury, provided some color on this divide: "As I remember it, the discussion largely was a matter of the economists against the politicians, and the outcome wasn't really close." 11 We highly recommend that our clients peruse Lighthizer's testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Beginning at p. 29, he recommends three key measures: using the 1971 surcharge as a model (p. 31); going beyond "WTO-consistent" policies (p. 33); and imposing tariffs against China explicitly (p. 35). Please see Robert E. Lighthizer, "Testimony Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission: Evaluating China's Role in the World Trade Organization Over the Past Decade," dated June 9, 2010, available at www.uscc.gov. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also the recent Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Market Equity Sector Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Is Beijing About To Blink?" in Monthly Report, "What Geopolitical Risks Keep Our Clients Awake?" dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 At a meeting of the Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs, which Xi chairs, the decision was made to make some progress on these structural issues this year, but only within the overriding framework of ensuring "stability." The question is whether Xi will grow bolder in 2018. Please see "Xi stresses stability, progress in China's economic work," Xinhua, February 28, 2017, available at news.xinhuanet.com. 17 That said, the most recent poll - conducted between April 9-10 - shows that Mélenchon may be even more likely to defeat Le Pen than Macron. He had a 61% to 39% lead in the second round versus Le Pen. 18 In the second round, Macron is expected to defeat Mélenchon by 55% to 45%, according to the latest poll, conducted April 9-10. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights High Conviction Views: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Medium Conviction Views: Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. Euro Area Bond Distortions: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Feature Chart of the WeekWhy Are Yields Falling? After publishing two Special Reports in the past two weeks, this Weekly Report is our first opportunity to comment on the markets in April. We find it somewhat surprising that government bonds in the developed world have rallied as much as they have since the most recent peak last month, with the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury and German Bund seeing yield declines of -29bps and -22bps, respectively. Most of the move in Treasuries has been in the real yield component, while Bunds have seen a more even split between declines in real yields and inflation expectations. This has occurred despite minimal changes in actual growth or inflation pressures in either the U.S. or Europe (Chart of the Week). The price action in the Treasury market after last week's U.S. Payrolls report is a sign that the bond backdrop remains bearish. Yields initially fell all the way to 2.26% after the March increase in jobs fell short of expectations, before subsequently rebounding sharply to end the day at 2.38%. While intraday yield reversals on Payrolls Fridays are as typical as the sun setting in the west, a 12bp swing is one of the larger ones in recent memory (perhaps because investors eventually noticed the weather-related distortions in the data or, more importantly, that the U.S. unemployment rate had fallen to 4.5%). We continue to favor a pro-growth bias for bond investors, staying below-benchmark on overall duration and selectively overweight on corporate credit (favoring the U.S.). Ranking Our Current Market Views, By Conviction We have seen little in the economic data over the past few weeks to change our main strategic market views and portfolio recommendations. We summarize our main opinions below, ranked in order of our conviction level: Highest conviction views: Below-benchmark on overall portfolio duration exposure (for dedicated bond investors). Global bond yields have more room to rise alongside solid economic growth, tightening labor markets, inflation expectations drifting higher and central banks moving to slightly less accommodative monetary policies, on the margin. While the sharp upward momentum in coincident bond indicators like the global ZEW sentiment index has cooled of late, the solid upturn in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator continues to point to future upward pressure on real yields (Chart 2). The recent pullback in yields also appears to have run too far versus the trend in global data surprises, which remain elevated (bottom panel). One factor that we see having a potentially huge negative impact on global bond markets is the European Central Bank (ECB) announcing a move to a less accommodative policy stance later this year. A taper of asset purchases starting in 2018 is the more likely outcome than any hike in policy interest rates, which we see as more of a story for 2019. This should help push longer-dated bond yields higher within the Euro Area, and drag up global bond yields more generally. Underweight U.S. Treasuries. We still expect the Fed to deliver at least two more hikes this year, and there is still room for U.S. inflation expectations to rise further and put bear-steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. Our two-factor model for the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield, which uses the global purchasing managers index (PMI) and investor sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as the explanatory variables, indicates that yields are now about 18bps below fair value. From a technical perspective, the Treasury market no longer appears as oversold as it did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. The large short positions indicated by the J.P. Morgan duration survey and the Commitment of Traders report for Treasury futures have largely been unwound, while price momentum has flipped into positive territory (Chart 3). This removes one of the largest impediments to a renewed decline in Treasury prices, and we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.30%-2.60% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.80%-3% area by year-end. Chart 2Maintain A Defensive Duration Posture Chart 3Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Underweight Italian government bonds, versus both Germany and Spain. Italian government debt continues to suffer from the toxic combination of sluggish growth and weak domestic banks. The OECD leading economic indicator for Italy is declining, in contrast to the stable-to-rising trends in Germany and Spain (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the 5-year credit default swaps (CDS) for the major banks in Italy remain elevated around 400bps, in sharp contrast to the declining CDS in Germany and Spain which are now at 100bps. It is no coincidence that the widening trend in Italy-Germany and Italy-Spain spreads began around the same time last year that Italian bank CDS started to disengage from the rest of Europe (bottom panel). Markets understand that the undercapitalized Italian banking system will need government assistance at some point, which will add to the Italian government's already huge debt/GDP ratio of 133%. Political uncertainty in Italy, with parliamentary elections due by the spring of 2018 and populist parties like the anti-euro Five-Star Alliance holding up well in the polls, will also ensure that the risk premium on Italian bonds stays wide both in absolute terms and relative to other Peripheral European markets. Overweight U.S. corporate bonds, versus both U.S. Treasuries and Euro Area equivalents. The positive case for U.S. corporate debt is built upon two factors - the cyclical decline in default risk and the marginal improvement in balance sheet metrics. The latest estimates from Moody's are calling for a decline in the U.S. speculative grade corporate default rate to 3.1% this year. This leaves our measure of default-adjusted spreads in U.S. high-yield at levels that our colleagues at our sister publication, U.S. Bond Strategy, have shown to have a high probability of delivering positive excess returns over Treasuries in the next 12 months.1 Add to that the recent change in trend of our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (CHM), which appears largely driven by some more positive numbers coming from lower-rated issuers in the Energy space given the recovery in oil prices, and the optimistic case for U.S. corporate debt is compelling. This is in contrast to our Euro Area CHM, which shows that the improving trend in balance sheet metrics has stalled of late (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Stay Underweight Italy Chart 5Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates vs Europe The difference between the U.S. and European CHMs has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative return performance between the two markets, and is currently pointing to continued outperformance of both U.S. investment grade and high-yield debt versus European equivalents (bottom two panels). The threat of an ECB taper also hangs over the Euro Area investment grade corporate bond market, given the large buying of that debt by the central bank over the past year that has helped dampen both yields and spreads. Chart 6Stay Overweight Inflation Protection Medium-conviction views: Overweight inflation protection (both inflation-linked bonds and CPI swaps) in the U.S., Euro Area and Japan. In the U.S., the breakeven inflation rate on 10-year TIPS looks a bit too wide relative to our shorter-term model based on financial variables. However, underlying U.S. inflation pressures remain strong (Chart 6, top panel), particularly given the evidence that conditions in the labor market are getting progressively tighter. We expect inflation expectations to eventually rise back to levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target on headline PCE inflation (which is around 2.5% on 10-year TIPS breakevens that are priced off the CPI index). The reflation story is somewhat less compelling in Europe and Japan, although CPI swaps are now at levels consistent with the underlying trends in realized inflation in both regions (bottom two panels). We continue to view long positions in CPI swaps in Europe and Japan as having a positive risk/reward skew given the tightening labor market in the former and the yen-negative monetary policies in the latter. Long France government bonds (10yr OATs) versus Germany (10yr Bunds). This is purely a call on the upcoming French election, which our political strategists believe will not end in a victory for the populist Marine Le Pen. While Le Pen has seen a recent bump in support heading into the first round of voting on April 23rd, her strong anti-euro position will eventually prove to be her undoing in the run-off election on May 7th (Chart 7). We first made this recommendation back in early February, and even though France-Germany spreads have been volatile since then as both Le Pen and the far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon have seen a pickup in their poll numbers, the yield differentials are essentially at the same levels.2 We take this as a sign that the market believes current spreads are enough to compensate for the likely probability that either candidate could win the French presidency. Overweight JGBs Vs. the Global Treasury index. The argument here is a simple one - in an environment where there is cyclical upward pressure on global bond yields, favor the lowest-beta bond market (Chart 8). Persistently low inflation will prevent the Bank of Japan (BoJ) from making any changes to its current hyper-accommodative policies this year, especially the 0% cap on the benchmark 10-year JGB yield.3 The lack of yield limits the prospects for JGBs on a total return basis, but relative to other government bond markets, JGBs should outperform over the next 6-12 months as non-Japanese yields rise further. Chart 7Stay Overweight France Vs Germany Chart 8Stay Overweight Low-Beta JGBs Underweight U.S. Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Investors should remain underweight U.S. MBS, as spreads remain tight by historical standards. Our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy note that nominal MBS spreads have been flat in recent weeks as the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, has tightened to offset a widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS).4 Chart 9Stay Underweight U.S. MBS We tend to think of the OAS as being influenced by trends in net issuance while the option cost is linked to mortgage prepayments (Chart 9). Looking ahead, the supply of MBS should increase further when the Fed starts to shrink its balance sheet later this year (as was mentioned in the minutes of the March FOMC meeting that were released last week), leading to a wider OAS. At the same time, refinancing applications should stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise. This will keep downward pressure on the option cost component of spreads. But with the option cost already near its historical lows, it is unlikely to completely offset the widening in OAS going forward. We see little value in U.S. MBS at current spread levels. Bottom Line: The global cyclical backdrop remains negative for government bond markets, and the recent declines in yields will not be sustained. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall duration stance, favoring U.S. corporate debt with underweight exposures to U.S. Treasuries and Italian government debt, as our highest conviction views. Staying overweight global inflation protection, French government bonds versus Germany, and Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) versus the rest of the developed bond markets, while remaining underweight U.S. Mortgage Backed Securities, are recommendations that we hold with a more moderate conviction level. How Much Has The ECB Distorted The European Bond Market? Last week, Benoit Coeure of the ECB Executive Board gave a speech entitled "Bond Scarcity and the ECB Asset Purchase Program."5 That title piqued our interest, as that exact topic has come up in several of our conversations with clients this year. In his speech, Coeure discussed how the huge rally at the short-end of the German government bond curve over the past year has been at odds with what has occurred in the Euro swap curve, where interest rates are much higher for shorter-maturity swaps. Typically, German yields and Euro swap rates move in tandem, with the only differences being a function of technical factors like fixed-rate corporate debt issuance or government bond repo rates - and, on occasion, shifts in the perceived health of Euro Area banks that are the counterparties to any interest rate swap. The latter has become much less of an issue in recent years given the regulatory changes to the swap market, where trading has moved to centralized exchanges to reduce counterparty risks. In this environment, the difference between German bond yields and Euro swap rates, a.k.a the swap spread, should be relatively modest. Yet as can be seen in Chart 10, there has been a notable divergence at the shorter-maturity portions of the respective yield curves, where swap rates are rising but bond yields remain subdued. We can also see the divergences in the slopes of the relative yield curves, with the Euro Area swap curve much flatter than the German bond curve, particularly at longer maturities (Chart 11). Chart 10Large Distortions At The Front End Of The German Curve Chart 11Euro Area Swap Curves Are Generally Flatter Coeure argued that part of this distortion can be attributed to ECB asset purchases, especially after the decision taken last December to allow bond buying at yields below the -0.4% ECB deposit rate. This created a more favorable demand/supply balance for German debt, especially given the dearth of short-dated issuance. In addition, Coeure noted that there have been substantial safe-haven flows into shorter-dated German bonds (including treasury bills) by non-Euro Area entities. Some of this demand comes from large institutional investors like sovereign wealth funds and currency reserve managers, who are worried about political risks in France and Italy, and about the general rising trend in global bond yields, and are thus seeking the safety of low duration German debt. But some of the demand for short-dated German paper also comes from non-Euro Area banks, who have excess liquidity that needs to be parked in Euros but do not have access to the ECB deposit facility for the excess reserves of Euro Area banks. We can see this in Chart 12, which shows ECB data for the relative government bond ownership trends for Germany, France and Italy. The data is broken into holdings for bonds with maturities of one year or less (short-term) and bonds with maturities greater than one year (long-term). It is clear that the non-Euro area buyers own a much larger share of short-term German paper, around 90%, than in France and Italy, while Euro Area entities own nearly 80% of long-term bonds in all three countries. Coeure is correct in pointing out that there is an excess demand condition for short-dated core European debt, exacerbated by foreigners who need Euro-denominated safe assets - particularly GERMAN safe assets, if those investors are at all worried about redenomination risks given the rise of anti-euro populist parties in Europe.6 It is clear that the economic messages sent by looking at the German bond and Euro swap curves are very different. The flatter swap curve is more consistent with a steadily growing Euro Area economy where economic slack is being steadily absorbed and inflation pressures are building (albeit slowly). Also, the sovereign spread differentials within Europe do not look as problematic using swaps as the reference rate rather than German bonds. That is the case in France, where spreads versus swaps look in line with the averages of the past few years (Chart 13). This contrasts with the yield differentials versus Germany, which have reportedly gone up as investors have priced in a higher sovereign risk premium before the French presidential election. Chart 12French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 13French Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps The story is a little different for Italy, where bond spreads versus both German bonds and Euro Area swaps have risen for all but the shortest maturities (Chart 14). This could be consistent with an interpretation that Italy's banking sector woes will add to the nation's longer-term fiscal stresses (as discussed earlier in this report), but not in a way that raises immediate default risks (which is why the 2-year Italy vs swap spread is well-behaved). Regardless of the "bias of interpretation", one thing that is clear is that the ECB's extraordinary monetary policies have created distortions in Euro Area bond markets. These may start to unwind, though, if the ECB begins to signal a shift towards a tapering of asset purchases next year, as we expect. The distortions in Euro area government bond yields (and, by association, swap spreads) have occurred alongside both the cuts in ECB policy rates into negative territory and the expansion of its balance sheet to purchase government bonds (Chart 15). As the ECB moves incrementally towards less accommodative monetary policy, we would expect to see front-end Euro swap spreads narrow in absolute terms and relative to longer-tenor spreads, and the German bond curve to flatten toward levels seen in the swap curve. Chart 14Only Short-Dated Italian Bond Valuations Look More Subdued vs Swaps Chart 15ECB Policies Have Caused The Distortions In Euro Swap Spreads Bottom Line: The ECB's negative interest rate and asset purchase programs have created significant distortions in the German bond yield curve that are not as evident in the Euro Area swap rate curve, especially at shorter maturities. ECB tapering will be the trigger for a reversal of these trends. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Back-Up In Junk Spreads", dated March 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Payback Period In Corporate Bonds", dated April 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2017/html/sp170403_1.en.html 6 Coeure noted that, at the time that the ECB began its asset purchase program in March 2015, the share of German bonds of less than TWO years maturity held by foreigners was 70%, but that rose to 90% by the 3rd quarter of 2016. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. Fed's Balance Sheet: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Credit Cycle: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Feature The bond bear market has been on pause for the past few months, with Treasury yields confined to a trading range since last November's post-election sell off. While yields have not moved meaningfully higher during this time, firm floors have also formed beneath both the 5-year and 10-year yields (Chart 1). Even after last Friday's disappointing payrolls number, the 10-year did not move below 2.3% and the 5-year did not move below 1.8%. Trading Range About To Break? Our sense is that the current consolidation phase in Treasuries is approaching its end and yields will soon head higher. Global growth indicators have continued to improve during the past few months, and as we noted in last week's report,1 our 2-factor Treasury model, based on Global PMI and U.S. dollar sentiment, pegs fair value for the 10-year yield at 2.54%. We attribute the recent leveling-off in yields to technical shifts in bond positioning and sentiment. Earlier this year, net positions in Treasury futures and asset manager duration allocations were deep in "net short" territory (Chart 2). Extreme short positioning usually leads to a period of bond market strength until short positions are washed out. Now that bond market positioning is closer to neutral, a key impediment to further yield increases has been removed. Chart 1Poised For A Breakout? Chart 2Positioning Has Normalized The elevated level of economic surprises has also been flagged as a potential roadblock to the bond bear market. Extended readings from the economic surprise index tend to mean revert as investor expectations are revised higher in the face of improving data. However, our research suggests that the change in Treasury yields tends to lead the economic surprise index by 1-2 months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Given this relationship, we suspect that the bond market has already discounted a lot of mean reversion in the economic surprise index. Chart 3Approaching Full Employment Finally, last week's employment report should not be taken as a signal that U.S. economic growth is weakening. Bad weather in the northeast played a key role in the low March payrolls number - only 98k jobs added. But more importantly, at this stage of the cycle we should expect payroll growth to slow and wage pressures to increase as we approach full employment. As can be seen in Chart 3, the late cycle trends of slowing payroll growth and rising wages are very much in place. Further, even broad measures of labor market tightness, such as the U6 unemployment rate,2 are quickly approaching levels that suggest the economy is operating at full employment. Increasingly it is measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation that will guide the Fed's decision making, and these measures continue to improve. It was even noted in the minutes from the March FOMC meeting that "tight labor markets [are] increasingly a factor in businesses' planning". The minutes also reported that: Business contacts in many Districts reported difficulty recruiting workers and indicated that they had to either offer higher wages or hire workers with lower qualifications than desired Accordingly, surveys show that households are increasingly describing jobs as "plentiful" (Chart 3, panel 3) and small businesses are indeed ramping up their compensation plans (Chart 3, bottom panel). At this stage of the cycle, continued progress on measures of labor market utilization, wage growth and inflation will be sufficient for the Fed to continue lifting rates, pushing Treasury yields higher. Bottom Line: Bond market positioning is no longer at a bearish extreme and the economy is quickly approaching full employment. We expect Treasury yields will soon break through the upside of their post-election trading range. Maintain below-benchmark duration. The Fed Will Shrink Its Balance Sheet This Year Last week's release of the minutes from the March FOMC meeting also contained some new information about how the Fed plans to deal with its large balance sheet. To summarize, we learned that: The Fed intends to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year (assuming growth maintains its current pace). The Fed will shrink its balance sheet by ceasing the reinvestment of both its MBS and Treasury holdings at the same time. Still no decision has been made about whether reinvestments will stop entirely or whether they will be phased out over time ("tapered"). On February 28, we published a detailed report about the Fed's balance sheet policy.3 In that report we explained why the winding down of the balance sheet will not have much of an impact on Treasury yields, but could lead to a material widening in MBS spreads. The new information received last week does not change either of these conclusions. The minutes did make clear that the Fed favors what Governor Lael Brainard recently called a "subordination strategy" for dealing with its balance sheet.4 [A subordination strategy] would prioritize the federal funds rate as the sole active tool away from the effective lower bound, effectively subordinating the balance sheet. Once federal funds normalization meets the test of being well under way, triggering an end to the current reinvestment policy, the balance sheet would be set on autopilot, shrinking in a gradual, predictable way until a "new normal" has been reached, and then increasing in line with trend increases in the demand for currency thereafter. Under this strategy, the balance sheet might be used as an active tool only if adverse shocks push the economy back to the effective lower bound. Essentially, the Fed is trying to de-emphasize the size of the balance sheet and would rather investors focus on the fed funds rate to assess the stance of monetary policy. For our part, we think it would be unwise to "fight the Fed" on this issue. For Treasury yields, we observe that the real 10-year Treasury yield closely tracks changes in the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months, while the inflation component of the 10-year yield tracks changes in realized inflation (Chart 4). These two relationships will continue to determine trends in bond yields going forward, and Fed balance sheet shrinkage is only important if it impacts the expected pace of rate hikes or inflation. The Fed's "subordination strategy" should ensure that the act of winding down the balance sheet does not have much of an impact on the expected pace of rate hikes. Ironically, if Treasury yields were to rise sharply following the announcement of balance sheet runoff, then the ensuing tightening of financial conditions would probably lower the expected pace of rate hikes and bring Treasury yields back down again. The story for MBS is somewhat different. Nominal MBS spreads remain tight by historical standards and closely track implied interest rate volatility (Chart 5). But we can also think of nominal MBS spreads as being split between the option cost, which is the compensation for expected prepayments, and the option-adjusted spread (OAS), which tends to correlate with net supply (Chart 5, panel 2). Chart 4Focus On Rate Expectations Chart 5Stay Underweight MBS In recent weeks, the OAS has widened alongside rising net issuance, but this has been offset by a sharp decline in the option cost. This is generally the pattern we would expect to play out as the Fed lifts rates and removes itself from the MBS market. The increased supply of MBS should lead to wider OAS, but refinancing applications should also stay low as Treasury yields and mortgage rates rise (Chart 5, bottom panel). However, netting it all out, the option cost component of MBS spreads is already near its historical lows and the OAS could move materially wider just to catch up to net issuance. In prior reports,5 we have also made the case that rate volatility should rise as the fed funds rate moves further away from the zero-lower-bound. Investors should stay underweight MBS. Bottom Line: The unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet is only important for Treasury yields if it impacts the market's rate hike expectations. However, the extra supply of MBS should lead to wider MBS spreads. Checking In On The Credit Cycle We continue to recommend overweight allocations to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds. This optimistic outlook is predicated on low inflation and a Fed that will support risk assets by remaining sufficiently accommodative until inflationary pressures are more pronounced. We think this "reflationary window" will stay open at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach the 2.4% to 2.5% range.6 Behind the scenes, however, leverage is building in the nonfinancial corporate sector. In this week's report we take a look at several different indicators of corporate credit quality and conclude that once the support from low inflation and accommodative monetary policy vanishes, it is very likely that corporate defaults will start to increase and corporate spreads will widen. If our anticipated timeline plays out, we will be looking to scale back on credit risk in 2018. Corporate Health Vs. The Yield Curve Our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, see Appendix for further details) has been signaling deteriorating nonfinancial corporate health since late 2013 (Chart 6), and moved even deeper into 'deteriorating health' territory in Q4 of last year. Chart 6Corporate Health Is Deteriorating, But Monetary Policy Remains Supportive Periods when the CHM is in 'deteriorating health' territory are marked by shaded regions in Chart 6. We see that these regions usually correspond with periods when corporate spreads are widening. Even in the current episode, corporate spreads have yet to regain their mid-2014 tights. However, the bottom panel of Chart 6 shows that periods of deteriorating corporate health and wider corporate spreads are typically preceded by a very flat (often inverted) yield curve. This makes sense because a flat yield curve usually signals that interest rates are high and monetary policy is tight. Tight policy and elevated rates lead to more stringent bank lending standards and increase firms' interest burdens. With the curve still quite steep, we think the risk of sustained spread widening is minimal. However, if the CHM is still above zero when the yield curve is flatter, no support will remain for excess corporate bond returns. Net Leverage & The Payback Period We would further argue that the CHM will almost certainly be in 'deteriorating health' territory once the yield curve is close to flat. In Chart 7 we see that net leverage (defined as: total debt minus cash, as a percent of EBITD) is not only positively correlated with spreads, but also has never reversed its uptrend unless prompted by a recession. In other words, the corporate sector never voluntarily undertakes deleveraging, it only starts to pay down debt when forced by a severe economic contraction. Chart 7The Uptrend In Leverage Will Only Be Broken By Recession Closer inspection of Chart 7 reveals that the period between 1986 and 1989 is the only period when corporate spreads tightened even though leverage remained in an uptrend. In the late 1980s, leverage and corporate spreads both shot higher as a collapse in the energy sector caused overall corporate earnings to contract (Chart 7, bottom panel). But then the energy sector recovered just as quickly, and earnings growth bounced back. This caused spreads to tighten for a couple of years, even though the trend in net leverage only ever managed to flatten-off. Debt growth stayed robust during this time, despite the wild fluctuations in earnings. If any of this sounds familiar, it should. The energy sector collapse of 2014 caused net leverage and spreads to shoot higher, and now spreads have started to tighten again as earnings have rebounded. Notice that just like in the late-1980s, net leverage has not reversed its uptrend. We believe that corporate spreads have entered a "payback period" very similar to the late 1980s. Spreads can tighten as earnings rebound, but because the economy is not in recession, debt growth will remain solid and leverage will continue to trend higher. Once inflationary pressures start to bite and Fed policy becomes less accommodative, the payback period will end and spreads will head wider. Debt Growth Chart 8Bond Issuance Is Back Although we have made the case that the corporate sector does not delever unless prompted by a recession, it is notable that net corporate bond issuance was negative in Q4 of last year and the growth rate in bank lending to the corporate sector has slowed sharply. We do not think this cycle is different, and expect corporate debt growth (both bonds and loans) to rebound in the coming months. We chalk up weak corporate bond issuance in 2016Q4 to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election. In fact, we see that gross corporate bond issuance has already rebounded strongly in January and February of this year (Chart 8). Turning to bank loans, we observe that the outright level of outstanding bank loans only contracts following a recession, and that the rate of increase follows bank lending standards with a lag (Chart 9). In other words, Commercial & Industrial (C&I) loan growth is still responding to the surge in defaults that resulted from the energy sector's 2014 collapse. Now that defaults have waned, this process will soon be thrown into reverse. In fact, our model of the 6-month rate of change in C&I lending - based on private non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and corporate defaults - points to an imminent bottoming in C&I loan growth (Chart 10). Chart 9Loan Growth Follows Lending Standards Chart 10BCA C&I Loan Growth Model Bottom Line: Corporate spreads are in a "payback period" from 2014's energy shock that will allow them to tighten as corporate profits rebound, even though corporate leverage continues to trend higher. The weakening state of corporate balance sheets means spreads are at risk once monetary policy turns less accommodative. Ratings Trends & Shareholder Friendly Activities Chart 11Shareholder Friendly Activity Has Ebbed Our assessment of the cyclical back-drop for corporate spreads is primarily based on the combination of balance sheet quality - as determined by our Corporate Health Monitor and its underlying components - and the stance of monetary policy - as determined by the slope of the yield curve and C&I lending standards (among other factors). However, ratings migration and "shareholder friendly" activities have also historically provided advance notice of turns in the credit cycle. Net transfers to shareholders, i.e. payments to shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks, are a direct transfer of capital from bondholders to equityholders. These transfers tend to rise late in the cycle, just before defaults start to increase and spreads start to widen (Chart 11). Net transfers to shareholders had been moving higher, but have recently rolled over. Similarly, ratings downgrades related to shareholder transfers have also moderated (Chart 11, panel 2). Historically, ratings migration related to "shareholder friendly" activities has been a more reliable indicator of the credit cycle than overall ratings migration. It has tended to move into "net downgrade" territory later in the cycle, closer to the onset of recession (Chart 11, panel 3). Ratings trends and transfers to shareholders are not flagging any imminent risk of spread widening. However, there is the additional risk that downgrades have simply not kept pace with the actual deterioration in credit quality of the nonfinancial corporate sector. Using firm-level data, we calculated the percent of high-yield rated companies with net debt-to-EBITDA ratios above 5. We see that actual ratings migration is too low relative to the number of highly-levered firms (Chart 11, bottom panel). It is possible that ratings agencies have already incorporated the rebound in energy prices and profit growth into their assessments while the actual debt-to-EBITDA data are lagging, but this is still a risk that bears monitoring. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Reflation Window Still Open", dated April 4, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The U6 unemployment rate is a broader measure than the headline (U3) unemployment rate. It also includes those "marginally attached" to the labor force and those working part-time for economic reasons. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170301a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Keep Buying Dips", dated March 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 12Corporate Health Monitor Components Box 1: Corporate Health Monitor Components The BCA Corporate Health Monitor is a normalized composite of six financial ratios, calculated for the non-financial corporate sector as a whole (Chart 12). These six ratios are defined as follows: Profit Margins: After-tax cash flow as a percent of corporate sales Return on Capital: After-tax earnings plus interest expense, as a percent of capital stock Debt Coverage: After-tax cash flow less capital expenditures, as a percent of all interest bearing debt Interest Coverage: EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation & amortization) divided by the sum of interest expense and dividends Leverage: Total debt as a percent of market value of equity Liquidity: Working Capital, excluding inventories, as a percent of market value of assets Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The earnings rebound underway in Corporate America is being driven by more than just higher oil prices. S&P 500 profit margins have stabilized recently, but remain in secular decline. We remain bullish on the dollar and the other "Trump Trades" have legs as well. Uncertainty around tax policy may be restraining business capital spending and C&I loan growth. Feature Chart 1Excluding Energy Earnings Rebounding The so-called "Trump trades" have either stalled or partially reversed. The failure to reform Obamacare has dented hopes that the Administration and GOP will get a tax reform package done this year. The S&P 500 is not far off its all time high, but Treasury yields have returned to the bottom of the trading range and the dollar has weakened (although it has risen over the past 3 weeks). We still believe that the Republicans will at least push through tax cuts and some infrastructure spending this year, which will be stimulative for the economy. However, the 12-month outlook for the stock-to-bond ratio does not hinge solely on U.S. fiscal policy. As we have highlighted in the past, the underlying fundamentals for equities are positive, despite the fact that we see more dollar upside (see below). First quarter earnings season is about to kick off, and it should be another good one. Before we discuss the outlook for profits, let's review the fourth quarter of 2016. S&P 500 firms posted profit growth of 6% on a 4-quarter moving total year-over-year basis. The Q4 reading beat consensus bottom-up expectations at the start of earning season but were roughly in line with expectations at the start of Q4 2016 itself. The fourth quarter increase was the best year-over-year EPS gain since Q3 2014 - just after the oil price peak- and the first year-over-year increase in the 4-quarter sum since Q3 2015. Energy sector earnings posted a 6% advance in Q4, as oil prices averaged close to $49 per barrel in Q4 2016, up 17% from Q4 2015. It was the first time that oil prices posted a year-over-year increase in a quarter since Q2 2014. Part of the acceleration in earnings reflects the rise in oil prices from the Q1 2016 bottom, but higher energy prices are not the only factor driving the turnaround (Chart 1). Overall, 9 of the 11 S&P 500 sectors saw positive year-over-year profit gains in Q4 2016, led by technology (13%), financials (12%) and utilities (10%). In addition, Consumer Discretionary, Financials and Health Care all posted solid earnings figures in the last year. Earnings momentum has also picked up in Materials, Real Estate and Utilities, although profit growth in these sectors is also benefiting from favorable comparisons. Eighty-eight percent of technology firms posted Q4 results that beat expectations, as did 80% of health care companies and 75% of financials, so the market was caught somewhat off guard by the pace of the upturn in earnings outside of energy. While earnings grew at 6% year-over-year in Q4 2016, revenues grew just 4% due to low nominal GDP growth last year (although the latter rebounded late in the year). Ten of 11 sectors posted year-over-year revenue increases in Q4, but the revenue gain just matched consensus estimates with only half of firms posting revenues that exceeded already low expectations. In short, the market didn't expect much and didn't get much from revenues in Q4. The Marginal Way: A Top Down View Looking ahead, a secular downtrend in margins will be a headwind for earnings growth in the coming years, as we highlighted in the February 27, 2017 Weekly Report. A "mean reversion" process for margins is underway, as a tight labor market pushes up wages but firms have difficulty passing along the cost pressure in a poor environment for pricing power. For large cap U.S. companies, global GDP is a better proxy for revenue than U.S. GDP. Nominal global GDP growth fell 6% year-over-year in 2015, but rebounded to a 2%+ increase in 2016 and the World Bank expects global GDP to accelerate rapidly to a 6% increase here in 2017. Thus, there is scope for U.S. corporate revenue growth to pick up after a long period of deceleration. Indeed, the risks for global growth are to the upside of consensus estimates in our view (Chart 2). For those industries and sectors with mainly domestic sales (utilities, telecom), U.S. GDP is a better proxy for top line sales. At just 3.0%, U.S. nominal GDP growth was disappointing in 2016, running 340 basis points below its long-term average (6.4%) and nearly a full percentage point shy of the 2010-2014 (post Great Recession but pre-oil price decline) average of 3.8%. We expect nominal GDP growth to accelerate this year, even absent potentially growth-enhancing legislation from Congress on tax cuts, tax reform and infrastructure. Compensation costs represent two thirds of business costs, and various measures of wage gains are slowly climbing as the U.S. economy approaches full employment. Average hourly earnings rose 2.7% in March 2017 versus a year ago, up from a low of 1.5% hit in 2012. The Employment Cost Index is accelerating as well. The Atlanta Fed's Wage tracker has been trending higher for 7 years, not coincidentally, along with service sector inflation. The Atlanta Fed wage tracker shows the same pattern for both job stayers and job seekers (Chart 3). Chart 2Global Growth Accelerating Chart 3Wage Pressures Building The quit rate from the BLS's JOLTs data has hit a new cycle high and is within striking distance of an all-time high. This is significant because a high quit rate means that job prospects are favorable and that employees are jumping to new jobs in search of higher wages. In addition, mentions of wages, skilled labor, and shortages in the Fed's Beige Book have been on the upswing for four years (Chart 4). Labor costs are rising faster than selling prices in the non-financial corporate sector, as highlighted by the downtrend in BCA's Profit Margin Proxy (Chart 5, Panel 1). The mean reversion process will continue, but that does not preclude periods of margin expansion. Indeed, margins rose in the third and fourth quarters on a four quarter moving total basis according to S&P data and we would not be surprised to see this continue early in 2017 as nominal GDP growth recovers from last year's depressed pace (Chart 5, Panel 2). Chart 4"Inflation Words" On The Rise Chart 5Bullish Profit Model What about the dollar? As we discuss below, BCA believes that the dollar bull market still has legs. A stronger dollar is both a blessing and a curse for margins. All else equal, a stronger dollar lowers the cost of imported goods and thereby boosts margins for import-intensive firms. On the other hand, a strong dollar undermines profits earned overseas. The net impact of dollar strength is negative for overall corporate profits. However, our quantitative work highlights that it does not take much in the way of stronger growth to offset the negative impact on profits from a rise in the dollar. Investors are also concerned about the impact of higher interest rates on corporate income statements, especially given all the corporate debt that has been accumulated. While we agree with the conventional wisdom that interest costs as a percent of sales have likely bottomed for the cycle, and will undermine margins if yields rise, research by the monthly Bank Credit Analyst revealed that it will require a large increase in interest rates to 'move the dial' on interest payments.1 This is because of a long maturity distribution and the fact that the average yield-to-maturity is still so far below the average coupon in the corporate debt indices that average coupons will continue to erode as debt rolls over in the coming years. Chart 6 shows that interest payments as a fraction of GDP will be roughly flat even if the yield curve shifts up by another 100 basis points in the near term. It would require a 200-300 basis point rise in yields to see a meaningful impact on interest payments over the next 1-2 years. The implication is that rising interest costs won't be a key driver of profit margins in our investment horizon. Chart 6U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Despite our secular view on profit margins, we remain upbeat for EPS growth this year. Our profit model remains constructive. Indeed, EPS growth for the year may not trail (perennially overly optimistic) bottom-up estimates for the year, currently at 10%. In short, we see a potential for upside surprise on earnings this year, although growth will not be as high as our short-term profit model suggests (Chart 5, Panel 3). Bottom Line: We certainly would not rule out a pullback in the S&P 500 on disappointment surrounding a lack of follow-through by Congress and the Trump Administration on a tax cut, tax reform and an infrastructure package. However, fears around margin contraction, the sustainability of the earnings rebound and valuations are overdone. Earnings estimates almost always come down over the course of the year. Moreover, while above-average valuations suggest below average-returns over the next decade, valuation tells us little about returns over the next 12 months. We continue to favor stocks over bonds in 2017. Is The Dollar Bull Over? The dollar has firmed over the past couple of weeks but it remains below the December high in trade-weighted terms. Is this just a consolidation phase? Or has the dollar peaked for this cycle because the maximum policy divergence between the Fed and the other major central banks is now in the price? Indeed, the global growth outlook outside of the U.S. has brightened at a time when some of the so-called "hard" U.S. economic data have disappointed and the promised Trump fiscal stimulus appears to be on the ropes. The European Central Bank (ECB) has already tapered its asset purchase program once and is expected to do so again early in 2018. Some are even speculating that the ECB will lift rates in the not-to-distant future. This raises the possibility that the bund yield curve begins to converge with the Treasury curve, placing upward pressure on the euro versus the dollar. The Eurozone economic data have certainly been stellar so far this year. The PMIs for manufacturing and services both pulled back a bit in March, but remain at levels consistent with continued above-trend growth. The uptrend in capital goods orders bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart 7). In addition, private-sector credit growth has accelerated to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Our real GDP model for the Eurozone, based on our consumer and business spending indicators, remains quite upbeat for the first half of the year. The Eurozone unemployment rate is falling fast and there is less spare capacity in European labor markets today than was the case in the U.S. when the Fed first hinted at tapering its asset purchases in 2013 (Chart 8). Chart 7Solid Eurozone##br## Economic Data Chart 8Less Spare Capacity In Europe Now ##br##Vs. Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Nonetheless, the calm readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to rush to judgment on asset purchases, especially given upcoming elections. Our diffusion index for the components of the CPI points to some upside for core inflation in the coming months, but it fell back to 0.7% in March according to the flash estimate. The ECB will probably not feel comfortable announcing the next tapering until September of this year. But even then, policymakers will apply a heavy dose of "forward guidance" on the outlook for short-term rates in order to avoid an outsized impact on Eurozone bond yields. Some tapering is presumably already discounted in rates and the euro. Chart 9Market Is Reassessing The FOMC It will be much longer before the Bank of Japan is in any position to begin removing monetary accommodation. We expect that the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year, and probably much longer. True, deflationary forces appear to have eased somewhat. Japan is also benefiting from the faster global growth on the industrial side. Nonetheless, the domestic demand story is less positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. Wages continue to struggle as well. This year's round of Japanese wage negotiations was particularly disappointing, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese nominal interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus making the yen weaken alongside increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. On the U.S. side, we believe that the market has over-reacted when the FOMC signaled last month that it was not yet prepared to adjust the 'dot plot.' The market is discounting only two rate hikes over the next 12 months, down by about 10 basis points since the FOMC meeting (Chart 9). The market view is too complacent for three reasons. First, we expect the U.S. "hard" to catch up with the more robust "soft" data readings in the coming months. Second, the FOMC did not signal a more dovish mindset last month. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target, as highlighted by the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. The poor (weather-related) March payroll report does not change the Fed outlook. The important point is that the market appears to be at full employment based on FOMC committee projections. In fact at 4.5% in March (the lowest since May 2007) the rate is below the median and midpoint of the FOMC's long-run forecast, of respectively 4.7% and 4.85%. Finally, the market is underestimating the prospects for stimulative tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The Republican's desire to cut taxes will dominate fears of blowing out the budget deficit. The resulting stimulus will add pressure on the FOMC to tighten monetary conditions. Bottom Line: Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the outlook for the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms as yield spreads move further in favor of the greenback, but a move of that magnitude wouldn't be a major headwind for U.S. corporate earnings growth and would pale in comparison to the hit earnings took from the 20-25% gain in the dollar in late 2014 through early 2016. Our view remains that the U.S. bond bear phase is not yet over. Revisiting "Weak" U.S. CAPEX The BCA Model for business investment tracks broad capex swings and has been trending down for several months now. Our past research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles only get underway once businesses see clear evidence that consumer final demand is on the upswing. Comments from management during the recent Q4 2016 earnings reporting season were upbeat, but cautious, and there is some evidence (the recent rollover in C&I) loans that businesses may be delaying some portion of capital spending until after tax cuts and or tax reform is enacted by Congress. Part of the macroeconomic narrative for many investors over the past several years is that U.S. growth has been slow this cycle because private investment has been weak. The prolonged nature of "weak" U.S. investment during this economic recovery has been offered as evidence of deep-seated structural problems by many market participants, and arguably remains a factor driving the continued prevalence of the secular stagnation narrative. Two elements of the "weak investment" narrative are undeniably true. First, overall investment has indeed grown at a sluggish pace over the past eight years relative to previous economic expansions. Second, residential investment has certainly been weak by any measure, which is to be expected given that housing was at the epicenter of the subprime financial crisis. However, Chart 10 presents a different perspective about the "weakness" of investment by examining the trend in non-residential fixed asset investment (i.e., capex). The chart shows that, relative to GDP, capex has not been weak at all this cycle: it experienced a V-shaped recovery over the past several years, and has risen either back to its post-1980 average (in nominal terms) or to a new high (in real terms). This highlights that growth in investment, abstracting from the housing effect, has been weak in absolute terms because consumption has been weak, rather than because of some other unexplained structural force. Chart 10Investment Has Not Been Weak Relative To GDP More recently, Chart 10 shows that there has been a decline in the capex-to-GDP ratio, which has been a concerning sign for some investors that U.S. growth may be faltering. Until the beginning of last year, this deceleration could have been simply blamed on a collapse in resource investment following the sharp decline in the price of oil that began in mid-2014. But Chart 11 shows that this ceased to be the case through to the fourth quarter, as real capex excluding mining structures has also decelerated sharply. The slowdown in capex last year is echoed by a sharp recent slowdown in U.S. bank lending, and a detailed analysis suggests they may both be (at least somewhat) related to the same cause. Chart 12 presents the 3-month annualized rate of change in commercial & industrial (C&I) loans, along with the U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty Index. The recent spikes in the latter correspond with the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union as well as the U.S. election in November, and the chart clearly shows a close correlation between these spikes and the deceleration in C&I loan growth. Indeed, C&I lending had begun to pick up again following the Brexit vote, only to decelerate again after November. Chart 11Oil Accounts For Some, But Not All, ##br##Of Recently Weak CAPEX Chart 12Tax Rule Certainty May Spur Bank##br## Lending And Investment Uncertainty over Brexit represented legitimate CEO concern about a potential global macro shock, but our view is that the recent uncertainty following the U.S. election has not been driven by fear. This is a crucial distinction with implications for the economic outlook: if the recent uptick has been driven by a dearth of information about how business-friendly fiscal policy will become as a result of the election, then investors are more likely observing uncertainty over how much and when to invest rather than whether to invest. If true, this suggests that weak bank lending and growth in non-resource capex in Q4 has merely been deferred until rule clarity emerges and firms are confident that they will benefit from any investment-related changes to the tax code. In short, far from being a bearish signal about economic activity, recent trends in C&I lending and non-resource capex may actually indicate that firms plan on responding positively to corporate tax relief, suggesting that overall economic growth may improve once the details of the plan are known. Bottom Line: A detailed analysis of recent weakness in C&I lending and non-resource capex points to policy-related uncertainty as the culprit, rather than impending economic weakness or a broad-based contraction in activity. This argues that some capex spending is pent up, and that economic growth will improve following the establishment of tax rule certainty by the Trump administration and/or congressional leadership. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge Vice President, Special Reports Jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report "Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg?", dated February, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com

Highlights The European economy has outperformed that of the U.S. recently, prompting investors to bring forward their estimates of the first ECB rate hike. To make this judgement, one really needs to be positive on EM economies in general, and China in particular. This sphere is the source of the growth delta between Europe and the U.S. The recent tightening in Chinese monetary conditions points to risks for European growth bulls. In fact, we would expect emerging markets growth to begin disappointing in the coming months, which will limit the capacity of the ECB to hike by 2019. Cyclically, stay short the euro and commodity currencies. While cyclical headwinds against the yen are plentiful, the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions could provide a further temporary fillip for the JPY. Feature Chart I-1The Reason Behind The Euro's Resilience 2016 witnessed an astounding phenomenon: Euro area growth outperformed that of the U.S. This performance is even more impressive as Europe's trend GDP growth is around one percentage point lower than that of the U.S. As investors internalized this development, their perception of the ECB changed: from the first hike being expected 59 months in the future in July 2016, the ECB is now expected to hike in 2019 (Chart I-1). Obviously, with this kind of a move, the euro was able to remain resilient, even as 2-year real rates differentials moved in favor of the USD. Are markets correct to extrapolate the recent European economic strength into the future, or is there more at play? We believe that in fact, Europe's growth outperformance has mostly reflected something else: EM and Chinese resilience. This means that if our Emerging Market Strategy team is correct and EM economic conditions begin to soften anew, the days of economic outperformance in Europe are marked. Other FX crosses will feel the blow. Betting On Faster European Rate Hikes = Betting On A Further EM Rally Core inflation in Europe remains muted and in fact, slowed substantially last month (Chart I-2). Meanwhile, U.S. core CPI and PCE inflation are still clocking in at 2.2% and 1.8%, respectively, and remain perky when compared to the euro area. Going forward, for the path of the ECB policy to be upgraded relative to the Fed, thus, prompting a durable rally in the euro, economic slack in Europe needs to continue to dissipate faster than in the U.S. The recent economic data still points toward future growth improvement in Europe and in the global manufacturing cycle. Not only have euro area PMIs been very strong, Sweden's have also shot to the moon (Chart I-3). The small, open nature of Sweden's economy suggests that some real improvement is brewing behind the scenes. Hence, it would suggest that this European inflation underperformance should soon pass. Chart I-2No Domestic Inflationary Pressures Chart I-3European Growth Indicators Are On Fire However, this misses one key point: the source of the economic outperformance of Europe. It is true that Europe continues to create a fair amount of jobs as the unemployment rate has fallen to 9.5%, but the U.S. too is generating healthy job gains, averaging 210,000 jobs over the past nine months. Labor market dynamics are unlikely to be the source of the European economic outperformance, especially as European wages continue to underperform U.S. ones (Chart I-4). Instead, it would seem that some of the positive growth delta that has lifted European economic activity above U.S. activity comes from outside Europe. Indeed, euro area PMIs and industrial production have outperformed that of the U.S. on the back of improving monetary conditions in China. As Chart I-5 illustrates, since 2008, easing Chinese MCI has led to stronger European PMI and IP. Even more interesting is the relationship exhibited in Chart I-6. The difference in economic activity between Europe and the U.S. is even more tightly correlated with the gap between Chinese M2 and Chinese M1. When M2 underperforms M1, the growth rate of time deposits slows. This is akin to saying that the marginal propensity to save in China is slowing. This boosts European economic activity. Meanwhile, when M2 outperforms M1, Chinese time deposits accelerate relative to checking deposits, Chinese savings intentions grow, and the European economy underperforms. Chart I-4U.S. Domestic Demand##br## Is Better Supported Chart I-5Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials ##br##And Chinese Liquidity (I) Chart I-6Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials ##br##And Chinese Liquidity (II) The dynamics between Europe's relative performance vis-à-vis the Chinese MCI and vis-à-vis time deposits are congruent. It highlights that China's economy does respond to tightening monetary conditions by raising its savings, which subtracts from domestic economic activity. These increased savings tend to be deflationary (as demand falls relative to supply), and also tend to limit the growth rate of imports. This is a shock for countries exporting to China. Here lies the key link explaining why Europe is more sensitive to Chinese dynamics: Europe trades more with China and EM than the U.S. does. The euro area's growth is therefore more sensitive to EM economic conditions than the U.S., a proposition supported by the IMF's work, which shows that a 1% growth shock in EM economies affect European growth by nearly 40 basis points, versus affecting U.S. growth by around 10 basis points (Chart I-7). So what does this mean going forward? We continue to be worried by dynamics in Chinese monetary conditions, even if the timing of their repercussion on economic activity is uncertain. Chinese monetary conditions have already begun to tighten, suggesting savings should rise and that growth in the industrial sector should deteriorate. Buttressing this tightening, nominal rates in China keep rising with the 7-day interbank repo rate in a clear uptrend (Chart I-8, top panel). Chart I-7Europe Is More Sensitive To EM Chart I-8Higher Chinese Rates Have Consequences This rise in interest rates could have a material impact on Chinese credit growth. As the bottom panel of Chart I-8 illustrates, bond issuance by small and medium banks has already fallen substantially. In this cycle, this variable has been a reliable leading indicator of the Chinese credit impulse. This makes sense: much of the recent Chinese credit growth has happened in the "shadow banking system", outside of the traditional channels. Research by the Kansas City Fed has shown that securitized credit tends to be very sensitive to short-term rates, thus, this slowing in bond issuance by small Chinese lenders is very likely to genuinely affect broader credit growth.1 Moreover, the risk of a vicious circle emerging is real. At the peak of the hard lending fears in China, real rates were at 10.5%, mostly reflecting deep producer prices deflation of 6%. This meant that for many highly indebted borrowers, debt servicing was a herculean effort that cut funding available for investments and economically accretive activities. As Chart I-9 shows, tightening Chinese monetary conditions have led to slowing PPI inflation. As the current tightening in China's MCI progresses, Chinese PPI inflation is likely to weaken, putting upward pressure on real rates and further hurting monetary conditions. These dynamics are dangerous, even if a repeat of the 2015 hecatomb is unlikely. Preventing as negative an outcome as occurred in 2015 are a few key factors: some of the excess capacity in the steel and material sector has been removed; the authorities have now better control of the capital account; and while PPI has downside, it is unlikely to plunge as deeply as it did in 2015 - oil prices are now better anchored, as consequential amounts of oil supply have been cut globally. This means that deep commodity deflation like in 2015 is unlikely to repeat itself and annihilate PPI inflation in China in the process (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Chinese PPI Will Roll Over Soon Chart I-10Commodity Prices: Friend And Foe Thus, as the Chinese monetary tightening progresses without spiraling out of control, it is likely that the window of opportunity for the ECB to increase interest rates will dissipate. When this reality dawns on the markets, we would expect the bear market in the euro to resume. Additionally, the global inflation surprise index has spiked massively. Historically, a surge in positive inflation surprises tends to prompt global tightening cycles (Chart I-11). In other words, because inflation surprises have been so strong, it is likely that global liquidity conditions tighten exactly as Chinese monetary and fiscal conditions do. In addition, the fiscal thrust in other EM economies deteriorate.2 This represents a potential headwind for growth in the EM space, which could temporarily limit the upswing in global inflation. These dynamics also reinforce the risks highlighted by Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's head of EM research, that EM spreads have little downside from here and may in fact be selling off in the coming quarters. As Chart I-12 shows, this would also imply that the ECB's perceived months-to-hike metric has more upside from here than potential downside. This is a cyclical handicap for the euro. Chart I-11Global Tightening On Its Way? Chart I-12EM Spreads, ECB Month-To-Hike: Same Battle These forces may also have implications for EUR/JPY. In the long-term, the yen is likely to be the main victim of the dollar strength as the Bank of Japan is currently the G7 central bank with the strongest dovish bias. But the short-term dynamics resulting from the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions could nonetheless prompt a fall in EUR/JPY over the next six months. To begin with, since 2014, the spread between German and Japanese inflation expectations has been linked to Chinese monetary conditions (Chart I-13). German 5-year / 5-year forward inflation expectations are already melting. An underperformance relative to Japan would suggest that the perception by investors of the increasing proximity of an ECB rate hike is likely to be disappointed. Chart I-13China Tightens, Germany Feels It More Moreover, the yen continues to display stronger "funding currency" attributes than the euro. Japan has a positive net international investment position of 170% of GDP versus -8% for the euro area. This suggests that the potential for repatriations when global market turbulence emerges is greater in Japan than in the euro area. Additionally, the market currently expects the ECB to begin hiking one year before the Bank of Japan. This would also mean that there is more room in the European fixed-income markets to further push away the first rate hike than there is in Japanese markets in the event of an EM deflationary shock. Does the reasoning described above have any implications for the dollar? On a 12-to-18-months basis, these dynamics support being more bullish the USD than the euro. The U.S. economy is less exposed to EM growth than that of Europe. This implies that on over such a horizon, the Fed will be less constrained than the ECB by EM economies, especially as the domestic side of the ledger is more promising in the U.S. Additionally, our Geopolitical Strategy team continues to argues that tax cuts are far from dead in the U.S., and that some significant fiscal stimulus will emerge over the course of the next 12 months in the U.S. In Europe, while no fiscal drag is tabulated, the potential for a similarly-sized fiscal boost is more limited. These same dynamics are also unambiguously bearish commodity and EM currencies versus the USD as commodity currencies are a direct play on EM activity (Chart I-14). The Australian dollar is the most poorly placed currency in the G10. It is 11% overvalued on our productivity-adjusted metrics and investors are now very long the AUD. Most crucially, Australian's terms of trade are especially vulnerable to a slowdown in the Chinese sectors most exposed to the tightening in Chinese monetary conditions (Chart I-15). These risks are further compounded by the fact that China has accumulated large inventories of some of the natural resources most important for the Australian terms of trade. Chart I-14Problems In EM Equals Problems ##br##For Commodity Currencies Chart I-15AUD Is Most Exposed To ##br##The Chinese Tightening Tactically, the picture is more nuanced. Since 2015, the euro has benefited from some risk-off attributes, managing to rise against the USD when market sell-offs are at their most acute point. Again, while EUR does not display these "funding currency" attributes as strongly as the yen, it nonetheless does more so than the USD. Also, April is traditionally a month of seasonal weakness for the greenback. A homegrown shock could also give the euro a further fillip: the French election. Le Pen's probability of winning is low but not 0%. In a report co-published nine weeks ago, we and our Geopolitical Strategy team argued that a Le Pen victory was very unlikely.3 Hence, we expect that her bookies' odds of winning, which stands between 20% and 30%, will dissipate to 0% after the second round of the election, supporting the euro independently of relative monetary dynamics. Practically, in the short run, the euro could remain well bid until this summer. We prefer to express our positive tactical stance on the euro against the AUD instead of the USD. We are also more tactically positive on the yen than any other currency and thus hold short USD/JPY and short NZD/JPY positions. Cyclically, we are looking for either a market correction to unfold or a clear upswing in U.S. wages before moving outright short EUR and JPY against the USD. Our tactical and cyclical views on commodity currencies are lined up: we are shorting them. Bottom Line: The source of the delta in European growth seems to be emanating out of EM and China in particular. This means that if one wants to bet on the ECB being able to increase rates sooner than what is currently priced in - a key precondition to bet on a cyclical rebound in the euro - one needs to remain bullish EM. Currently, our Emerging Markets Strategy sister publication remains negative on the medium-term outlook for EM, this represents a big problem for cyclical euro bulls. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Tobias Adrian and Hyun Shong Shin, "Financial Intermediaries, Financial Stability and Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Staff Report No. 346, September 2008. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Et Tu, Janet?" dated March 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The March FOMC minutes reveal that members discussed the possibility of a normalization of the bank's balance sheet in the near future, through phasing out or ceasing reinvestments of both Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. This is quite a hawkish comment, as the Fed acknowledges a strengthening economy: ADP employment change recorded a 263,000 new jobs, above the 187,000 consensus; Initial jobless claims decreased to 234,000; ISM Manufacturing PMI came in at 57.2; ISM Prices Paid was at 70.5. Despite this data, some members also stated that stock prices were "quite high", which prompted weakness in the S&P, Treasury yields, and the dollar, as markets revised their growth outlook. Although this is most likely a misinterpretation, as the data quite accurately depicts the economy's fundamentals, the dollar will likely display a neutral bias this month due to seasonality effects. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 USD, Oil Divergences Will Continue As Storage Draws - March 17, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro is likely to see some temporary strength on the back of improving economic conditions: Producer prices picked up to 4.5%, beating the 4.4% consensus; Retail sales remain strong at 1.8%; German manufacturing PMI remained unchanged at 58.3, while composite increased to 57.1. Nevertheless, PMIs were weak for many of the smaller, peripheral economies, which will cause downside for the euro in the longer-term. Adding confirmation to Praet's comments last week, Vitas Vasiliauskas, governor of Bank of Lithuania, stated that "the recovery of inflation is still fragile" and that they will first "have to end purchases and only then we can discuss other actions", further corroborating a weaker euro in the longer-term. In other news, the CNB seems to be softening its peg with the EUR as the bank progressively reverts to conducting an independent monetary policy. EUR/CZK depreciated more than 1.5%. Report Links: Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent Japanese data has been mixed: The unemployment rate outperformed expectations, falling down to 2.8%. However, household spending contracted further, falling by 3.8%, underperforming expectations. Furthermore, the Nikkei manufacturing PMI, also underperformed expectations, falling to 52.4 This deterioration in Japanese economic data is most likely a byproduct of the appreciation that the yen this year. Indeed, inflationary pressures and economic activity in Japan have been closely linked to the yen. This relationship will embolden the BoJ to keep its aggressive monetary stance in place, as the rate-setting committee understands that a weakening yen is a key lever to kick star Japan's tepid economy. Thus, while we are bullish on the yen on a 3-month horizon, we remain yen bears on a cyclical basis. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Data in the U.K. has been disappointing as of late: GDP grew at 1.9% in Q4, against expectations of 2% growth. Construction and manufacturing PMI also underperformed, coming in at 52.2 and 54.2 respectively. Both measures also decreased from the previous month. Amid disappointing data, one bright spot for the pound was the massive reduction in their current account deficit. At 12 Billion pounds, the British current account deficit now stands at the lowest level since 2013. This is positive for the U.K. economy, as it provides a buffer against any slowdown in financial inflows that could materialize from the separation with the European Union. Thus, we continue to be bullish on the pound, particularly against the euro, as we believe that Brexit-related fears are overstated. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The latest dwelling figures indicate the fastest increase since May 2010, with Sydney and Melbourne witnessing 19% and 17% increases, respectively. They are up 8.3% nationally. What really highlights risks for Australia is that interest-only loans account for 40% of the country's housing finance, which prompted the APRA to put forward a limitation to interest-only lending to 30% of new mortgages, as a part of numerous other restrictive macro-prudential measures put in place to curb euphoria. Low rates, while sustaining robust housing activity in the past years, have been a primary factor in this exuberance. Worryingly, these low rates have not been enough to support wages, leading to increasing debt-to-income ratios. The RBA will find it hard to lift rates in the face of high household debt and the large share of interest-only loans, limiting the AUD's upside. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Although the NZD has been slightly weak this week against the U.S. dollar, it has appreciated against the Aussie. This might have something to do with the recent uptick in dairy prices, stopping a correction in prices that started in late 2016. Furthermore, the weakness in this cross seems to be sending an ominous signal, as AUD/NZD tends to lead relative activity dynamics between the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors in China. There is a reason behind this relationship, as the staple commodities of Australia and New Zealand (iron and dairy prices) cater to the industrial sector and the consumer sector, respectively. We believe that the outperformance by the Chinese industrial sector might be on its last legs, thus AUD/NZD is an attractive short. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 As highlighted numerously, the Canadian economy is haunted by the same underlying risk as the Australian economy. With the average price for a detached home in Toronto now at CAD 1.2 million, risks are coming into sharper focus. News media now highlights that the housing market is in a shortage, with multiple buyers in competition to purchase a single home, with buyers even skipping home inspections. In better news, the RBC Manufacturing PMI read at 55.5 in March, more than a 3-year high, with its output, new orders and employment components also at multi-year highs. Furthermore, the Business Outlook Survey highlights business intentions to expand and hire continue to be buoyant, which should augur well for the economy in the near future. Report Links: AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has rebounded after coming close to hitting the SNB implied floor of 1.065 on Tuesday. It seems that this strategy is paying off for the SNB, as recent data shows an improving Swiss economy: Real retail sales outperformed expectations, as they exited contractionary territory. They are now growing at 0.6%. SVME PMI also outperformed, coming in at 58.6. This measure now stands at its highest level since 2011. Moreover Swiss headline inflation month-on-month grow came in above expectations at 0.6%, while the annual inflation rate came in at 0.2%. This batch of strong data will certainly reassure the SNB that its intervention in the currency market is helping kick start the Swiss economy. However, for the time being the peg will remain as the economy is not yet strong enough to handle a change in this policy. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK appreciated by almost 1.5%, even on the face of a nearly 5% rally in oil. This is not an isolated case: since the beginning of the year USD/NOK has become much less sensitive to oil and more sensitive to the changes in the dollar. The poor state of the Norwegian economy explains this phenomenon as core and headline inflation continue to plummet and the credit impulse still stands in negative territory. One could point to unemployment as a bright spot, as it now stands at 2.9%. However this reduction in unemployment is accompanied by a contraction in employment, which suggests that people are just leaving the labor market. These factors will continue to solidify the Norges Bank's dovish bias, causing NOK to underperform terms-of-trade dynamics. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 As momentum retreats from oversold levels, the krona is displaying some strength on the back of buoyant economic data: Manufacturing PMI hit 65.2 for March; Industrial production in February increased at a 4.1% annual pace; New orders were up 12% in February. This data augurs well for Sweden's export sector, the economy's most key area. The Riksbank's Business Survey highlights these developments, with their proprietary economic activity indicators pointing to good growth. An interesting development in pricing pressures is that negotiated prices are no longer being reduced as often as before, which is "regarded as an incipient sign of demand, which in turn creates expectations of future price rises". The effects of rising commodity prices and a weaker krona are also now kicking in. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The rally in risk assets appears to have stalled, raising fears that the misnamed "Trump Trade" has ended. Investors are attaching too much importance to the reality show in Washington and not enough to the fundamentals underpinning the acceleration in global growth and corporate earnings. For now, these fundamentals are strong, and should remain so for the next 12 months. Beyond then, the impulse from easier financial conditions will dissipate and policy will turn less friendly, setting the stage for a major slowdown - and possibly a recession - in 2019. Stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit, but be prepared to reduce exposure next spring. Feature Risk Assets Hit The Pause Button After rallying nearly non-stop following the U.S. presidential election, risk assets have stalled since early March (Chart 1). The S&P 500 has fallen by 1.8% after hitting a record high on March 1st. Treasury yields have also backed off their highs and credit spreads have widened modestly. Globally, the picture has been much the same (Chart 2). The yen - a traditionally "risk off" currency - has strengthened, while "risk on" currencies such as the AUD and NZD have faltered. EM currencies have dipped, as have most commodity prices. Only gold has found a bid. Chart 1A Pause In Risk Assets In The U.S.... Chart 2...And Globally The key question for investors is whether all this merely represents a correction in a cyclical bull market for global risk assets, or the start of a more sinister trend. We think it is the former. Global Growth Still Solid For one thing, it would be a mistake to attach too much significance to the unfolding reality show in Washington. As we discussed in last week's Q2 Strategy Outlook,1 the recovery in global growth and corporate earnings began a few months before last year's election and would have likely continued regardless of who won the White House (Chart 3). For now, the global growth picture still looks reasonably bright. Our global Leading Economic Indicator remains in a solid uptrend. Burgeoning animal spirits are powering a recovery in business spending, as evidenced by the jump in factory orders and capex intentions (Chart 4). Consumer confidence is also soaring. If history is any guide, this will translate into stronger consumption growth in the months ahead (Chart 5). Chart 3Recovery Predates President Trump Chart 4Global Growth Backdrop Remains Solid Chart 5Rising Consumer Confidence Will Provide A Boost To Consumption The lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions over the past 12 months should help support activity. Chart 6 shows that the 12-month change in our U.S. Financial Conditions Index leads the business cycle by 6-to-9 months. The current message from the index is that U.S. growth will stay sturdy for the remainder of 2017. Stronger global growth should continue to power an acceleration in corporate earnings over the remainder of the year. Global EPS is expected to expand by 12.5% over the next 12 months. Analysts are usually too bullish when it comes to making earnings forecasts. This time around they may be too bearish. Chart 7 shows that the global earnings revisions ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. Chart 6Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Activity In 2017 Chart 7Global Earnings Picture Looking Brighter Gridlock In Washington? As far as developments in Washington are concerned, it is certainly true that the failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act has cast doubt on the ability of Congress to implement other parts of President Trump's agenda. Despite reassurances from Trump that a new health care bill will pass, we doubt that the GOP can cobble together any legislation that jointly satisfies the hardline views of the Freedom Caucus and the more moderate views of the Republicans in the Senate. Ironically, the failure to jettison Obamacare may turn out to be a blessing in disguise for Trump and the Republican Party. Opinion polls suggest that the GOP would have gone down in flames if the American Health Care Act had been signed into law (Table 1). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the proposed legislation would have caused 24 million fewer Americans to have health insurance in 2026 compared with the status quo. The bill would have also reduced federal government spending on health care by $1.2 trillion over ten years. Sixty-four year-olds with incomes of $26,500 would have seen their annual premiums soar from $1,700 to $14,600. Even if one includes the tax cuts in the proposed bill, the net effect would have been a major tightening in fiscal policy. Now, that would have warranted lower bond yields and a weaker dollar. Table 1Passing The American Health Care Act Could Have Cost The Republicans Dearly Granted, the political fireworks over the past month serve as a reminder that comprehensive tax reform will be more difficult to achieve than many had hoped. However, even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. Worries that tax cuts will lead to larger budget deficits will be brushed aside on the grounds that they will "pay for themselves" through faster growth (dynamic scoring!). Throw some infrastructure spending into the mix, and it will not take much for the "Trump Trade" to return with a vengeance. Trump's Fiscal Fantasy This is not to say that the "Trump Trade" won't fizzle out. It will. But that will be a story for 2018 rather than this year. This is because the disappointment for investors will stem not from the failure to cut taxes, but from the underwhelming effect that tax cuts end up having on the economy. The highly profitable companies that will benefit the most from lower corporate taxes are the ones who least need them. In many cases, these companies have plenty of cash and easy access to external financing. As a consequence, much of the tax cuts will simply be hoarded or used to finance equity buybacks or dividend payments. A large share of personal tax cuts will also be saved, given that they will mostly accrue to higher income earners. Chart 8From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic The amount of infrastructure spending that actually takes place will likely be a tiny fraction of the headline amount. This is not just because of the dearth of "shovel ready" projects. It is also because the public-private partnership structure the GOP is touting will severely limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Indeed, the bill could turn out to be little more than a boondoggle for privatizing existing public infrastructure projects, rather than investing in new ones. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is proposing large cuts to nondefense discretionary expenditures that go above and beyond the draconian ones that are already enshrined into current law (Chart 8). In his Special Report on U.S. fiscal policy, my colleague Martin Barnes argues that "it is a FALLACY to describe overall non-defense discretionary spending as massively bloated and out-of-control."2 As such, the risk to the economy beyond the next 12 months is that markets push up the dollar and long-term interest rates in anticipation of continued strong growth and major fiscal stimulus but end up getting neither. Investment Conclusions Risk assets have enjoyed a strong rally since late last year, and a modest correction is long overdue. Still, as long as the global economy continues to grow at a robust pace, the cyclical outlook for risk assets will remain bullish. As such, investors should stay overweight global equities and high-yield credit at the expense of government bonds and cash. We prefer European and Japanese equities over the U.S., currency-hedged (See Appendix). As we discussed in detail last week, global growth is likely to slow in the second half of 2018, with the deceleration intensifying into 2019, possibly culminating in a recession in a number of countries. To what extent markets "sniff out" an economic slowdown before it happens is a matter of debate. U.S. equities did not peak until October 2007, only slightly before the Great Recession began. Commodity prices did not top out until the summer of 2008. Thus, the market's track record for predicting recessions is far from an envious one. Nevertheless, investors should err on the side of safety and start scaling back risk exposure next spring. The 2019 recession will last 6-to-12 months. By historic standards, it will probably be a mild one. However, with memories of the Great Recession still fresh in most people's minds and President Trump up for re-election in 2020, the response could be dramatic. This will set the stage for a period of stagflation in the 2020s. Chart 9 presents a visual representation of how the main asset markets are likely to evolve over the next seven years. Chart 9Market Outlook For Major Asset Classes Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Fiscal Policy: Facts, Fallacies And Fantasies," dated April 5, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update We announced last week that we are making major upgrades to our Tactical Asset Allocation Model. In the meantime, we will send you a concise update of our recommendations every month based on a combination of BCA's proprietary indicators as well as our own seasoned judgement (Appendix Table 1). Appendix Table 2Global Asset Allocation Recommendations (Percent) In a Special Report published last year, we laid out the quantitative factors that have historically predicted stock market returns. Appendix Chart 1 updates the output of that model for the U.S. It currently shows a slightly above-average return profile for the S&P 500 over the next three months. Appendix Chart 1S&P 500: Above Average Returns Over The Next 3 Months Applying this model to the rest of the world yields a somewhat more positive picture for Europe and Japan, given more favorable valuations and easier monetary conditions in those regions. The technical picture has also improved in Europe and Japan. This is especially true with respect to price momentum: After a long period of underperformance, euro area equities have outpaced the U.S. by 11.5% in local-currency terms since last summer’s lows. Japanese stocks have suffered over the past few months, but are still up 12.5% against the U.S. over the same period (Appendix Chart 2). Turning to government bonds, the extreme bearish sentiment and positioning that prevailed in February and early March has been largely reversed, suggesting that the most recent rally in bonds could run out of steam (Appendix Chart 3). Looking ahead, yields are likely to rise anew on the back of strong economic growth and rising inflation. Thus, an underweight allocation to government bonds is warranted, particularly in the U.S. Appendix Chart 2Relative Performance Of Euro Area ##br##And Japanese Equities Troughed Last Summer Appendix Chart 3Rally In Bonds Could Soon Peter Out Clients should consult our Q2 Strategy Outlook for a more detailed discussion of the global investment outlook. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Growth figures coming out of China in the coming months may be viewed as less market friendly, which could be taken as an excuse for a much-anticipated correction in risk assets. Cyclically, the Chinese economy will remain buoyant, even if year-over-year growth numbers begin to moderate. All three main sectors of the economy will likely be on more solid footing. China's inflation and growth dynamics do not warrant significant policy tightening. Leading indicators point to an immediate top in Chinese PPI. The economy would need to run a lot hotter for a lot longer for genuine inflation pressures to build up. Feature Most of the latest macro figures from China released over the past several days confirm that the mini-cycle upswing remains firmly in place. It is almost a sure bet at this point that Chinese GDP likely continued to accelerate in the last quarter, with the positive momentum having become well recognized and accepted among global investors. We have been travelling as of late talking to clients and taking the pulse of the market - collectively investors' concerns on China have eased along with strengthening growth numbers, but worries on some key macro issues remain deeply rooted.1 Looking forward, investors' delicate complacency on China will be tested in the coming months on two possible scenarios: Macro indicators based on year-over-year comparisons begin to moderate, rekindling investors' fears of another China-led global slowdown. Building inflationary pressures and policy tightening by the Chinese authorities ignites another economic downturn. For now, it is impossible to foresee how risk assets will react to these possible scenarios, especially at the moment when some major equity indexes have already become richly valued and the market could take any excuse for a long overdue correction. However, we maintain the view that the level of China's economic activity will likely stay reasonably buoyant, even if year-over-year growth numbers begin to moderate, and that the inflation and growth dynamics do not warrant significant policy tightening. A major relapse in activity is not in the cards, unless the Chinese authorities commit a policy mistake by stepping on the brakes prematurely, or a major disruption in global trade due to protectionism occurs. Reasons To Stay Positive The annual growth rates of Chinese macro indicators will likely roll over, as by definition these ratios cannot always accelerate. Meanwhile, the economy had already begun to improve in the second quarter of last year, which means the positive "base effect" will likely begin to fade going forward. These tedious technical factors aside, we expect business activity to remain buoyant, as all three main sectors of the economy will likely be on more solid footing. Chart 1Improving Labor Market And Strengthening Confidence ##br##Will Boost Consumption On the consumer sector, the labor market has continued to improve, as indicated by the improving employment component of the purchasing managers' surveys (PMIs). An improving labor market helps boost job creation and income, both of which bode well for consumer confidence and household demand. Indeed, various measures of consumer confidence have improved sharply in recent months to multi-year highs (Chart 1). Moreover, it appears that side effects of China's harsh anti-corruption campaign on economic growth have abated. The sudden collapse of luxury goods sales since late 2013 has run its course. Jewelry sales growth has been strengthening; high-end liquor prices have been rising rapidly; Swiss watch exports to China and Hong Kong have turned positive after a prolonged slump. Even though the anti-corruption drive remains in high gear, the "froth" of luxury goods consumption associated with bribing has been squeezed out, and demand for high-end products has been pushed higher along with rising income levels. All of this should support retail sales going forward. On the corporate sector, the destocking cycle is well advanced and companies will likely beef up inventories going forward (Chart 2). Albeit rising slowly, the inventory component of PMI surveys remains below 50, underscoring limited buildup of final products. In addition, the new orders-to-inventory ratio remains elevated by historical standards, underscoring very lean stock, which also limits the downside in industrial production even if the improvement in new orders stalls. More importantly, we expect China's capital spending cycle has likely bottomed out. An important change in China's macro conditions since last year has been the sharp turnaround in the corporate profit cycle, which has historically led Chinese capital spending, especially among private enterprises in the manufacturing and mining sectors (Chart 3). The recovery in producer prices and corporate profitability underscore tightened capacity utilization, which has historically preluded investment. It is premature to expect a major boom, but the case for a modest upturn in private capital spending is strengthening. Chart 2Inventory Restocking ##br##Has Further To Go Chart 3Profit Recovery Should Boost Private Capital Spending ##br##Profit The export sector remains a wildcard for China's growth performance,2 and President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping's summit later this week will be closely watched for clues of the bilateral relationship between the world's two largest economies under the new U.S. administration. President Trump's executive order last Friday to launch investigations into countries against whom the U.S. runs a bilateral trade deficit suggests he may still unilaterally impose punitive tariffs on Chinese imports, which risks a sudden escalation of protectionism pressures with unpredictable consequences on global trade and financial markets. Barring such a bleak outcome, strengthening growth in the U.S. should also boost Chinese exports (Chart 4). The PMI New Export Orders index has remained above the 50 expansion/contraction threshold for five consecutive months, and the latest reading reached its highest level since early 2012, pointing to further acceleration in overseas sales, at least in the near term. Chart 4Exports Will Likely Continue To Accelerate Chart 5Market Is Anticipating Pboc Rate Hike Bottom Line: Domestic demand, both consumption and capital spending, will likely strengthen, and external demand is also on the mend. The risk of a major slowdown in China is low. Will Inflation Induce Tightening? The People's Bank of China (PBoC) has continued to guide money market rates higher by adjusting open-market operation tools. We remain skeptical that the central bank will hike its policy rate, but Chinese financial markets have begun to price in such a move. The two-year swap rate, which can be roughly viewed as the market's expectations of the PBoC policy rate, has edged up by around 20 basis points since early this year (Chart 5). This also means that the market impact may be muted, even if the PBoC does raise its benchmark rate. In fact, the significant growth improvement in recent months, especially in nominal terms, justifies tighter policy. In other words, higher rates are largely reflective rather than restrictive. Chart 6PPI Has likely Peaked Inflation risk has once again become a focal point of discussion in our recent client meetings. Investors appear increasingly concerned that the sharp surge in Chinese producer prices could lead to broader inflationary pressures, which could in turn force the PBoC to take more draconian measures. Historically, Chinese PPI and CPI have largely moved in sync, even though PPI has been a lot more volatile than the headline CPI. In our view, odds of an inflation-induced policy tightening cycle are low. At the onset, it is overly simplistic to extrapolate the recent PPI trend infinitely. In fact, after a sharp recovery since early last year, the acceleration in PPI has likely already peaked (Chart 6). The depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB has stalled, and the annual rate of change in commodities prices has also rolled over, both of which point to an immediate top in Chinese PPI. Meanwhile, the pace of improvement in corporate sector pricing power is also moderating (Chart 6, bottom panel). Moreover, the recent sharp decline in headline CPI is entirely related to food prices, which could stay volatile going forward (Chart 7), but Chinese core inflation remains low and stable, ranging between 1.5-2.5%. Such an inflation rate is arguably too low for a rapidly growing economy. The important point is that the Chinese economy is highly productive, which leads to constant downward pressure on prices. Chart 8 shows U.S. import prices from China have remained essentially flat since 2004, while costs of manufactured goods from other countries have all gone up, a remarkable development given the dollar has dropped by almost 20% against the RMB over this period while strengthening against almost all other major currencies. This means Chinese producers' faster productivity growth has enabled them to undercut their competitors in other countries in pricing to gain global market share. In this environment, deflation tends to be a bigger threat than inflation. Indeed, with the accumulation of debt in the economy, debt deflation is a much more dreadful situation to deal with than an inflation outbreak. The economy would need to run a lot hotter for a lot longer for genuine inflation pressures to build up. It is overly alarmist to warn of inflation risks at the moment. Chart 7Food Prices Still Dominate Headline CPI Chart 8Strong Productivity Growth Means ##br##China Is Less Prone To Inflation All in all, we remain cyclically positive on Chinese equities, especially H shares. Growth figures coming out of China in the coming months may be viewed as less market friendly, which could be taken as an excuse for a much-anticipated selloff in risk assets. However, the broad trend of growth improvement in the Chinese economy remains intact, which in the absence of a sudden eruption of protectionist backlash will reinforce the upturn in the global business cycle. Therefore, we tend to view any China-induced selloff, if it happens, as transitory and corrective in nature, and to be used as an opportunity to add positions. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Great Debate: Does China Have Too Much Debt Or Too Much Savings?" dated March 23, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard," dated January 12, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Following the debacle of the failed attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare, the Trump Administration is focusing on another important part of its policy platform: reforming taxes and reshaping government spending. In theory, the legislative obstacles should be easier to overcome than with the controversial health care bill, but many challenges still lie ahead. Meanwhile, the assumptions underpinning many of the key measures are questionable. The Administration's fiscal proposals are based on the following assertions: The level of U.S. taxes puts the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage and is a hindrance to faster economic growth. Military and infrastructure spending needs to rise sharply after having been cut back too severely in recent years. The federal government, outside of defense, has become bloated and needs to be drastically pruned. Entitlement spending remains politically untouchable. Proposed tax changes will be broadly deficit neutral after allowing for the revenue boost from faster economic growth. The above assertions supporting the administration's policy platform are a mix of facts, fallacies and fantasies. A frustrating aspect of economic debates is that it often is relatively easy to cherry pick data to support any particular argument one wants to make. In other words, there are plenty of alternative facts to choose from. In this report, I will endeavor to illuminate the debate about fiscal policy with unvarnished official statistics, untainted by partisan biases. Are U.S. Taxes Too High? Taxes are a necessary evil if a country's residents want their government to provide some services such as defense, policing, schooling, and old-age benefits etc. In a democracy, the exact level of services provided by a government is a choice that can be voted on at election time. Sometimes, politicians campaign on a platform of increased government spending (and implicitly higher taxes) and at other times, the opposite is true. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to reduce the government's involvement in the economy and society in general, with a corresponding reduction in tax burdens. The government's revenue grab takes many forms beyond just taxing incomes and can occur at the federal, state or local level. There are taxes on spending, assets, imports and employment, and a multitude of fees ranging from park entrance charges to speeding tickets. Chart 1 shows total U.S. tax and fee revenues from all levels of government, expressed as a share of GDP since 1980.1 The most striking thing about the chart is how little the ratio has changed over the past quarter century. Government revenues have averaged around 27% of GDP over the period and the only years with a marked divergence from that level were the late 1990s when the tech-driven stock market boom triggered unusually strong capital gains tax receipts and in 2009/10 when the economic collapse and temporary tax cuts led to a plunge in revenues. The other interesting point to note is that, according to OECD data, the U.S. is the lowest taxed industrial country, except for Ireland. Taxes and social security contributions as a share of GDP are more than ten percentage points below the unweighted average of 21 other industrial countries. And this gap has been relatively constant over the years (Chart 2). The unweighted average for European countries is almost 39% of GDP. Chart 1U.S. Total Tax Burdens Chart 2U.S. Tax Burdens: An International Perspective As noted earlier, whether a country's overall tax burdens are high or low is largely a reflection of voter preference. In the majority of countries outside the U.S., the government is the main or even sole provider of health care and that often is used to explain the lower level of U.S. taxes. Yet, it is not widely realized that U.S. government spending on health care as a percent of GDP is higher than the industrial country average (Chart 3).2 The point is that the U.S.'s low ranking in terms of global tax burdens does not simply reflect the lack of a universal government-funded health care system. Low taxes are a very good thing if they are sufficient to finance the required level of government services and provide positive incentives for economic growth. However, there is a loose but positive correlation between the level of tax burdens and structural budget deficits. In other words, the countries with low tax burdens have tended to have higher average cyclically-adjusted budget deficits (Chart 4). Again, that is choice that voters can make: choosing lower taxes today at the expense of rising debt burdens that will have costs in the future. The U.S. has been at the extreme end of the spectrum so far this century with the combination of low taxes and large deficits. Chart 3Government Spending on Health Care Chart 4Lower Tax Burdens Generally Mean Larger Fiscal Deficits The data I have shown highlight that the U.S. is a low-tax country from an international perspective and that overall tax burdens have not changed dramatically over time. Nonetheless, there is plenty of scope for reforming taxes in order to improve economic incentives and efficiency. The Case For Tax Reform There is a disconnect between low overall U.S. tax burdens and the facts that the country has the highest marginal corporate tax rate in the industrial world and that so many people feel over-taxed. The principal explanation is the skewed nature of the U.S. tax system with its heavy dependence on taxes on income rather than consumption. The U.S. is the only industrial country in the world without a national value added tax (VAT), and state and local sales taxes are low by international standards. This means that taxes on goods and services account for less than 18% of general government tax revenues in the U.S. compared with an unweighted average of almost 33% for all OECD countries (Table 1). As a result, the U.S. is forced to rely more on taxes on income and profits. These account for almost 48% of tax revenues in the U.S., 14 percentage points higher than the OECD average. General perceptions about tax burdens probably are more affected by income tax rates than by taxes on goods and services, many of which are hidden from view. Table 1The Structure of Government Tax Receipts Problems are compounded by the skewed distribution of income tax payments. For example, although the marginal U.S. corporate tax rate is around 39%,3 many large companies with overseas subsidiaries pay a significantly lower rate. According to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) corporate tax return data, the largest businesses (annual receipts above $100 million) paid an average federal rate of 22.8% on their taxable income in 2013 (the latest year for which detailed corporate returns are available), compared with 32.2% for companies with sales between $10 million and $100 million and 27.5% for those with sales of less than $10 million. It is no wonder that many multinationals are keen to shelter income overseas. There is a case for reforming the corporate tax code to equalize the playing field between multinationals and those with domestic operations. When it comes to personal taxes, there also are distortions. As is well known, there are many hard-to-justify allowances including those on carried interest and on mortgages up to the value of $1 million. Even if the government wanted to use the tax system to subsidize home ownership (which many countries have stopped doing), it would make sense to cap the benefit at the mortgage required to finance a median-priced home. The national median price for a single-family home currently is $230,000. A key problem is the fact that many people do not earn enough to pay much income tax, so the burden falls heavily on a relatively narrow group. The average personal federal tax rate has not changed very much over the past 35 years (Chart 5), but Table 2 shows the remarkably skewed nature of personal tax payments by income level. In 2014 (the latest year for detailed IRS personal data), 148 million tax returns were filed, but more than one-third had no taxable income. Almost 45% of filers reported gross adjusted income of less than $30,000 and, overall, this group received net tax refunds. At the other end of the scale, those with incomes above $200,000 represented only 4.2% of filed returns yet accounted for almost 63% of total federal taxes paid. It is no surprise that many high-income earners feel over-taxed. It is harder to justify the fact that 55% of respondents to a recent Fox News poll said that taxes were too high. The message is that taxes can never be low enough! Chart 5The Average Federal Personal Tax Rate Table 2The Skewed Nature of Personal Income Taxes An obvious way to improve the tax structure would be to eliminate some deductions and use the savings to reduce marginal rates. An even more significant change would be to broaden the tax base by introducing a VAT, using the revenue to dramatically lower income tax rates. The regressive nature of a VAT can be countered by exempting certain items such as food, energy, and children's clothing. The main argument against a VAT is that, once introduced, it becomes an easy way to raise revenue and an initial rate of say 5% eventually could end up at European levels (20%). The proposal for a new Border Adjustment Tax would be a step toward rebalancing tax burdens toward consumption and away from incomes. However, there is considerable opposition to such a move and its future is in doubt. To conclude, the data do not support the notion that the U.S. is overly taxed - either compared to its own history or relative to other countries. But the system has many distortions and there is a strong case for increased taxes on consumption, using the revenues to reduce marginal income tax rates in both the corporate and personal sector. The Case For More Spending On Infrastructure And Defense Unlike tax reform, increased infrastructure spending is not a contentious issue. As Larry Summers likes to quip, anyone flying to New York and driving into Manhattan can see infrastructure spending needs all around, from dreary airports to dodgy bridges and pothole-filled roads. Real government spending on non-defense structures (a proxy for infrastructure) has risen by only 20% over the past 50 years, a drop of almost 30% in per capita terms (Chart 6). As a share of GDP, infrastructure spending has almost halved in the past half century. The administration has talked about boosting infrastructure spending by $1 trillion over the next ten years. If we assume a constant baseline of spending averaging 1.6% of GDP (the 2016 level), an additional $1 trillion would equate to an additional 30% rise in overall infrastructure expenditure over the decade. But even with this increase, spending would still only be 2% of GDP, a relatively modest level by historical standards. The administration's infrastructure proposal is quite reasonable in terms of its scale and desirability. Of course, there is no guarantee that it will materialize. The administration's plan to significantly increase defense spending is a more debatable issue. The number of military personnel has been in a sharp downtrend since the end of the Vietnam War. In the past 35 years or so, a key driver has been the impact of technology with machines replacing people, but defense spending as a share of GDP also has been in a structural downtrend (Chart 7). At the same time, real spending per military employee has been in a strong uptrend, reflecting the switch in strategy away from boots on the ground towards sophisticated equipment. From an international perspective, U.S. defense spending remains very high compared to other countries. According to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, in 2015, the U.S. spent as much as the next eight largest military spenders combined.4 Yet, the combined GDP of those eight countries was 55% above that of the U.S. Chart 6Government Infrastructure Spending Chart 7Trends In Defense Spending The Budget Control Act of 2011 put tough spending caps on discretionary spending and these have not been repealed. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), under current law, defense outlays as a share of GDP would fall from 3.2% of GDP to 2.6% by fiscal 2027. The Trump Administration has proposed a $54 billion increase in defense spending authority for fiscal 2018, implying an increase of around 9% from the 2017 level. And while we do not have details, we can assume that the longer-term plan is to reverse the downtrend in spending as a share of GDP. What is the right level of defense spending? The world remains a dangerous place, but the U.S. already outspends other countries by a huge margin. At the end of the day, financial constraints mean it boils down to a choice between defense and other spending programs. Voters may state a preference for increased defense spending, but that likely would change if other programs were crowded out. Is The Federal Government Bloated? Chart 8Federal Non-Defense Discretionary Spending Spending on entitlements is widely regarded as untouchable from a political perspective and it is no surprise that Trump has promised to defend these programs. Given the administration's platform of tax cuts and increased military and infrastructure spending, containing budget deficits implies tough constraints on non-defense discretionary spending. This includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veterans Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades, both as a share of total government outlays and as a share of GDP (Chart 8). The administration seeks further drastic cuts in the years ahead. There is a general perception that much of government spending is wasteful, implying huge savings can be made. At the same time, surveys show that people do not want cuts in areas such as security, veterans affairs, education and health. The problem is that spending by the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. Thus, pressures for spending cuts fall heavily on other areas. But this often is not practical given that many of these other programs are so small. For example, spending on foreign aid represents less than 0.2% of GDP and less than 5% of non-defense discretionary spending. As for federal employment being bloated, it should be noted that civilian federal employment has shown no net change over the past 50 years, despite the marked growth in the population and economy over the period. Federal employment currently accounts for less than 2% of total employment, down from 4% in 1970 (bottom panel of Chart 8). There inevitably are areas of wasteful government spending and it is appropriate to look for savings. However, it is not reasonable to believe that there can be tax cuts and increases in defense spending and domestic security, while protecting entitlements programs and preventing a massive rise in the budget deficit. And that is even without adding in the cost of the proposed border wall with Mexico. Entitlement Spending Is The Major Problem Social Security has been called the third rail of American politics - touch it and you are dead. No politician seeking election would dare campaign on a platform of major cuts to the program in the form of reduced benefits, higher contributions, means testing, or an increase in the age eligibility limit. And the same is broadly true for Medicare. Voter dislike of government involvement in the provision of health care does not seem to extend to those over the age of 65! The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 and older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart 9). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, income security, and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory. In fiscal 2016, these programs equaled 74% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to 84% by 2027, absent any change to current law (Chart 10). If we also allow for net interest costs, total mandatory spending is projected to exceed revenues within the next 12 years or so, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart 9The Demographic Fiscal Headwind Chart 10The Entitlement Problem Politicians operating in a world of two-year election cycles have no incentive to support short-term pain for long-term gain. At some point, markets will force change, but it is hard to know exactly when that will happen. According to the CBO's latest estimates, current policies imply that the federal deficit will average 4% of GDP over the next decade, rising to 6.2% and 8.4% over the subsequent two 10-year periods. As a result, the debt-to-GDP ratio rises from 77% currently to 113% by 2037 and 150% by 2047.5 Of course, that is a long way in the future and much can happen to undermine these projections - for the better or for the worse. Long-run fiscal projections are subject to a wide margin of error because, in addition to legislative changes, they are very sensitive to assumptions about economic growth, inflation and interest rates. The CBO's baseline estimates published in mid-2009 had Medicare spending rising from 3.1% to 7.2% of GDP between 2010 and 2037. The latest CBO report has 2037 Medicare spending at a much lower 5.3% of GDP, representing massive savings from the 2009 estimate. Unfortunately, total federal revenues as a share of GDP were revised down by an even greater amount, with the result that expected deficits and debt levels have been revised up sharply since the 2009 report, despite the slower path of Medicare spending (Chart 11). Chart 11Long-Term Fiscal Projections: Prone to Revisions One can point to Japan as an example of how a high government debt-to-GDP ratio need not imply economic disaster. Japan's gross debt currently stands at 250% of GDP and there has not been any difficulty in financing its ongoing deficits. However, two qualifications are necessary. First, it is too soon for Japan to claim victory: its horrible demographic profile points to an ever-worsening fiscal position and there likely will be a crisis at some point. Secondly, Japan finances its deficits internally which protects it from the whims of foreign investors. Although the dollar's status as reserve currency also gives the U.S. protection, the country's ongoing large current account deficit creates vulnerability to financing problems if overseas investors lose confidence in the U.S. fiscal outlook. Concluding Thoughts Public discussions of fiscal policy invariably morph into partisan arguments about the appropriate size and role of the government in the economy. It quickly becomes frustrating when the warring factions then use misleading or outright wrong data to support their positions. In the spirit of the adage that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but there is only one set of facts," I have focused this paper on published and reputable data about government revenues and spending. Several points emerge: One may want taxes to come down, but it is a FACT that the U.S. is a low-tax country by international standards, and tax burdens have not noticeably risen over time. It is a FACT that the U.S. tax system has serious distortions and is crying out for some reform. But what these reforms should be is open to debate, and are a matter of opinion. There is a strong case for increased infrastructure because it is a FACT that spending has fallen sharply over the years. It is less obvious that a major rise in defense spending is warranted. It would be a matter of preference rather than incontrovertible need. It is a FALLACY to describe overall non-defense discretionary spending as massively bloated and out-of-control. Of course, there are many places where the government can make cuts and improve efficiency, but squeezing this category of spending will provide only limited savings. It is FANTASY to think that entitlement programs can be maintained over the long run in their current form. The longer that reforms are delayed, the bigger the cutbacks will have to be. Government deficits and debt do matter, but it is virtually impossible to predict when financing problems might occur. There is no particular level of the debt-to-GDP ratio that will trigger a crisis because much depends on the domestic and global economic and financial environment. But, to quote the late Herb Stein, "if something cannot go on forever, it will stop." The Trump administration's fiscal desires are a mix of sensible policies, wishful thinking and impracticalities. Hopefully, there will be progress with boosting infrastructure, and making some positive reforms to the tax code. However, there will be serious challenges to tax changes once special interests get involved. The end point may very well be outright tax cuts without reform, and that would be much less desirable. On the spending side, increased defense spending is a perfectly legitimate choice, but the planned severe cuts to non-defense discretionary spending are impractical. The good news is that the odds of such severe cuts being implemented are very low. It seems almost certain that federal deficits will head higher over the coming few years. Using dynamic scoring to suggest that the economy will improve by enough to make tax cuts and spending increases virtually self-financing will have little credibility outside of the administration and will be challenged by the calculations of the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation. If the government is successful in implementing major fiscal stimulus then the biggest problem might be overheating the economy. As I discussed in a recent report, the U.S. economy already is operating close to full capacity and it will not take much to create a classic late-cycle build-up of inflationary pressures.6 That would set the scene for enough Fed tightening in 2018 to give high odds of a recession in 2019. Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 The totals exclude government interest receipts and transfers from the Federal Reserve to the Treasury as those largely represent transactions related to intra-government holdings of Treasury securities. 2 Overall the U.S. devotes a much larger share of its GDP to health care than other countries. According to OECD data, total health care spending represented 16.9% of U.S. GDP in 2015, compared to an unweighted average of 10% for other industrial countries. Within these totals, the government share was 8.4% in the U.S and 7.6% elsewhere, with the private sector making up the difference. 3 This comprises a top federal rate of 35% and state and local taxes of 6%, fully deductible against federal taxes. 4 SIPRI stands for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Details available at https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex 5 For more information, please see The 2017 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, March 2017. Available at www.cbo.gov 6 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware the 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017 available at bcaresearch.com

Highlights Global political risks are overstated, at least in 2017; Global rally in risk assets hinges on hard data, not politics; But Trump and the GOP can still pass tax reforms or cuts this year; The EU's guidelines on Brexit are benign, risks have peaked; The French presidential election remains harmless to markets. Feature Investors have a love/hate relationship with populism. On one hand, we fear what anti-establishment movements will mean for the twentieth-century institutions that have underpinned post-Cold War stability.1 On the other, markets have cheered populism and its ability to jolt policymakers out of their torpor, particularly on fiscal policy.2 This dichotomy of outcomes informs our investment theme for 2017, which holds that markets are navigating a "Fat-Tails World."3 The failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA, "Obamacare") - which took us by surprise - reminded investors that President Trump will not have smooth sailing through the murky waters of congressional politics. Opposition to him has put into doubt the consensus view that populism is a political defibrillator that will shock policymakers into action. Instead of right-tail outcomes, markets are again fretting about left-tail risks: namely gridlock and obstructionism, but also protectionism, trade war, and competing nationalisms. In the long term, we are pessimists. We do not see how China and the U.S. will escape the dreaded "Thucydides Trap." We remain concerned that President Trump will grow frustrated with America's trade imbalances and strike out at friends and foes alike. But these are concerns for 2018 and beyond. In 2017, we believe that political risks remain overstated. In this weekly, we explain why. It's The Economy, Stupid! The global macro backdrop remains positive for the time being. Despite a very high global policy uncertainty index print, the market is responding to strong economic data (Chart 1), with the sum of the Citibank global economic- and inflation-surprise indexes rising to the highest level in the 14-year history of the survey.4 Chart 1Is Political Risk Overstated? Chart 2The Apex Of Globalization... Delayed? The global economic improvements are real. Chart 2 shows that PMI indexes in the developed world have reached their highest level since 2011, with global export volumes recovering from their multi-year doldrums. The Baltic dry index has gone vertical. Several other positive developments have caught our eye: Global Earnings: The global growth story has started to funnel down to company earnings, with a recovery in the net earnings-revisions ratio (Chart 3), which had been negative since 2011. Chart 3Strong Global Earnings Chart 4Godot Is Here! Return Of Capex U.S. Capex: The long-awaited capex recovery may finally be coming to the U.S., with real non-residential investment bottoming in 2016 (Chart 4). Manufacturing Renaissance: Global industrial production should have a solid year, at least judging by the strong leading economic-indicator print (Chart 5). Chart 5Industrial Renaissance Chart 6Consumers Are Elated Consumer Confidence: U.S. consumer confidence is at its highest level in 16 years (Chart 6), and should firm up from here, according to the BCA disposable-income indicator (Chart 7), and our expectation that Trump and the Republicans pass tax cuts.5 Chart 7Income Growth To Follow Chart 8Euro Area Is Doing Great European Renaissance: Data from the Euro Area remains bullish, despite the focus on political risk (Chart 8). BCA's real GDP growth models, introduced by The Bank Credit Analyst in their March report, corroborate the bullish view (Chart 9).6 Chart 9BCA's GDP Models Are Bullish The broad-based recovery in the data strongly suggest that the market's performance since the U.S. election is based on more than just a bet on Trump and his policies. Markets are responding to genuine improvements in the global economic outlook. Certainly there is something of a bet on the populists "getting it right," but hard data should continue to back up the optimism. How long can the party last? Our colleagues Martin Barnes and Peter Berezin have both recently warned of heightened recession risks in 2019.7 We are perhaps even less sanguine, observing dark clouds gathering for 2018. However, we will save that story for next week's missive. This week, we will provide our reasons for optimism about the remainder of this year. U.S.: Fade The Trumpocalypse S&P 500 fell 1.2% on March 21, the day that apparently sealed the fate of the Republicans' seven-year pledge to repeal and replace Obamacare. In our view, investors are overstating the conditional relationship between "repeal and replace" and the GOP's forthcoming tax bill. The most important political question for investors this year is simple: will the GOP blow out the budget deficit or focus on austerity? Getting the answer to this question right will go a long way in determining whether the impact on nominal GDP growth, inflation expectations, and thus the Fed's reaction-function is bullish for the S&P 500 and the U.S. dollar. This is the Trump trade: the idea that overarching reflation policy is swinging from monetary to fiscal. We still believe in Trump! That said, we acknowledge that comprehensive tax reform is tough - otherwise it would have occurred more recently than 1986.8 It is also true that the failure to repeal Obamacare will leave a few hundred billion dollars in the federal deficit that would have otherwise been available for tax cuts. Table 1 shows that the average time it takes to pass tax reform - from introduction of the bill to its signing by the president - is around five months. It is therefore not impossible, though assuredly difficult, for Congress to return from August recess this year and squeeze through a bill by Christmas Eve. TableMajor Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power Chart 10Intra-Party GOP Polarization Falls##br## In Line With Last 80 Years Plus, Trump could always pivot away from tax reform and go after tax cuts, which are what Presidents Reagan and Bush did in 1981 and 2001. Both of these efforts took only one month to pass.9 From an economic perspective, the less ambitious option of tax cuts would be more flammable than tax reform, as it would merely increase the deficit and thus act as a more significant short-term stimulus. We see five reasons why the GOP will pass some form of tax legislation this year that will (1) add to the budget deficit, (2) lower household and probably corporate tax rates, and (3) likely include some provisions for infrastructure spending: Polarization is overstated: Intraparty ideological polarization is rising within the Republican Party, whereas it appears to be significantly declining in the Democratic Party (Chart 10).10 However, the move is not as significant as the media suggests. The average level of polarization within the GOP is well within the range of the past century. In fact, the GOP remains considerably less polarized than the Democrats were for most of the post-Second World War era. The data therefore suggests that while the GOP is indeed becoming more conservative (Chart 11), it is doing so uniformly. The measurable differences between the "Tea Party," represented in the House of Representatives by the Freedom Caucus, and the rest of the party are overstated. Chart 11Polarization Increasing Between, Not Within, The Two Parties Trump still has political capital: Despite a slump in national opinion polls, the president retains support among Republican voters (Chart 12). This means that he can threaten to campaign against Freedom Caucus representatives in the 2018 mid-term elections, as he did recently in an ominous tweet.11 Data suggest that voters would indeed follow Trump and dump the Freedom Caucus. Trump is very popular among Tea Party voters, even in Texas when put up against the state's Tea Party champion Senator Ted Cruz (Chart 13). Given that voter turnout in primary races in a mid-term election is below 10% for Republicans, a series of Trump rallies in Freedom Caucus districts could be sufficient to change the course of the election. Chart 12Republican Voters Support Trump Chart 13Trump Is A Threat To The Tea Party Chart 14Budget Deficits: Not As Hot Of A Priority Budget deficits are less relevant: Given the first two points, why did the Freedom Caucus oppose President Trump on health care? Because Obamacare and its replacement were both "big government programs," whereas these are "small government" Republicans. It was not because Freedom Caucus constituencies are laser-focused on lowering budget deficits! In fact, 22% fewer Republicans see reducing the budget deficit as the top policy priority as did in 2012, when the Tea Party was in full stride (Chart 14). Tax cuts are popular among Republican voters. Expanded budget deficits can be sold to them as a way to "starve the beast" of government.12 Institutional constraints to reform are overstated: "God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes." The famous quip from Washington Post columnist Robert Novak is a good guide for investors on tax reform. Many of our colleagues and clients tend to over-complicate their political analysis. Opposing tax reform and/or cuts will be political suicide for Republican legislators. And if budget deficits grow too much, the GOP can rely on two time-tested strategies to find "offsets" for tax cuts: Revenue Offsets: Republicans still have a handful of possibilities to raise revenues to offset the loss from cuts in tax rates even if they abandon the border adjustment tax (which they have not yet done). First, they can require companies to repatriate their offshore earnings, whose taxes are deferred. Second, they could engage in limited reform by closing some loopholes in the tax code. Third, they could let certain "tax extenders" expire at the end of the year as they are technically scheduled to do. Fourth, they could reduce the size of the tax cuts from the very ambitious plans outlined in their now outdated 2016 proposals. These decisions would be politically difficult, but that does not mean that all of them will fail. Crucially, the leader of the Freedom Caucus, Representative Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), now claims he would support tax cuts that are not fully offset by revenues. The Freedom Caucus appears to have expended most of its political capital on opposing the Obamacare replacement and is now tucking its tail between its legs! Dynamic Scoring: Republicans have emphasized macroeconomic feedback, i.e. the fact that tax cuts generate growth, which in turn generates tax revenues, defraying the initial revenue losses of the cuts. The Republicans will argue that static accounting methods make tax cuts seem more costly than they will be in reality. For instance, while it is true that President Bush's White House vastly overestimated the U.S.'s long-term revenue when it oversaw major cuts in 2001-3, nevertheless revenues did ultimately go up over the ten-year period - contrary to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates at the time (Chart 15). Various studies suggest that Republicans could use a variety of growth models to write off about 10% of the cost of their tax cuts (Chart 16). Chart 15Bush Was Right, ##br##CBO Was Wrong! Chart 16Dynamic Scoring Will Offset About##br## 10% Of Revenues Lost To Tax Cuts Timing is flexible: The GOP have the option of making tax cuts retroactive and thus avoiding a huge market disappointment if tax cuts come later in the year. It is even legally possible for tax laws passed in 2018 to take effect on January 1, 2017 - though it is admittedly more of a stretch than doing it this year.13 Chart 17Republicans Are Not Deficit-Neutral Our high-conviction view remains that tax reform - or less ambitious tax cuts - is still coming this year. It is empirically false that Republicans care more about balancing the budget than about reducing the tax burden on individuals and corporates (Chart 17). Arguments to the contrary rely on the time-tested (and failed) analytical strategy of "this time is different." Of course, the timing and legislative process lack clarity (Diagram 1). Republicans still plan to use "budget reconciliation" to sneak through tax reform or cuts. This allows them to approve tax policy with a simple majority, i.e. to bypass any "points of order" or filibusters in the Senate that would raise the bar to a 60-vote supermajority. The rules of reconciliation require a bill to be deficit-neutral beyond the five- or ten-year window mapped out in Congress's preceding budget resolution (the latter, for FY2018, has not yet passed). But this means that a bill that blows out the budget deficit can still be passed as long as it has a "sunset clause" at the end of the 10-year period, as was the case with President Bush's tax cuts.14 We are also sanguine on the more immediate question of government funding. Congress has to agree to fund the government by April 28 - the expiration date of December's continuing resolution - in order to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats are threatening to sink the appropriations bills (or omnibus bill) if Republicans attach noxious "riders" to it, such as defunding Planned Parenthood or building Trump's border wall. We think the Democrats are bluffing. Furthermore, leading Republicans are already signaling that they will postpone their moves on the most toxic issues to avoid a shutdown that would make them look incompetent. Diagram 1U.S. Congressional Budget Timeline 2017 What about the upcoming vote to confirm President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch? Is there any investment relevance of the pick? We do not think so. Judge Gorsuch will replace Judge Antonin Scalia and thereby protect the slightly conservative tilt of the court. Investors should watch to see if enough Democrats in fact filibuster the nomination and if Republicans change Senate rules to override filibusters for Supreme Court nominations (the so-called "nuclear option"). If Democrats insist on goading Republicans into this rule change, then the odds of bipartisan compromise on legislative initiatives (such as an infrastructure package) will fall, relative to a situation where some Democrats endorse Gorsuch and Republicans uphold Senate norms. Bottom Line: The market no longer believes that corporate tax reform will happen. High tax-rate companies have given back all of their post-election equity gains (Chart 18). We think this selloff is a mistake. As our report this week attests, we base our view on a study of political, legislative, and constitutional constraints to tax reforms and cuts. We are highly skeptical of "this time is different" narratives that overstate the power of the Freedom Caucus. As a direct bet on our high conviction view, we recommend that investors go long the high tax-rate basket relative to the S&P 500. Chart 18How To Profit From Tax Reform Chart 19Brexit Political Risk Bottomed In January Brexit: Much Ado About Nothing? The market has ignored both the invocation of Article 50 by London on March 29 and the publication of the EU's negotiation "guidelines" on March 31.15 As we discussed in January, political tensions between the EU and the U.K. likely peaked before January 16. This was the day when the market fully priced in the rumors that the U.K. would seek to withdraw from the EU Common Market. Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed the rumors on January 17 with a key speech. We have been long the GBP since.16 Investors continue to fret that there are more risks to come, but the market agrees with our assessment. The GBP bottomed against the EUR on October 11 (just after the Conservative Party conference where PM May affirmed the government's commitment to the referendum result) and bottomed against the USD on January 16. It has rallied against both currencies since the latter date (Chart 19). Why? First, the EU guidelines on the Brexit negotiations do not appear to be aggressive. The EU has offered the U.K. a "transition period," for an indefinite time between the U.K.'s technical withdrawal (March 29, 2019) and the new cross-channel status quo (for example, a free trade agreement, FTA). This is significant given that financial media doubted whether any transitional deal would be on offer as recently as a week ago. Second, the EU has implied that it will at least begin talks on an FTA with the U.K. while the negotiations on withdrawal are still ongoing. This is not exactly what London asked for but it is close.17 This means that the EU will hold the U.K.'s liabilities to the bloc for ransom before it begins negotiating a post-membership deal, but it also means that the EU does not want to threaten a "status cliff" where the U.K. and EU fail to forge any deal and hence revert back to basic WTO tariffs. Third, a leaked copy of an EU parliamentary resolution on Brexit also suggests that a "transition period," in this case limited to three years, is in the offing.18 It also hints at what we have long argued, that the EU would treat the U.K.'s notice of withdrawal (triggering Article 50) as revocable, i.e. reversible. That said, some negatives are obvious from both documents: The EU parliamentary resolution insists that the City of London does not get special access to the EU's common market; Spain will get a veto on whether the final agreement applies to the territory of Gibraltar; The U.K. will have to settle its financial commitments to the EU; No "cherry picking" of common-market benefits will be allowed. These points do not surprise us. We have been pessimists on London's ability to retain access to the EU common market well before Brexit. And May's own speech on January 17 cited that London would not seek to "cherry pick" benefits from the common market. Our assessment remains that the EU is not out for blood. Or, as we put it in our January 25 note: Now that the U.K. has chosen to depart from the common market, the EU no longer needs to take as hostile of a negotiating position as before. The EU member states were not going to let the U.K. dictate its own terms of membership. That would have set a precedent for future Euroskeptic governments looking for an alternative relationship with the bloc, i.e. the so-called "Europe à la carte" that European policymakers dread. But now that the U.K. is asking for a clean exit, with a free trade agreement to be negotiated in lieu of common market membership, the EU has less reason to punish London. May's January 17 speech was therefore a classic "sell the rumor, buy the news" moment. Of course, we expect further risks and crises, especially with the British press laser-focused on the issue. But much of the hysterics will be irrelevant. Take the issue of the dreaded "exit fee." The media has focused on the fee as if the EU is seeking to impose a blood tax on the U.K. Instead, the roughly €60 billion "fee" is merely the remaining portion of U.K.'s contribution to the 2014-2020 EU budget, plus other liabilities. The EU sets its budgets on a seven-year horizon and the U.K. is going to remain a member state until March 2019. Some British newspapers think that the U.K. can continue to live in an EU apartment for the remainder of its lease without paying rent! The fact of the matter is that the EU is a trading power focused on expanding its markets. It is not in the interest of core member states, especially the export-oriented powerhouses such as Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, to lose the U.K. as a trading partner. And it is certainly not in their interest to impose such painful retribution as to risk harming their own economies. What about the message that the EU would want to send to other member states? This is only important if the likelihood of exit by another EU member state is high. As we discussed immediately after the referendum, the risks of EU dissolution are grossly overstated.19 Recent elections in Austria and the Netherlands confirm our analysis, and we expect that French elections will as well. Yes, Italy is a risk to the EU, given that Euroskepticism is on the rise there. However, the EU has ample tools with which to dissuade the Italians from exiting - starting with a market riot that the ECB can induce at any time by reversing its offer to buy Italian debt. And it is doubtful that the EU can change Italian sentiment through punitive Brexit negotiations. What kind of a post-Brexit relationship should investors expect between the U.K. and the EU? There are three options: Customs union: The U.K. is not likely to accept a Turkish arrangement in which it belongs to the customs union but not the common market. That is because the customs union forces Turkey to apply the common EU tariff on all imports, while its exports do not benefit from other countries' trade deals with the EU. The U.K. wants more autonomy over trade, so this is unlikely to be the solution. The Turkish deal also excludes trade in services, which the U.K. will want to promote. Common market lite: The U.K. has a low-probability option of accepting the Norwegian or Swiss options of membership in the common market despite non-membership in the customs union. These options would allow only a few limits to the EU's demand of free movement of goods, services, people, and capital; they are currently non-starters because the U.K. is prioritizing curbs on immigration. It is possible that the U.K. could come around to something similar later, but it would require a shift in domestic politics, of which there is little evidence yet. Chart 20British Public Remains Divided On Brexit FTA: The U.K. is more likely to have an FTA arrangement, comparable to the just-signed EU deal with Canada. This would give the U.K. more autonomy on trade deals with third parties, while keeping tariffs to a minimum and incurring no obligation of free movement of people. It would also likely be more robust than the Canadian deal because of the much higher level of existing integration. Still, the U.K.'s prized service sector would suffer, as FTAs rarely cover services adequately. In fact, one of London's long-standing problems with the EU itself was lack of implementation of the 2006 EU Services Directive, which was supposed to harmonize trade in services and reduce non-tariff barriers to trade. We place the probability of the U.K. reverting back to WTO rules on trade with the EU - the most adverse scenario - to zero. Why such a high-conviction view? The EU has a customs agreement with Turkey, a country that threatens Europe with a Biblical exodus of refugees once every fortnight. In comparison, the U.K. and the EU are geopolitical allies that cooperate on national security, foreign policy, climate change, and other issues. There is no way that investors will wake up in 2019 and find that the U.K. has a worse trade agreement with the EU than Turkey.20 It is not all smooth sailing for the U.K., however. Brexit is not an optimal outcome for the U.K. economy.21 Leaving the EU means a deep cut in its labor-force growth rate, service exports, and inward FDI flows, reducing the U.K.'s growth potential. That said, given that the transitional deal will likely extend the horizon of "final Brexit" to around 2022 - or even beyond - and that there is still a small chance of a total reversal of Brexit, it is very difficult to predict the final impact on the U.K. economy now. There is another option that investors should consider. With Scottish independence gaining steam,22 and political risks rising in Northern Ireland, perhaps the EU is trying to kill Brexit with kindness. Polls on the Brexit referendum remain tight (Chart 20), which suggests that the "Remain" camp could eventually regain the upper hand - particularly if the shock to household income from inflation persists (Chart 21). With the U.K.'s own union at risk, perhaps the Tory leadership will alter its exit strategy over the course of negotiations. Meanwhile, investors should remember that: Chart 21Bremain May Regain Popularity ##br##When Brexit Bites Chart 22British Public Not Divided On ##br##Current Leadership Article 50 is almost certainly revocable. This is a political issue, not a legal one, as we have long stressed, and as the EU parliament leak suggests. Theresa May has promised that the final deal with the EU will be put to a vote in parliament. The bearish view has assumed that a failure of the vote would cast the U.K. into the abyss of no trade relationship other than the WTO's general agreement on tariffs. But failure could also follow from a shift in politics in the U.K. that seeks to act on the revocability of Article 50 and rejoin the EU. We see no sign of such a shift at the moment (Chart 22), but two to five years is time enough for one to develop. The next U.K. election will take place by May 2020, unless the government engineers a special early election. That is only a year after Article 50's two-year withdrawal period ends. If political winds are changing direction, the EU's allowance of a transition period could widen the window for a relatively smooth reverse-Brexit. In other words, "Brexit still means Brexit," but there are various escape hatches if the public demurs. The Scottish referendum has put a new constraint on the Tories and the EU may have figured out that the best way to encourage the Brits to change their mind is to smother them with kindness. What indications would suggest that the U.K. is changing strategies or the EU turning aggressive? In the U.K., a move to hold early elections could suggest that Prime Minister May wants a mandate of her own. This could enable her to pursue her current strategy more resolutely, but it could also give her the flexibility to reverse it. A sudden loss of support for the Tories, or a surge in the polling in favor of "Bremain," could also trigger a change in the government's approach. A significant public concession by the government in the negotiations could also mark a pivot point. In the EU, the following actions would suggest that the Brexit strategy will become less benign (and that our sanguine view is wrong): stonewalling in the exit negotiations, a reversal of the "Barroso doctrine" in order to encourage Scottish independence, a decision to shorten or deny the transition period, a lack of seriousness in trade negotiations, a downgrading of security and defense relations, or a move to pry away Gibraltar, among others. Bottom Line: We maintain our view that the pound bottomed along with the political risk on January 16. Yes, Brexit is not an optimal outcome, but the EU appears to be willing to push off the final date of the break with the U.K. into the future. At some point, we expect the U.K.'s inward FDI to suffer as companies - especially banks - grapple with the reality of Brexit. However, given the negotiations and potential transitional deal of up to three years, that date could be anywhere from two to five years into the future. Update On France: Can We Worry Now? We have spent much ink this year explaining why populist Marine Le Pen is not going to win the two-round French election on April 23 and May 7.23 Polls continue to support our view, with Le Pen trailing Emmanuel Macron by 26% with 33 days to go to their likely second-round matchup (Chart 23). At this point in the U.S. election, candidate Trump trailed Secretary Hillary Clinton by only 5%. Even Francois Fillon appears to be rallying against Le Pen. Despite ongoing corruption allegations against him, Fillon is leading Le Pen in a hypothetical second-round matchup by 16%. Chart 23Le Pen Lags Both Her Rivals##br## In Key Second Round Chart 24Is American Midwest A Path To##br## Le Pen Presidency? Chart 25No Comparison Between ##br##Le Pen And Trump A sophisticated New York client challenged our comparison of Trump's national polling against Clinton to that of Le Pen and her rivals. Instead, the client asked us to focus on the massive underperformance of the polls in the Midwest, where Trump surprised to the upside and beat long odds to win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Chart 24). We agree that it is all about voter turnout, but again the numbers bear out Le Pen's weakness. She would have to perform six times better than Trump did in the Midwest to win the election (Chart 25). Chart 26Italy's Euroskeptics Much ##br##Stronger Than France's Chart 27The Market Is Missing ##br##The Italian Risks Chart 28Long French Bonds, Short Italian We are not dogmatic on the subject, we just refuse to agree with the lazy conventional wisdom that "polls are wrong." They are not. National polls got the U.S. election almost perfectly (the polls predicted a 3.2% Clinton victory and she won the popular vote by 2.1%). It is not our problem that pundits overestimated Clinton's strength, especially in the rustbelt states. Our own quantitative model gave Trump a 40% chance of winning the election on the night of the vote, roughly double the consensus view.24 We will therefore upgrade Le Pen's chances of winning when she starts making serious improvement in her second-round, head-to-head polling. Meanwhile, in Italy, the establishment continues to lose support to Euroskeptic parties (Chart 26). The media have not caught on to this risk, perhaps because they are feasting on negative news from France (Chart 27). The bond market has begun to price higher risks in Italy, with spreads between French and Italian bonds having risen 76 bps since January 2016 (Chart 28). However, they remain 296 bps away from their highs in 2012. We suspect that Italian bonds will see further underperformance relative to French bonds. Bottom Line: We continue to monitor risks in France due to the presidential elections. However, Le Pen remains behind both of her likely opponents by double digits in the second round. We remain long French industrial equities relative to their German counterparts as a play on expected structural reforms post-election. In addition, we are initiating a long French bonds / short Italian bonds recommendation due to our fear that Italy is the one and only risk to European integration in the short and medium term. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Upside To Populism," dated August 19, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Fat-Tails World," dated February 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat," dated March 31, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "March 2017," dated February 23, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Data for polarization analysis uses "nominate" (nominal three-step estimation), a multidimensional scaling method developed to analyze preference and choice. Researchers use the bulk of roll call voting in the U.S. Congress over its entire history. Our Chart 10 measures intra-party polarization along the "primary dimension," which is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. 11 "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!" @realDonaldTrump 12 The quote "starve the beast" is a proverbial phrase that has applied to taxes at least since the 1970s. Nowadays it refers to cutting taxes and revenue in an effort to force cuts in expenditures. While the quote is attributed to President Ronald Reagan, he never used it. Instead, he used the analogy of a child's allowance during his campaign in 1980: "If you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker." Subsequent Republican administrations have used similar rhetoric to justify tax cuts, including that of George W. Bush. 13 Congress, after the sweeping 1986 tax reforms, corrected certain oversights in that law by passing subsequent measures in 1987. These were made to be retroactive back to the previous calendar year, i.e. January 1, 1986, and courts upheld the legislation. Hence there is precedent for Republicans to pass tax reform in 2018 that takes effect January 1, 2017, though admittedly the circumstances would matter. Courts have even upheld retroactive tax legislation back to two calendar years. Please see Erika K. Lunder, Robert Meltz, and Kenneth R. Thomas, "Constitutionality of Retroactive Tax Legislation," Congressional Research Service, October 25, 2012, available at fas.org. 14 Please see Megan S. Lynch, "The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing Of Legislative Action," Congressional Research Service, October 24, 2013, available at digital.library.unt.edu, and Tax Policy Center, "What Is Reconciliation," Briefing Book, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. See also David Reich and Richard Kogan, "Introduction to Budget 'Reconciliation,'" Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 9, 2016, available at www.cbpp.org. 15 Please see Council of the European Union, "Draft guidelines following the United Kingdom's notification under Article 50 TEU," dated March 31, 2017, available at bbc.co.uk. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The exact wording from the EU guidelines: "While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship could be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50. The Union and its Member States stand ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions to this end in the context of negotiations under Article 50 TEU, as soon as sufficient progress has been made in the first phase towards reaching a satisfactory agreement on the arrangements for an orderly withdrawal." 18 Please see Daniel Boffey, "First EU response to article 50 takes tough line on transitional deal," The Guardian, March 29, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 No way. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.