Capital Flows

Highlights The ongoing selloff in EM risk assets and commodities resembles a domino effect. Given that domino effects transpire in bear markets - not corrections - we believe that EM risk assets and commodities are indeed in a bear market. We continue to recommend short positions in EM risk assets and underweighting EM versus DM. Finally, we rank individual developing countries in terms of their vulnerability to foreign portfolio capital outflows based on their share of foreign equity and domestic bond holdings. Feature The fundamental case for our negative stance on EM risk assets continues to rest on the following: A deepening slowdown in global trade due to weakening demand in Chinese and EM economies alongside the Federal Reserve's determination to tighten policy are creating a toxic mix for EM risk assets, a stronger U.S. dollar and negative spillovers into DM markets. With the exception of China's latest trade data, which were inexplicably strong,1 recent trade data out of Asia indicate the region's exports are faltering, as evidenced by slumping outward shipments of Taiwan and Korea (Chart I-1). Chart I-1No Improvement In Asian Exports No Improvement In Asian Exports No Improvement In Asian Exports Importantly, not only has capital spending decelerated in China but household spending growth has also slowed considerably. Chart I-2 illustrates that the marginal propensity to spend among mainland households has diminished, passenger car sales are contracting and the nominal growth rate of retail sales of consumer goods has plummeted from 10% last year to 4%. Chart I-2Chinese Consumer Is Decelerating Chinese Consumer Is Decelerating Chinese Consumer Is Decelerating That said, observing past and current economic data alone does not offer enough information to gauge whether a selloff is a correction or a bear market. To assess the potential for further downside in risk assets, one needs to exercise judgement on the growth outlook. The latter is often contingent on the presence of imbalances and excesses as well as potential policy responses and their effectiveness. We have elaborated on these topics - in particular why lingering excesses and imbalances in China/EM could make the present global cyclical downturn extensive - at great length in past reports2 and we will not repeat our arguments today. Instead, this week we focus on the nature and character of the equity selloff to understand whether this is a correction or a bear market. In addition, we estimate the degree of foreign investors' positioning in individual EM equity and local bond markets, with the aim of gauging risks of potential portfolio outflows. Domino Effects Occur During Bear Markets Bear markets evolve in phases resembling domino effect-like patterns, where some markets lead while others lag. In contrast, corrections are abrupt and the majority of markets drop concurrently. For example, the EM crises in 1997-'98 did not occur simultaneously across all EM countries. It began in July 1997 with Thailand, then spread to Korea, Malaysia and Indonesia and finally to the rest of Asia. By August 1998, Russian financial markets had collapsed, triggering the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) debacle. The last leg of the crisis appeared in Brazil and culminated in the real's devaluation in January 1999. Similarly, the U.S. financial/credit crisis commenced with the selloff in sub-prime securities in March 2007. Corporate spreads began widening, and bank share prices rolled over in June 2007. Next, the S&P 500 and EM stocks peaked in October 2007 (Chart I-3). Despite these developments, commodities prices and EM currencies continued to rally until the summer of 2008, finally collapsing in the second half of that year (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Chart I-3Domino Effect In 2007-08 Domino Effect In 2007-08 Domino Effect In 2007-08 We discussed the nature of the current EM selloff in our June 14 report titled, "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" In that report,3 we argued that the selloff in EM risk assets fits the pattern of a bear market - not a correction. We also noted that the odds of U.S. stocks and corporate bonds remaining resilient in the face of a deepening EM selloff were low. In the past month, U.S. equities and corporate bonds have sold off, validating our thesis. In terms of market dynamics, the following observations are noteworthy: The selloff in global risk assets that commenced early this year resembles that of a domino effect, and therefore fits the pattern of a bear market. Following the initial selloff in early February, U.S. stocks recovered and made new highs, but EM risk assets and DM ex-U.S. share prices continued to riot. Since early October, the selloff has snared U.S. stocks and more recently U.S. corporate bonds. Within the EM universe, it began with Turkey and Argentina, then spread to Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil. Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese equities held up until the middle of June. By the second half of June, the selloff spread to these markets as well, causing severe damage. A similar rotational selloff developed in the commodities space. Precious metals prices were the first to drop; followed by industrial metals. While oil made new highs in October, crude oil prices have lately recoupled to the downside. Interestingly, crude oil prices have rolled over at their very long-term moving averages - a phenomenon that often marks a major top and is followed by a large decline (Chart I-4). Chart I-4A Major Top In Oil A Major Top In Oil A Major Top In Oil In terms of market indicators, some of our favorites are signaling more downside in share prices. First, China's narrow money (M1) growth has been a good marker for EM share prices; currently, it is extremely weak and has not yet turned up (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Chinese Money Supply & EM Stocks Chinese Money Supply & EM Stocks Chinese Money Supply & EM Stocks Second, both U.S. and EM share prices always deflate in tandem with a rise in their corporate bond yields, as illustrated in Chart I-6. Chart I-6Corporate Bond Yields Point To Lower Share Prices Corporate Bond Yields Point To Lower Share Prices Corporate Bond Yields Point To Lower Share Prices Importantly, yields on Chinese property companies' offshore bonds have surged and spreads have widened dramatically (Chart I-7). Such high cost of capital entails a dismal outlook for construction activity and industries that are exposed to it. These include global industrials and materials. Chart I-7A Stress In Chinese Real Estate Credit A Stress In Chinese Real Estate Credit A Stress In Chinese Real Estate Credit Table I-1 segregates the EM equity selloffs of the past 35 years into corrections (Table I-1A) and bear markets (Table I-1B). The duration of the corrections range from one to three months, while for bear markets it is three to 19 months. The current EM equity selloff is already 9.5 months old and its drawdown is 25%. As such, it qualifies as a bear market, not a correction. Table I-1 On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows Interestingly, this year the global equity index has exhibited a very similar profile to its 2000 top - Chart I-8 overlays the MSCI global stocks index in U.S. dollars with its profile in 1997-2002. Global share prices peaked in January 2000, attempted a failed breakout in March, and after several months of moving sideways, began plunging in September 2000. The behavior of the equity market this year is very similar to what happened in 2000. Chart I-82018 Top = 2000 Peak? 2018 = 2000? 2018 = 2000? This does not mean the current global equity selloff will last as long as or will be as severe as it was in 2000-2002, but the similarities between these episodes are noteworthy. Some investors have hypothesized that a blow-off phase in global stocks will likely occur when the Fed halts its tightening. Although this is a plausible argument, it is important to note that the rally in global stocks from the early 2016 lows to the tops reached this year was of similar magnitude to the surge that occurred in global equities from their 1998 lows to their peak in 2000. Is a widely expected blow-off phase in global share prices behind us? Only time will tell. Finally, the U.S. equal-weighted stock index as well as share prices of Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan - the two financial behemoths leveraged to financial markets - have exhibited negative technical chart patterns (Chart I-9). These are also warnings signals for U.S. share prices and risk assets worldwide. Chart I-9Bearish Technicals In U.S. Stocks Bearish Technicals In U.S. Stocks Bearish Technicals In U.S. Stocks How far will this selloff go? Table I-2 compares the current selloff with the one in 2015, when global manufacturing and trade growth flirted with contraction and global cyclical sectors plunged due to a slowdown in China and EM. Table I-2Drawdown In Various Equity Indexes In 2015 And 2018 On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows The current selloff is likely to be at least as bad, if not worse. This is because EM risk assets have entered this selloff more overbought than they were in 2015. We discuss the topic in the following section. Bottom Line: The selloff in EM risk assets and currencies has further to run. Stay short / underweight. EM Portfolio Outflows: Vulnerability Ranking The U.S. dollar is attempting to break out to new cyclical highs, and the odds are in its favor. Both the Fed's tightening and the ongoing global trade slowdown will foster the U.S. dollar rally. As EM currencies depreciate further, there will be considerable pressure on foreign investors to sell their EM assets. To gauge how vulnerable various developing countries are to foreign capital outflows, we have determined how individual countries rank with respect to their share of foreign equity and domestic bond holdings. Table I-3 ranks individual bourses by the share of foreign equity ownership in their largest companies accounting for at least two-thirds of market cap.4 Table I-3What Is The Share Of Foreign Ownership In Local Bourses? On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows This ranking illustrates that South Africa, the Czech Republic, Taiwan, Russia and Hungary have the highest share of foreign holdings, while Colombia, Malaysia, Chile, Thailand and Indonesia have the lowest. China is not a part of this list because its investable stocks are traded in various jurisdictions, making it difficult to define foreign investor ownership. To put the current penetration of foreign ownership into historical perspective, Table I-4 juxtaposes the current share of foreign stock ownership for select bourses with the one from March 2015 - just before the freefall in EM share prices. The share of foreign ownership is larger now than back in March 2015 for Brazil, Turkey and India, while it is lower for Indonesia and unchanged for Russia. Table I-4Share Of Foreign Ownership In Stocks: March 2015 Vs. Today On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows Foreign purchases of local currency bonds have been a major source of capital flows for developing countries as well. Critically, exchange rates substantially influence foreign investors' returns in EM local bonds, as illustrated in Chart I-10. Therefore, EM currency depreciation will lead to further outflows from their local bonds. Chart I-10Return On EM Domestic Bonds: In USD & Local Currency Return On EM Domestic Bonds: In USD & Local Currency Return On EM Domestic Bonds: In USD & Local Currency Table I-5 demonstrates that foreigners hold the largest share of domestic bonds in Peru, the Czech Republic, South Africa, Indonesia and Mexico. Meanwhile, India, Brazil, Korea, Thailand and Hungary have the lowest share of foreign investors in their local currency bonds. Table I-5Share Of Domestic Bonds Held By Foreigners On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows The scatter plot in Chart I-11 brings together the share of foreign ownership of equities on the X axis with the share of foreign ownership of local currency bonds on the Y axis. Chart I-11EM Portfolio Outflow Vulnerability Assessment On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows On Domino Effects And Portfolio Outflows Based on this diagram, South Africa, the Czech Republic, Peru, Mexico and Russia seem to be the most at risk of foreign portfolio outflows, while Colombia, Malaysia, Thailand and India seem to be the least vulnerable. These rankings are only one of the indicators we look at when forming our asset allocation across EM countries. We are currently overweight equity markets in Korea, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Russia and central Europe. Our equity underweights are Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Hong Kong, South Africa and Peru. In the local-currency bond space, we favor Korea, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Russia and central Europe. The markets to underweight or avoid are Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, South Africa and India. A complete list of our overweights and underweights across EM equities, fixed-income, credit and currencies as well as specific trade recommendations can be found each week at the end of our reports (please see pages 11-12). Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Most likely they reflect the frontrunning of U.S. import tariffs. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "Is The EM Pendulum About To Swing Back?" dated November 8, 2018, the link is available on page 13. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 We weighted each company's share of foreign stock ownership by their respective market cap weight. The result is an equity market cap-weighted proxy for the share of foreign stock ownership by country. All of these data are from Bloomberg Finance L.P. and dates as of November 12, 2018. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Paradox 1: U.S. growth will slow, and this will force the Fed to raise rates MORE quickly. Paradox 2: China will try to stimulate its economy, and this will HURT commodities and other risk assets. Paradox 3: Global rebalancing will require the euro area and Japan to have LARGER current account surpluses. Feature Faulty Assumptions Investors assume that slower U.S. growth will cause the Fed to turn more dovish; efforts by China to stimulate its economy will boost market sentiment towards risk assets; and global rebalancing requires the euro area and Japan to reduce their bloated current account surpluses. In this week's report, we consider the possibility that all three assumptions are wrong. Let's start with the U.S. growth picture. U.S. Growth About To Slow? The U.S. economy grew by 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The composition of growth was reasonably solid. Net exports boosted real GDP by 1.1 percentage points, but this was largely offset by a 1.0 point drag from a slower pace of inventory accumulation. As a result, domestic final demand increased at a robust rate of 3.9%, led by personal consumption (up 4.0%) and business fixed investment (up 7.3%). Unfortunately, the second quarter is probably as good as it gets for growth. We say this not because we expect aggregate demand growth to falter to any great degree. Quite the contrary. Consumer confidence is high and the labor market is strong, with initial unemployment claims near 49-year lows. The Bureau of Economic Analysis' latest revisions revealed a much higher personal savings rate than had been previously estimated (Chart 1). The savings rate is now well above levels that one would expect based on the ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 2). This raises the odds that consumer spending will accelerate. Chart 1Households Are Saving More ##br##Than Previously Thought Households Are Saving More Than Previously Thought Households Are Saving More Than Previously Thought Chart 2Consumption Could Accelerate ##br##As The Savings Rate Drops Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True Rising consumer demand will prompt businesses to expand capacity (Chart 3). Core capital goods orders surprised on the upside in June, with positive revisions made to past months. Capex intention surveys remain at elevated levels. So far, fears of a trade war have not had a major impact on business investment. Fiscal spending is also set to rise. Federal government expenditures increased by only 3.5% in Q2, far short of the 10%-plus growth rate that some forecasters were projecting. The effect of the tax cuts have also yet to make their way fully through the economy. Supply Matters Considering all these positive drivers of demand, why do we worry that growth could slow meaningfully later this year or in early 2019? The answer is that for the first time in over a decade, demand is no longer the binding constraint to growth - supply is. Today, there are fewer unemployed workers than job vacancies (Chart 4). The number of people outside the labor force who want a job is near all-time lows. Businesses are reporting increasing difficulty in finding qualified labor. Chart 3U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex U.S. Companies Plan To Boost Capex Chart 4Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings Companies Are Struggling To Fill Job Openings New business investment will add to the economy's productive capacity over time, but in the near term, the boost to aggregate demand from new investment spending will easily exceed the contribution to aggregate supply.1 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that potential real GDP growth is running at around 2%. What happens when the output gap is fully eliminated, and aggregate demand growth begins to eclipse supply growth? The answer is that inflation will rise. Instead of more output, we will see higher prices (Chart 5). Chart 5Inflationary Pressures Tend To Increase ##br##When Spare Capacity Is Absorbed Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True Rising inflation will force the Fed to engineer an increase in real interest rates, even in the face of slower GDP growth. Such a stagflationary outcome is not good for equities, which is one reason why we downgraded our cyclical recommendation on risk assets from overweight to neutral in June. Higher-than-expected real interest rates will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. A stronger dollar will hurt U.S. companies with significant foreign exposure more than it hurts their domestically-oriented peers. If history is any guide, a resurgent greenback will also cause credit spreads to widen (Chart 6). Chinese Stimulus: Be Careful What You Wish For Chinese stimulus helped reignite global growth after the Global Financial Crisis and again during the 2015-2016 manufacturing downturn. With global growth slowing anew, will China once again come to the rescue? Not quite. China does not want to let its economy falter, but high debt levels, and an overvalued property market plagued by excess capacity, limit what the authorities can do (Chart 7). Chart 6A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds ##br##To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads A Stronger Dollar Usually Corresponds To Wider Corporate Borrowing Spreads Chart 7China: High Debt Levels Make ##br##Credit-Fueled Stimulus A Risky Proposition Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True Granted, the government has loosened monetary policy at the margin and plans to increase fiscal spending. However, our China strategists feel these actions are more consistent with easing off the brake than pressing down on the accelerator.2 They note that the authorities continue to squeeze the shadow banking system, as evidenced by the continued deceleration in money and credit growth, as well as rising onshore spreads for the riskiest corporate bonds (Chart 8). The Specter Of Currency Wars If Chinese growth continues to decelerate, what options do the authorities have? One possibility is to double down on what they are already doing: letting the RMB slide. Chart 9 shows that the Chinese currency has weakened substantially more over the past six weeks than its prior relationship with the dollar would have suggested. Chart 8Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chinese Credit Growth Has Been Slowing Chart 9The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected ##br##Based On the Broad Dollar Trend The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected Based On the Broad Dollar Trend The Yuan Has Weakened More Than Expected Based On the Broad Dollar Trend Letting the currency weaken is a risky strategy. Global financial markets went into a tizzy the last time China devalued the yuan in August 2015. The devaluation triggered significant capital outflows, arguably only compounding China's problems. This has led some commentators to conclude that the authorities would not make the same mistake again. But what if the real mistake was not that China devalued its currency, but that it did not devalue it by enough? Standard economic theory says that a country should always devalue its currency by enough to flush out expectations of a further decline. Perhaps China was simply too timid? Capital controls are tighter in China today than they were in 2015. This gives the authorities more room for maneuver. China is also waging a trade war with the United States. The U.S. exported only $188 billion of goods and services to China in 2017, a small fraction of the $524 billion in goods and services that China exported to the United States. China simply cannot win a tit-for-tat trade war with the United States. In contrast, China is better positioned to wage a currency war with the United States. The Chinese simply need to step up their purchases of U.S. Treasurys, which would drive up the value of the dollar. Efforts by China to devalue its currency would invite retaliation from the United States. However, since the Trump Administration seems keen on pursuing a protectionist trade agenda no matter what happens, the Chinese may see their decision to weaken the yuan as the least bad of all possible outcomes. Unlike traditional stimulus in the form of additional infrastructure spending and faster credit growth, a currency devaluation would roil financial markets, causing risk asset prices to plunge. Metal prices would take it on the chin, since a weaker RMB would make it more expensive for Chinese businesses to import commodities. China now consumes close to half of the world's supply of copper, zinc, nickel, aluminum, and iron ore (Chart 10). Investors should remain underweight emerging market equities relative to developed markets and shun the currencies of commodity-exporting economies. We are currently short AUD/CAD on the grounds that a China shock would hurt metal prices more than energy prices. The Canadian dollar is highly levered to the latter, while the Aussie dollar is more levered to the former. Global Rebalancing: It's Not About Getting To Zero We have argued before that China's high savings rate explains why the country has maintained a structural current account surplus, despite the economy's rapid GDP growth rate.3 Both the euro area and Japan also have an excessive savings problem, minus the mitigating effect of rapid trend growth. The euro area's excessive savings problem was masked during the nine years following the introduction of the euro by a massive credit boom across much of the region (Chart 11). Germany did not partake in that boom, but it was still able to export its excess savings to the rest of the euro area via a rising current account balance. Chart 10China Is A More Dominant Consumer ##br##Of Metals Than Oil China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil Chart 11Germany Did Not Take Part ##br##In The Credit Boom Germany Did Not Take Part In The Credit Boom Germany Did Not Take Part In The Credit Boom Germany Needs A Spender Of Last Resort Chart 12 shows that Germany's current account surplus with other euro area members mirrored the country's increasing competitiveness vis-à-vis the rest of the region. In essence, the spending boom in southern Europe sucked in German exports, with German savings financing the periphery's swelling current account deficits. This is the main reason why German banks were hit so hard during the Global Financial Crisis: They were the ones who underwrote the periphery's spendthrift ways. That party ended in 2008. With the periphery no longer the spender of last resort in Europe, Germany had to find a way to export its savings to the rest of the world. But that required a cheaper currency, which Mario Draghi ultimately delivered in 2014 when he set in motion the ECB's own quantitative easing program. So where do we go from here? Germany's excess savings problem is not about to go away anytime soon. The working-age population is set to decline over the next few decades, which means that most domestically oriented businesses will have little incentive to expand capacity (Chart 13). The peripheral countries remain in belt-tightening mode. This will limit demand for German imports. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain have made significant progress in reducing unit labor costs in an effort to improve competitiveness and shift their current account balances back into surplus. Chart 12Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed ##br##Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Competitiveness Gains In The 2000s Allowed Germany To Increase Its Current Account Surplus Chart 13Germans Need To Have More Children Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True Three Macro Paradoxes Are About To Come True The ECB And The BOJ Can't Afford To Raise Rates The private sector financial balance in the euro area - effectively, the difference between what the private sector earns and spends - now stands near a record high (Chart 14). Fiscal policy also remains fairly tight. The IMF estimates that the euro area's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance will be in a surplus of 0.9% of GDP in 2018-19, compared to a deficit of 3.8% of GDP in the United States (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area: Private Sector ##br##Balance Remains Elevated Euro Area: Private Sector Balance Remains Elevated Euro Area: Private Sector Balance Remains Elevated Chart 15The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight The Euro Area's Fiscal Policy Is Tight If the public sector is unwilling to absorb the private sector's excess savings by running large fiscal deficits, those savings need to be exported abroad in the form of a current account surplus. Failure to do so will result in higher unemployment, and ultimately, further political upheaval. This means that the ECB has no choice other than to keep rates near rock-bottom levels in order to ensure that the euro remains cheap. Japan has been more willing than Europe to maintain large budget deficits, but the problem is that this has resulted in a huge debt-to-GDP ratio. The Japanese would like to tighten fiscal policy, starting with the consumption tax hike scheduled for October 2019. However, this may require the economy to have an even larger current account surplus, which can only be achieved if the yen weakens further. This, in turn, suggests that the Bank of Japan will not abandon its yield curve control policy anytime soon. We were not in the least bit surprised this week when Governor Kuroda poured cold water on the idea that the BoJ was contemplating raising either its short or long-term interest rate targets. The bottom line is that thinking about global imbalances solely in terms of current account positions is not enough. One should also think about the distribution of aggregate demand across the world. Countries with demand to spare such as the United States can afford to run current account deficits, while economies with insufficient demand such as the euro area and Japan should run current account surpluses. The key market implication is that interest rates will remain structurally higher in the United States, which will keep the dollar well bid. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 This is partly because it can take a while for additional capital spending to raise aggregate supply. For example, it may take a few years to build an office tower or a new factory. Corporate R&D investment may not generate tangible benefits for a long time, especially in cases where the research is focused on something complicated (i.e., the design of new computer chips or pharmaceuticals). And even if investment spending could be transformed into additional productive capacity instantaneously, aggregate demand would still rise more than aggregate supply, at least temporarily. Here is the reason: The nonresidential private-sector capital stock is about 120% of GDP in the United States. As such, a one percent increase in investment spending would raise the capital stock by four-fifths of a percentage point. Assuming a capital share of income of 40% of national income, a one percent increase in the capital stock would lift output by 0.4%. Thus, a one-dollar increase in business investment would boost aggregate demand by one dollar in the year it is undertaken, while increasing supply by only 4/5*0.4 = roughly 32 cents. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Is Easing Up On The Brake, Not Pressing The Accelerator," dated July 26, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?" dated April 6, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The chaotic conclusion to last weekend's G7 summit in Charlevoix is a reminder that the specter of trade wars will not fade quietly into the night. A trade war would hurt the U.S., but would punish the rest of the world even more. The U.S. dollar typically strengthens when global trade slows. Despite President Trump's antics, the dollar is at little risk of losing its status as the world's premier reserve currency. Fiscal stimulus should keep U.S. growth above trend well into next year, allowing the Fed to maintain its once-per-quarter pace of rate hikes. We are currently overweight global equities, but we expect to shift to neutral before the end of the year. Feature Hit First, Ask Questions Later Donald's Trump's negotiating style - hit as hard as you can and then compromise - has worked well in dealing with tin-pot dictators, at least judging by the apparent outcome of this week's Singapore summit with Kim Jong-Un. It has also worked well throughout Trump's career as a real estate developer. However, as the breakdown of last weekend's G7 summit demonstrates, it is not clear if it is a winning strategy in the realm of international trade. Down-on-their-luck creditors may be willing to settle for twenty cents on the dollar when they had been promised one hundred, but governments have their citizens to answer to, and national pride often trumps (ahem) narrow financial interests in such matters. How Not To Fight A Trade War The U.S. is a fairly closed economy and hence a trade war probably would not have severe effects on growth. However, the way Trump is waging his war ensures that whatever impact it has on the domestic economy will be negative. This is not only because Trump's tariffs are certain to invite retaliation; it is also because Trump is targeting intermediate goods - goods that are used as inputs into production of final goods - for tariffs. Chart 1Rising Productivity In The Steel Sector ##br##Caused Employment To Decline Rising Productivity In The Steel Sector Caused Employment To Decline Rising Productivity In The Steel Sector Caused Employment To Decline Consider the case of steel. Today, the U.S. steel industry employs just 145,000 workers, down from 203,000 workers in 2000. In contrast, there are about two million workers employed in steel-consuming sectors of the economy.1 A reasonable rule-of-thumb from the international trade literature is that a one-percent increase in foreign prices causes domestic prices to rise by about half a percent. This is mainly because domestic producers end up capturing some of the gains from tariffs through higher profit margins. A 25% increase in steel tariffs would thus raise steel prices by around 12.5%. Higher steel prices will lead to higher prices for many American goods such as automobiles, some of which are exported abroad. It is actually quite conceivable that steel tariffs would reduce exports more than they would depress imports, leading to a wider trade deficit. Ironically, foreign competition probably explains only a small fraction of the decline in U.S. steel employment. The U.S. produces roughly as much steel now as it did in 2000 (Chart 1). What has changed is that output-per-worker in the steel industry has increased by a total of 43% since then. Blame technological progress, not trade. Trade Wars, The Fed, And The Dollar Chart 2The Dollar Tends To Strengthen ##br##When Global Trade Deteriorates The Dollar Tends To Strengthen When Global Trade Deteriorates The Dollar Tends To Strengthen When Global Trade Deteriorates Even if higher tariffs did produce a one-off increase in consumer and producer prices, slower GDP growth would likely prompt the Fed to moderate the pace of rate hikes. If the stock market declined in sympathy with slower growth and rising protectionist sentiment, the resulting tightening in financial conditions would further justify a go-slow approach to monetary normalization. All things equal, a more dovish-than-expected Fed would likely translate into a weaker dollar. All things are not equal, however. A trade war would probably hurt the rest of the world more than the U.S. This is partly because the rest of the world is more open to trade, but it is also because the rest of the world runs a trade surplus with the U.S., which makes it more vulnerable to a broad-based decline in trade volumes. Chart 2 shows that the dollar tends to strengthen when global trade is weakening. Reserve Currency Status In Jeopardy? An often-heard counterargument to the "protectionism is good for the dollar" view is that at some point, rising trade tensions could undermine the dollar's standing as the world's premier reserve currency. The U.S. has run a trade deficit almost continuously for 40 years, accumulating 40% of GDP in net liabilities to the rest of the world in the process (Chart 3). If foreign buyers decide to scale back their purchases of U.S. assets, the dollar could swoon. Chart 3U.S. External Deficit: 40 Years And Counting U.S. External Deficit: 40 Years And Counting U.S. External Deficit: 40 Years And Counting Trump's statement at the conclusion of the G7 summit that "We're like a piggy bank that everybody's robbing" seems to imply that he thinks that foreigners are living beyond their means by draining the U.S. of its wealth. The opposite is actually the case: The U.S. has been able to spend more than it earns for decades precisely because foreigners have been willing to deposit ever more money into the U.S. piggy bank. Fortunately for the greenback, America's status as the world's piggy bank of choice is unlikely to change any time soon. The euro area remains hopelessly divided. The Italian bond market - the biggest in Europe - has once again become the object of investor angst. Japan is drowning in a sea of government debt, with debt monetization probably the only viable solution. China would like to transform the renminbi into a global reserve currency, but opacity in government decision-making, and a still largely closed capital account, will limit any progress towards that goal for some time to come. China and other countries could try to "punish" the U.S. government by buying fewer Treasury bonds, but where would that get them? The average maturity of U.S. government debt is less than six years. The Fed, not China, largely sets rates at that portion of the yield curve. Granted, a decline in Treasury purchases would reduce the demand for dollars. However, that would just put upward pressure on the value of the renminbi. China does not want a stronger currency. For all the talk about how America's rivals are keen to reduce their dollar holdings, their share of global central bank reserves has actually climbed over the past two decades, largely because they have been gobbling up dollars to keep their own currencies from appreciating (Chart 4). Today, nearly two-thirds of global currency reserves are denominated in dollars, a higher proportion than when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 (Chart 5). Chart 4Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasurys Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasurys Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasurys Chart 5The Dollar Remains The Preferred Reserve Currency Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status A Not So Exorbitant Privilege Chart 6The U.S. Term Premium Is ##br##Higher Than Elsewhere The U.S. Term Premium Is Higher Than Elsewhere The U.S. Term Premium Is Higher Than Elsewhere In any case, it's not clear how much the U.S. benefits from having a reserve currency. There is little evidence that U.S. long-term bond yields are lower than they would otherwise be because of foreign reserve accumulation. Chart 6 shows that the term premium - the difference between the yield on a long-term bond and the market's expectation of the average level of short-term rates over the life of the bond - is higher in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. If foreign central bank purchases were pushing down U.S. bond yields, one would expect to see the reverse pattern. The only tangible benefit the United States gets from having a reserve currency is that the U.S. Treasury can issue currency to foreigners who hold it as a store of value rather than spending it. This amounts to an interest-free loan to the U.S. government. This so-called "seigniorage revenue" is not trivial: Last year, foreigners increased their holdings of U.S. currency by $60 billion.2 However, this is still less than one-third of one percent of U.S. GDP. What Really Explains Why The U.S. Has A Current Account Deficit? It is often argued that the dollar's reserve currency status has allowed the U.S. to run large current account deficits. However, Australia has run even bigger current account deficits than the U.S., and it does not have a reserve currency. What matters in the end is whether people trust you to pay back your debts, not whether you have a reserve currency. The rate of return that a country offers investors is also important. As we explained in our weekly report on April 6th, an often-overlooked reason for why the U.S. and Australia run current account deficits is that both countries enjoy faster trend growth than most of their peers.3 Faster growth tends to push up the neutral real rate of interest, otherwise known as r-star. A country with a relatively low neutral rate needs to have an "undervalued" currency that is expected to appreciate over time in order to compensate investors for the subpar yield that its bonds provide. As sketched out in Chart 7, this results in current account surpluses for countries with low neutral rates, and current account deficits for countries with high neutral rates. Chart 7Interest Rates And Current Account Balances Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status Commentators who claim that the euro is cheap are barking up the wrong tree. The euro needs to be cheap to entice investors into holding low-yielding German bunds and other safe-haven euro area bond markets. Indeed, one could argue that the euro is not cheap enough. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.07% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.16%, a difference of 191 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 84 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 The euro got a good clobbering yesterday following the release of the ECB's post-meeting statement, which established a timeline for ending asset purchases by the end of this year but promised no rate hikes for at least another 12 months. We continue to expect EUR/USD to hit 1.15, with a high likelihood that it goes even lower. Lessons From The Nixon Shock We are skeptical of the argument that threatening to raise tariffs is an effective tool for talking down one's currency. It is true that the Nixon Administration imposed an across-the-board 10% tariff in August 1971, which succeeded in forcing America's trading partners to revalue their currencies within the quasi-fixed exchange-rate Bretton Woods system that prevailed at that time. Such an arrangement would be difficult to orchestrate today. For one thing, the U.S. does not have the geopolitical sway that it once did. Moreover, when exchange rates are pegged, one can often revalue a currency to the upside while cutting interest rates (if investors expect a series of revaluations, they would be willing to hold government bonds even if they yielded less than those abroad). In today's world of flexible exchange rates, a country would need to be willing to tighten monetary policy to drive up its currency. Thus, it would get hit on two fronts: From a stronger currency and from higher interest rates. This additional cost to the economy lowers the odds that any country would voluntarily undertake such measures in the hope (probably futile anyway) of placating Trump. In any case, most of the dollar's weakness in the 1970s occurred after the December 1971 Smithsonian Agreement reversed Nixon's tariff hike. What followed was a period of trade liberalization on the back of successive GATT negotiation rounds. U.S. tariffs actually fell more in the 1970s than in the prior two decades (Chart 8). The fact that the dollar weakened during that period had more to do with the Fed, which permitted inflation to get out of hand by allowing real rates to remain in chronically negative territory. The dollar also suffered from the surge in oil prices, which produced a 35% deterioration in the U.S. terms of trade over the course of the decade (Chart 9). Chart 8Two Centuries Of U.S. Tarriffs Two Centuries Of U.S. Tarriffs Two Centuries Of U.S. Tarriffs Chart 9Dollar Weakness In the 1970s: Blame Deteriorating Terms Of Trade And A Dovish Fed Dollar Weakness In the 1970s: Blame Deteriorating Terms Of Trade And A Dovish Fed Dollar Weakness In the 1970s: Blame Deteriorating Terms Of Trade And A Dovish Fed It is possible that the Fed will repeat the mistakes of the 1970s, but this is more of a risk for the 2020s than a near-term concern. U.S. real yields have actually risen substantially relative to those abroad since last September (Chart 10). Chart 10The Dollar Is Once Again Responding ##br##To Real Rate Differentials The Dollar Is Once Again Responding To Real Rate Differentials The Dollar Is Once Again Responding To Real Rate Differentials The outcome of this week's FOMC meeting was on the hawkish side. The median number of dots in the newly released Summary of Economic Projections now point to four rate hikes this year, up from three hikes in the March projections. In addition, the Fed increased estimates for both growth and core inflation for this year. The decision to hold press conferences following every FOMC meeting will also give the Fed greater scope to expedite the pace of rate hikes. Investment Conclusions After panicking over every Trump tweet promising more protectionism earlier this year, markets have taken the recent news of escalating trade tensions in stride. Investors presumably think that Trump will water down his rhetoric, as he has periodically done over the past few months. Such a benign outcome is entirely possible. Trump left a fig leaf at the G7 summit in the form of a challenge to other members to eliminate their tariffs in exchange for the U.S. doing the same. Reaching such a deal would not be easy, but incremental progress towards this goal could be achieved. The overall level of tariff barriers within developed countries is already quite low. The U.S. actually stands at the top end of the spectrum -- average U.S. tariffs of 1.6% are double that of Canada, for example -- so the rest of the G7 would be wise to call Trump's bluff and agree to talks to further scale back trade barriers (Chart 11). This could give risk assets some breathing space for the next year or so. Yet, such a rosy outcome is far from guaranteed. Protectionism is popular among American voters, especially among Trump's base (Chart 12). Trump's obsession with the level of the stock market was a constraint on his protectionist rhetoric, but now that investors are content to look the other way, that constraint has loosened. Chart 11Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status Chart 12Free Trade Is Not In Vogue In The U.S., And Is ##br##Especially Disliked Among Trump Supporters Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status The fact that Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda does not help matters. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or America's trading partners? No trophy for getting that answer right. The effect of a trade war on the stock market would be grave. Multinational firms have large footprints abroad, the result of decades of investment in global supply chains. Equities represent a claim on the existing capital stock, not the capital stock that might emerge after a trade war has been fought. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital, forcing investors to mark down the value of the companies in their portfolios. In light of these risks, we expect to downgrade our recommendation on global equities from overweight to neutral before the end of the year. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Lydia Cox and Kadee Russ, "Will Steel Tariffs put U.S. Jobs at Risk?," EconoFact, February 26, 2018. Steel-consuming industries are defined as those that devote more than 5% of their total costs to steel. 2 Considering that 80% of U.S. currency in circulation consists of $100 bills, it is safe to say that much of this overseas stash of cash belongs to those who acquired it through ill-gotten means. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame?," dated April 6, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.4% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.49 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.49/(1.0191)^30=0.84 today. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The Swan Diagram depicts four different "zones of economic unhappiness," each one corresponding to a case where unemployment and inflation is either too high or too low, and the current account position is either too large or too small. The global economy has made significant progress in moving towards both internal and external balance over the past few years, but shortfalls remain. A number of large economies, including Japan, China, and Italy, continue to need stimulative fiscal policy to prop up domestic demand. In Italy's case, investor unease about the country's fiscal outlook is likely to raise borrowing costs for the government, curb capital inflows into the euro area, and push the ECB in a more dovish direction. All this will weigh on the euro. The U.S. should be tightening fiscal policy at this stage in the cycle. Instead, President Trump has pushed through significant fiscal easing. This is the main reason the 10-year Treasury yield hit a seven-year high this week. An overheated U.S. economy will pave the way for further Fed hikes, which will likely result in a stronger dollar. Rising U.S. rates and a strengthening dollar will hurt emerging markets. Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia are among the most vulnerable. Feature The Dismal Science, Illustrated Last week's report discussed the market consequences of the tug-of-war that policymakers often face in trying to achieve a variety of economic objectives with a limited set of policy instruments.1 In passing, we mentioned that some of these trade-offs can be depicted using the so-called Swan Diagram, named after Australian economist Trevor Swan. This week's report delves further into this topic by estimating where various economies find themselves inside the Swan Diagram, and what this may mean for their currency, equity, and bond markets. True to the reputation of economics as the dismal science, the Swan Diagram depicts four "zones of economic unhappiness" (Chart 1). Each zone represents a different way in which an economy can deviate from "internal balance" (low and stable unemployment) and "external balance" (an optimal current account position). This amounts to saying that an economy can suffer from one of the following: 1) high unemployment and an excessively large current account deficit; 2) high inflation and an excessively large current account surplus; 3) high unemployment and an excessively large current account surplus; and 4) high inflation and an excessively large current account deficit. Box 1 describes the logic behind the diagram. Chart 1Four Zones Of Unhappiness Swan Songs Swan Songs BOX 1 The Logic Behind The Swan Diagram As noted in the main text, the Swan Diagram depicts four different "zones of economic unhappiness," each one corresponding to a case where unemployment and inflation are either too high or too low, and the current account balance is either too large or too small. A rightward movement along the horizontal axis can be construed as an easing of fiscal policy, whereas an upward movement along the vertical axis can be thought of as an easing in monetary policy. All things equal, easier monetary policy is assumed to result in a weaker currency. The internal balance schedule, which corresponds to the ideal state where the economy is at full employment and inflation is stable, is downward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a tightening in monetary policy in order to keep the economy from overheating. The external balance schedule is upward sloping because easier fiscal policy raises aggregate demand, which results in higher imports, and hence a deterioration in the trade balance. A depreciation of the currency via an easing in monetary policy is necessary to bring imports back down. Any point to the right of the internal balance schedule represents too much inflation; any point to the left represents too much unemployment. Likewise, any point to the right of the external balance schedule represents a larger-than-acceptable current account deficit, whereas any point to the left represents an excessively large current account surplus. Note that according to the Swan Diagram, an economy that suffers from high unemployment may still need a weaker currency even if it already has a current account surplus. Intuitively, this is because a depressed economy suppresses imports, leading to a "stronger" current account balance than would otherwise be the case. We use two variables to estimate the degree to which an economy has diverged from internal balance: core inflation and the output gap (Chart 2). If the output gap is negative, the economy is producing less output than it is capable of. If the output gap is positive, the economy is operating beyond full capacity. All things equal, high core inflation and a large and positive output gap is symptomatic of an economy that is showing signs of overheating. Chart 2The Two Dimensions Of Internal Balance Swan Songs Swan Songs When it comes to estimating the extent to which an economy is deviating from external balance, we include both the current account position and the net international investment position (NIIP) in our calculations (Chart 3). The NIIP is the difference between an economy's external assets and its liabilities. If one were to sum all current account balances into the distant past and adjust for valuation effects, one would end up with the net international investment position. If a country has a positive NIIP, it can run a current account deficit over time by running down its accumulated foreign wealth.2 Chart 3The Two Dimensions Of External Balance Swan Songs Swan Songs Policy And Market Outcomes Within The Swan Diagram Chart 4 shows our estimates of where the main developed and emerging markets fall into the Swan Diagram. The top right quadrant depicts economies that need to tighten both monetary and fiscal policy. The bottom left quadrant depicts economies that need to ease both monetary and fiscal policy. The other two quadrants denote cases where either tighter fiscal/looser monetary policy or looser fiscal/tighter monetary policy are appropriate. In order to gauge progress over time, we attach an arrow to each data point. The base of the arrow shows where the economy was five years ago and the tip shows where it is today. Chart 4Policy Prescription Arising From The Swan Diagram Swan Songs Swan Songs From a market perspective, an economy's currency is likely to weaken if it finds itself in one of the two quadrants requiring easier monetary policy. Among developed economies, the best combination for equities in local-currency terms is usually an easier monetary policy and a looser fiscal policy. That is also the configuration that results in the sharpest steepening of the yield curve. Conversely, the worst outcome for developed market stocks in local-currency terms is tighter monetary policy coupled with fiscal austerity. That is also the policy package that is most likely to result in a flatter yield curve. In dollar terms, a stronger local currency will typically boost returns. This is particularly the case in emerging markets, where stock markets are likely to suffer in situations where the home currency is under pressure. A few observations come to mind: The global economy has made significant progress in restoring internal balance over the past five years. That said, negative output gaps remain in nearly half of the countries in our sample. And even in several cases where output gaps have disappeared, a shortfall in inflation suggests the presence of latent slack that official estimates of excess capacity may be missing. External imbalances have also declined over time. Since earth does not trade with Mars, the global current account balance and net international investment position must always be equal to zero. Nevertheless, the absolute value of current account balances, expressed as a share of global GDP, has fallen by half since 2006 (Chart 5). Chart 5Shrinking Global Imbalances Swan Songs Swan Songs The decline in China's current account balance has played a key role in facilitating the rebalancing of demand across the global economy. The current account showed a deficit in Q1 for the first time in 17 years. While several technical factors exacerbated the decline, the current account will probably register a surplus of only 1% of GDP this year, down from a peak of nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. The Chinese economy also appears to be close to internal balance. However, maintaining full employment has come at the cost of rapid credit growth and a massive quasi-public sector deficit, which the IMF estimates currently stands at over 12% of GDP (Chart 6). Thus, one could argue that a somewhat weaker currency and less credit expansion would be in China's best interest. Similar to China, Japan has been able to reach internal balance only through lax fiscal policy (Chart 7). The lesson here is that economies such as China and Japan which have a surfeit of savings - partly reflecting a very low neutral real rate of interest - would probably be better off with cheaper currencies rather than having to rely on artificial means of propping up demand. Chart 6China's 'Secret' Budget Deficit Swan Songs Swan Songs Chart 7The Cost Of Propping Up Demand Swan Songs Swan Songs Germany has overtaken China as the biggest contributor to current account surpluses in the world. Germany's current account surplus now stands at over 8% of GDP, up from a small deficit in 1999, when the euro came into inception. In contrast to China and Japan, Germany is running a fiscal surplus. Solely from its perspective, Germany would benefit from more fiscal stimulus and a stronger euro. The problem, of course, is that a stronger euro would not be in the best interest of most other euro area economies. While external imbalances within the euro area have decreased markedly over the past decade, they have not gone away (Chart 8). Investors also remain wary of fiscal easing in Southern Europe. This week's spike in Italian bond yields - fueled by speculation that a Five-Star/League government will abandon plans for fiscal consolidation - is a timely reminder that the bond vigilantes are far from dead (Chart 9). The Italian government's borrowing costs are likely to rise over the coming months, which will curb capital inflows into the euro area and push the ECB in a more dovish direction. All this will weigh on the common currency. Chart 8The Euro Club: Imbalances Have Been Decreasing The Euro Club: Imbalances Have Been Decreasing The Euro Club: Imbalances Have Been Decreasing Chart 9Uh Oh Spaghettio! Uh Oh Spaghettio! Uh Oh Spaghettio! The U.S. is the opposite of Germany. Unlike Germany, it has a large fiscal deficit and a current account deficit. The Swan Diagram says that the U.S. would benefit from tighter fiscal policy and a weaker dollar. President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have other plans, however. They have pushed through large tax cuts and significant spending increases (Chart 10). This will likely prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than the market is currently discounting, leading to a stronger dollar. Chart 10The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Rising U.S. rates and a strengthening dollar will hurt emerging markets, particularly those with current account deficits and negative net international investment positions. High levels of external debt could exacerbate any problems (Chart 11). On that basis, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Indonesia are among the most vulnerable. Chart 11External Debt And Debt Servicing Across EM Swan Songs Swan Songs Investment Conclusions Chart 12The U.S. Economy Is Doing ##br##Better Than Its Peers The U.S. Economy Is Doing Better Than Its Peers The U.S. Economy Is Doing Better Than Its Peers The global economy is approaching internal balance, but this may produce some unpleasant side effects. Productivity growth is anaemic and the retirement of baby boomers from the workforce will reduce the pace of labor force growth. In such a setting, potential GDP growth in many countries is likely to remain subpar. If demand growth continues to outstrip supply growth, inflation will rise. Heightened stock market volatility this year has partly been driven by the realization among investors that the Goldilocks environment of above-trend growth and low inflation may not last as long as they had hoped. The U.S. economy has now moved beyond full employment, and bountiful fiscal stimulus could lead to further overheating. This is the main reason the 10-year Treasury yield reached a seven-year high this week. Continued above-trend growth is likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more than the market expects, which should result in a stronger dollar. The fact that the U.S. economy is outperforming the rest of the world based on economic surprise indices and our leading economic indicators could give the dollar a further lift (Chart 12). A resurgent dollar will help boost competitiveness in developed economies such as Japan and Europe. Emerging markets will also benefit in the long run from cheaper currencies, but if the adjustment happens rapidly, as is often the case, this could exact a short-term toll. For the time being, investors should overweight developed over emerging markets in equity portfolios. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tinbergen's Ghost," dated May 11, 2018. 2 To keep things simple, we assume that a country's Net International Investment Position (NIIP) shrinks to zero over 50 years. Thus, if a country has a positive NIIP of 50% of GDP, we assume that it should target a current account deficit of 1% of GDP; whereas if it has a negative NIIP of 50% of GDP, it should target a current account surplus of 1% of GDP. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The grand U.S.-China strategic negotiation is focused on Korea and trade - only Korea is seeing good news; The trade war is expanding to include investment - and Chinese capital account liberalization is the silver bullet; Capital account openness has mixed benefits for EMs, yet the risks are dire. China's policymakers will move only gradually; If Trump demands faster liberalization, a full-blown trade war is more likely; Favor DM equities over EM. Feature The American and Chinese economies have diverged for years (Chart 1), threatening to remove the constraint on broader strategic disagreements. Amidst the uncertainty, a grand U.S.-China negotiation is taking place, focused on two primary dimensions: Korea and trade. Chart 1Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes Economic Constraint To Conflict Erodes On the Korea front, the news is mostly positive.1 The leaders of North and South Korea have held their third summit, promising an end to hostilities and a new beginning for economic engagement and possibly denuclearization. They are laying the groundwork for U.S. President Donald Trump to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sometime this month, or in June. From China's point of view, the North Korean developments are mostly positive. A belligerent North Korea provides the U.S. and its allies with a reason to build up their military assets in the region, which can also serve to contain China. A calmer North Korea removes this reason and, over the long run, holds out the potential for the reduction of U.S. troops in South Korea. On net, China has benefited from the opening up of the formerly reclusive Vietnamese and Myanmar economies and stands to do the same if North Korea follows suit. On U.S.-China trade, however, the news is not so good.2 The two countries have just seen another high-level embassy conclude without progress, all but ensuring that relations will get worse before they get better. Investors should prepare for the U.S. to take additional punitive measures and for China to retaliate in kind. The U.S. Treasury Department is on the verge of imposing landmark new restrictions on Chinese investment by May 21 or sooner. Congress, separate from the Trump administration and in a notable sign of bipartisan unity, is considering legislation that would do the same. This is independent from Trump's impending tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of Chinese goods, which could also come as early as May 21. In other words, the U.S.-China economic conflict is rotating from trade to investment. Hence, in this report, we take a look at the "Holy Grail" of American demands on China: capital account liberalization. So far the Trump administration has not pushed its demands this far. That is a good thing, because China is not willing to move quickly on this front. Rapid and complete opening to global capital flows is a "red line" for China, so it is an important indicator of whether the two great powers are heading toward a full-blown trade war. The Uncertainties Of Capital Account Liberalization A country's capital account covers foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio investment, cross-border banking transactions, and other miscellaneous international capital flows. Since the 1960s, especially since 1989, developed market economies in the West have encouraged the free flow of capital across national borders (Chart 2). As with the free flow of goods, services, and labor, the flow of capital promised integrated markets and more efficient uses of resources. Just as freer trade would lower prices, spur competition, and improve efficiency and innovation, so would the unfettered movement of capital. Trading partners could use savings to invest in each other's areas of productive potential that lacked funds. In this sense, capital flows were nothing but future trade flows: today's cross-border investment would be tomorrow's production of freely tradable goods.3 The laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon economies promoted capital account liberalization for several reasons. First, economic theory and practice supported free trade as a means of increasing wealth, and free trade requires some degree of capital liberalization. Furthermore, liberalization played to the advantage of London and New York City, as international financial hubs, and both the U.S. and the U.K. sought to expand their role as providers of global reserve currencies.4 The European Community also sought freer capital flows due to the fact that the creation of the common market, at minimum, required it for trade financing. In the 1980s, France's bad experience with capital controls led it to adopt a more laissez-faire approach, prompting a convergence across Europe to the Anglo-Saxon model. Capital account liberalization joined free trade, fiscal conservatism, and deregulation as part of the "Washington Consensus" orthodoxy. Major economies were encouraged to liberalize their capital accounts if they wanted to join the OECD, like Japan, or if they sought economic and financial assistance from the IMF (Table 1).5 And yet the empirical evidence of the benefits of capital account liberalization is surprisingly mixed. There is not a clear causal connection between free movement of capital and improved macroeconomic variables like higher rates of growth, investment, or productivity. Relative to other kinds of international liberalization - of labor markets, for example - capital account liberalization is likely to bring small gains to growth rates (Table 2). Chart 2Global Capital Flows Expand China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 1Capital Account Liberalization: A Timeline China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 2Economic Benefits Of Open Borders China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks We can illustrate this point simply by showing that emerging market economies with more open capital accounts, whether defined by the IMF's Capital Account Openness Index or by the ratio of direct and portfolio capital flows to GDP, do not necessarily have higher potential GDP growth or productivity (Chart 3 A&B). A change in openness also does not correlate with a change in growth potential or productivity. Chart 3AEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (1) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 3BEM Capital Openness Not Obviously Correlated With Potential Growth (2) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks This conclusion can be reinforced by looking at portfolio investment. Portfolio investment is usually one of the last types of investment to be deregulated. Hence a large ratio of portfolio investment to GDP is a proxy for capital liberalization. However, emerging markets that rank high in this regard do not record higher potential growth, productivity, or capital productivity contributions to GDP growth (Chart 4). Chart 4EM: Larger Foreign Stock Inflows Not Correlated With Capital Productivity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks While the benefits of capital account liberalization are debatable, the risks are dire. It has contributed to, if not caused, a number of financial crises in recent decades. Latin America saw a series of such crises from 1982-89. Mexico's peso crisis of 1994 also owed much of its severity to destabilizing capital flows. Japan opened its capital account in 1979 and over the succeeding decade experienced a rollercoaster of massive capital influx, culminating in the property bubble and financial crash of 1990. Thailand, South Korea, and other Asian countries suffered the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98 as a result of premature and poorly sequenced liberalization. All of these countries faced different financial and economic circumstances, and the crises had different causes, but what they shared in common was a relatively recent openness to large inflows and outflows of global capital that triggered or exacerbated currency moves and liquidity shortages.6 This is not to say that there are not benefits to capital account liberalization, or that the benefits never outweigh the costs. The major multilateral global institutions continue to believe that capital account liberalization is optimal policy, if only because the richest, freest, best governed, and most advanced economies have all liberalized. Capital account openness is positively correlated with "rule of law" governance indicators. And back-of-the-envelope exercises such as those shown above suggest that developed market economies do see higher potential growth and capital productivity as a result of capital account liberalization, at least up to a point (Charts 5A & 5B). Chart 5ADM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (1) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 5BDM: Capital Openness Is Correlated With Potential Growth (2) China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks While a number of countries have experienced financial and economic crises after opening their capital accounts, studies have shown that the causal connection is not always clear (the crisis did not necessarily stem from capital account liberalization).7 The removal of barriers to entry or exit of capital does not have a unidirectional effect but can exacerbate capital flows when times are good or bad. Moreover, some research shows that countries are more likely to suffer financial crises from capital controls than from the removal of them.8 And it is very difficult for countries with open current accounts (free trade) to enforce rigid capital controls anyway, since the distinction between capital flows covering trade transactions and other capital flows is difficult in practice to enforce, resulting in leakage. Because of the link between trade and capital, no country has ever fully and permanently reversed liberalization.9 The academic debate rages on, but from a political point of view, two things are clear. First, the best practices of the most advanced countries suggest that capital account liberalization is optimal policy. Second, policymakers in less open economies are faced with uncertainty and a range of views from economic advisers, orthodox and unorthodox. In the wake of crises in recent decades, this uncertainty has made them less inclined over the years to trust to economic orthodoxy or the "Washington Consensus" when making critical decisions about capital flows. Rather, opening is likely when economic problems call for a change in tack, while capital controls are likely when flows are considered excessive or destabilizing. Bottom Line: Capital account liberalization is the best practice among advanced economies but the risk-reward ratio for policymakers in EMs and partly closed economies is likely skewed to the downside. China's Stalled Capital Account Liberalization Chart 6China's Fear Of Capital Flight China's Fear Of Capital Flight China's Fear Of Capital Flight In recent years China's policymakers have struggled with the problem of capital account liberalization. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis they announced that they would speed up the process. In 2015 they pledged to complete it by 2020, only to re-impose capital controls when financial turmoil that year prompted large capital outflows (Chart 6). In 2017 President Xi Jinping claimed that the country remains committed to gradual liberalization. We have argued that his administration would ease these controls later rather than sooner, in order to pursue tricky domestic financial reforms first.10 As we have seen (Chart 3 above), China lies on the low end of the IMF's "Capital Account Openness" index, which ranks countries across the world based on six economic indicators and 12 asset classes. By this measure, China is slightly more open than India - a notoriously hermetic economy - and less open than the Philippines. China's closed capital account is also clear from its international investment position. China has fewer international assets and liabilities, as a share of output, than the U.S., Japan, Europe, or South Korea (Charts 7A & 7B). China's international assets are largely the result of its government's $3.1 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, as well as outward FDI. As for its liabilities, China has opened up to FDI more so than portfolio investment or other capital flows. This is because FDI is long-term capital that tends to be more closely tied to real production; it is difficult to unwind it in times of crisis. China allows inward and outward FDI to gain knowhow, technology, and natural resources. It is more closed, however, to short-term capital flows, such as dollar-denominated bank debt, currency speculation, and portfolio investment. Typically it is these short-term flows that are most destabilizing, especially when countries are newly open to them. Chart 7AChina Has Fewer Foreign Assets, Mostly Official Forex Reserves China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 7BChina Has Fewer Foreign Liabilities, Mostly FDI China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Western economies, however, stand to benefit if China opens up to these shorter-term capital flows. They have a comparative advantage in financial services and thus can rebalance their relationships with China if it gives its households and corporations more freedom to manage their wealth in foreign currencies and assets. It is logical that China's FDI and portfolio investment in western countries would rise if Chinese investors were allowed to go abroad, simply because the latter would wish to diversify their portfolios for the first time. China's neighbors and trade partners would receive a windfall of new investments. Meanwhile they would gain new investment opportunities, as private capital would be able to venture into China, and flee out of it, more easily.11 Western countries are also increasingly agitating for China to loosen its inward capital restrictions. Despite China's openness to FDI relative to other capital flows, it is still one of the world's most restrictive countries in which to invest long-term capital (Chart 8). China's heavy restrictions have granted monopolies to Chinese companies, depriving foreigners of the fruits of China's growth. This is especially important as China moves into consumer- and services-oriented growth. Western countries have a comparative advantage in high-end consumer goods and services relative to low-end goods and manufacturing in general, where they have largely lost out to Chinese competition in recent decades. Chart 8China Is Highly Restrictive Toward Foreign Direct Investment China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China, too, stands to benefit from freer capital flows, and policymakers believe there is a self-interest in liberalizing. But Beijing has repeatedly demonstrated that it wants to move very gradually because of the skewed risk-reward assessment. China's harrowing experience with capital flight in 2014-16 has vindicated this policy.12 It is not necessarily capital account opening per se that causes destabilizing capital outflows - it is also the macro and financial environment. And China has all the hallmarks of an economy that could suffer a crisis from premature liberalization, including: Large macro imbalances (Chart 9); An immature and shallow financial system (Chart 10); Lack of information transparency; Weak rule of law. Chart 9China Has Macro Imbalances China Has Macro Imbalances China Has Macro Imbalances Chart 10China's Financial System Is Shallow China's Financial System Is Shallow China's Financial System Is Shallow Bottom Line: It is guaranteed that China will not pursue capital account liberalization rapidly. It will continue to take small steps, and ultimately "two steps forward and one step back" if necessary to maintain overall stability. Will China Liberalize? By the same logic, why should China liberalize at all? The 2014-16 crisis not only revealed the dangers of too-rapid opening but also the dangers of an inflexible currency and draconian capital controls. When Chinese authorities devalued the yuan in August 2015, they made the capital flight (and global panic) worse. Since then, by imposing strict capital controls, China's leaders have signaled to domestic and foreign investors (1) that they are unwilling to allow global capital flows to discipline their fiscal or monetary policies (a negative sign for China's macro fundamentals), and (2) that they may deny investors the rights of their property or even confiscate it.13 This is why China has made important policy changes since the 2014-16 crisis. First, it has maintained a more flexible "managed float" of the RMB, allowing it to trade more freely along with a basket of currencies that belong to major trading partners and abandoning the dollar peg. Various measures of the exchange rate - offshore deliverable forwards, spot rates, and the exchange rate at interest rate parity - have converged, revealing an exchange rate that is more market-oriented, i.e. less heavily managed by the People's Bank of China (Chart 11).14 This process is being pursued with the long-term interest of rebalancing the economy - making it more flexible and less fixed to an export-led manufacturing model. It is also necessary in order to internationalize the yuan, which is a long and rocky road but, it is hoped, will eventually reduce foreign exchange risk to China's economy (Chart 12). One of the main reasons that governments, including China, have maintained closed capital accounts is to control exchange rates. As currencies float more freely, the economy becomes better able to withstand large or volatile capital flows. At the same time, the yuan will never be a global reserve currency if China never opens the capital account. Chart 11The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely The RMB Is Floating A Bit More Freely Chart 12The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly The RMB Is Going Global ... Slowly Second, while tight capital controls remain in place, Beijing is pursuing long-delayed reforms to the financial sector and fiscal and legal systems to allow for better financial regulation, supervision, and transparency. For instance, the new central bank Governor Yi Gang's reported desire to genuinely liberalize domestic deposit interest rates will prepare China's banks for greater competition with each other, and hence ultimately to greater competition from abroad. This in turn will improve allocation of capital across the economy. Another example is the expansion of the domestic and offshore bond markets - and gradual formalization of the local government debt market - in order to deepen the financial sector.15 These reforms are desirable in themselves but also necessary for eventual capital account liberalization, as countries with deep domestic financial markets have less vulnerability to new surges of foreign inflows or outflows. Naturally, the reform process is taking place on China's timeline. Since Beijing stresses overall stability above all else, it is gradual. But we would expect the Xi administration to continue with piecemeal opening measures through the coming years, so that by 2021, the capital account is materially more open than it is today. As for full liberalization, it is beyond our forecasting horizon. Xi's goal of turning China into a "modern socialist country" by 2035 is not too late of a timeframe to consider, given the potential for serious setbacks. But such delayed progress raises the prospect of a clash with the U.S. A risk to this view is that China backslides yet again on the internal reforms, making it impossible to move to the subsequent stage of opening up to international flows. Vested financial and non-financial corporate interests often oppose capital account liberalization. State-controlled companies, for instance, will gradually have to compete more intensely for capital that comes from better disciplined domestic banks, all while watching small and medium-sized rivals gain market share due to the newfound access to foreign capital, which makes them more competitive.16 Backsliding will, again, antagonize the West. Bottom Line: China is preparing to open its capital account further, as we are in the "two steps forward" phase following Xi Jinping's political recapitalization in 2017. A New Front In The U.S.-China Trade War The U.S. has long argued that China maintains excessive capital controls that violate the conditions of China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001.17 The following statement, from one of the U.S. government's annual reports on China's compliance with the WTO, was written before the Trump administration took office and is typical of such reports and of the overall U.S. position: Although China continues to consider reforms to its investment regime ... many aspects of China's investment regime, including lack of a substantially liberalized market, maintenance of administrative approvals and the potential for a new and overly broad national security review system, continue to cause foreign investors great concern ... China has added a variety of restrictions on investment that appear designed to shield inefficient or monopolistic Chinese enterprises from foreign competition.18 The Trump administration's own reports on China's WTO compliance have amplified such criticisms.19 Remember that it was partly China's lack of WTO compliance that the Trump administration highlighted as justification for the sanctions announced in March under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. In particular, the administration argues that U.S.-China investment relations are not fair or reciprocal, i.e. that the U.S. does not have as great of investment access in China as vice versa (Chart 13). Even in FDI, where China is relatively open and the bilateral sums are fairly reciprocal, the U.S. share is smaller than that of comparable developed economies, such as Japan and Europe (Chart 14). While it is not a foregone conclusion that this is the result of discriminatory policies, the U.S. argues that it suffers from unfair practices. What is clear is that China designates a number of sectors "strategic," excluding them from foreign investment, and places caps on foreign ownership. The two countries tried but failed to conclude a bilateral investment treaty under the Obama administration, which was meant to resolve this problem and stimulate private capital flows. China also has not implemented a nationwide foreign investment "negative list," which it has promised since 2013.20 A negative list would explicitly designate sectors that are off-limits to foreign investment and thus implicitly liberalize investment in all others. Chart 13The U.S. Wants Investment Reciprocity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 14The U.S. Wants More Investment Access China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks The U.S. is also demanding greater reciprocity for its banks to lend to Chinese borrowers. China is well-known for heavily restricting foreign bank access, with foreign loans accounting for only 2.75% of total. The U.S. grants much larger market access to Chinese lenders than vice versa (Chart 15). While there are perfectly good reasons for U.S. banks to hold a smaller share of China's total cross-border bank loans than European banks and comparable Asian banks (U.S. banks focus on their large domestic market while European and Japanese banks are bigger international lenders), nevertheless the Americans will see their smaller market share as evidence that American market access can go up (Chart 16). Chart 15The U.S. Wants Banking Reciprocity China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Chart 16The U.S. Wants More Banking Access China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Thus the silver bullet for the Trump administration would be to demand accelerated, full capital account liberalization from Beijing. This would address the above problems of investment access while also constituting a larger demand for China to hasten structural reforms that would favor American interests. This is why American officials have urged China to liberalize during high-level bilateral dialogues in the past - while knowing that the reform itself was of such significance that China would only move gradually.21 Chart 17Is The RMB Undervalued? Is The RMB Undervalued? Is The RMB Undervalued? So far the Trump administration has not demanded that China accelerate capital account liberalization, perhaps knowing that it would be a non-starter for China.22 One reason may be the expectation that the RMB could depreciate. True, the yuan is roughly at fair value in real effective terms, after a 7.4% appreciation since Trump's inauguration. However, China's 2014-16 capital flight episode suggests that, under the circumstances of a rapid opening of the capital account, outflow pressure could resume and the currency could fall. This would, at least for a time, drive down CNY/USD, contrary to Trump's oft-repeated desire that the currency appreciate. Trump adheres to a view that the RMB is structurally undervalued, as illustrated here by the IMF's purchasing power parity model, which suggests that it should rise by 45% against the greenback (Chart 17). Given Trump's rhetoric, it may not be far-fetched to suggest that Trump is disinclined to push for capital account liberalization and would rather see China maintain its current "managed" system in order to manage the CNY/USD even further upward. The broader point, however, is that previous U.S. administrations have pushed for faster capital account liberalization, and the Trump administration could eventually follow suit. This would mark a major escalation in the standoff, since China possibly cannot, and certainly will not, deliver such a momentous structural change on a timeline imposed by a foreign power. Bottom Line: Rapid capital account liberalization represents China's "red line" in the trade talks. If Trump pushes his demands this far, then he will be seen as threatening China's stability and will be rebuffed. This is a pathway to a full-blown trade war. Investment Conclusions Capital account liberalization is by no means the only indicator for gauging whether the U.S. and China are heading toward a full-blown trade war. As things stand, Trump will soon impose Section 301 tariffs, China will retaliate, and Trump will retaliate to the retaliation. This is our definition of a trade war. Not only is Trump threatening tariffs on $50-$150 billion worth of imports. He is now demanding that China reduce the U.S.'s trade deficit by $200 billion, or 53% of the total, twice as much as earlier. To give an indication of how significant such a change would be for China over the long haul, Table 3 provides a very simple scenario analysis of what would happen to China's trade surplus, current account surplus, and GDP growth rate if the U.S. reduced its bilateral trade deficit by 10%, 33%, or 50%. It shows that if the deficit fell by 33%, Trump's initial goal, then China's current account balance would fall to less than one percent of GDP, and GDP growth would slow down to 6.24% for the year. Table 3Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes U.S. Trade Deficit With China China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks Table 4 takes the worst-case scenario for China, in which the U.S. cuts the deficit by 50%, while oil prices average $90/bbl due to oil price shocks from unplanned production outages in Iran (where Trump is re-imposing sanctions), or Venezuela or others, amid a very tight global oil market.23 China's current account surplus would go negative, while GDP growth would fall to 5.32%! Table 4Scenario Analysis: Trump Slashes Deficit, Oil Prices Soar China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks These scenarios are significant because they are not very far-fetched. Instead, they show how easily China could undergo a symbolic transition into a "twin deficit" country - a country with an estimated 13% budget deficit and a negative current account balance. Such a development would not necessarily have immediate concrete ramifications. But it would, if it became a trend, mark a turning point in which China begins exporting rather than importing global wealth. It would cause global investors to scrutinize the country in different ways than before and to question the status and long-term trajectory of China's traditional buffers against financial and economic challenges: the country's large national savings and foreign exchange reserves. These scenarios are merely suggestive and meant to show the gravity of Trump's threats and the seriousness with which Xi will take them. In the current U.S.-China trade conflict, if China allows the CNY/USD to weaken - the logical way of alleviating tariff impacts - then it will be depreciating the currency in Trump's face: conflict will intensify. It is not clear how long the conflict will last or how bad it will get, so investors would be wise to hedge their exposure to stocks along the U.S.-China value chain, favoring small caps and domestic plays in both countries. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy recommends staying long DM equities relative to EM equities. We are short Chinese technology stocks outright, and short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks. By contrast, BCA's China Investment Strategy service continues to recommend that investors stay overweight Chinese stocks excluding the technology sector (versus global ex-tech stocks) over the coming 6-12 months with a short leash. As highlighted in this report, the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside, which supports the decision of the China Investment Strategy team to place Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for Q2.24 This watch remains in effect for the coming two months, a period during which we hope fuller clarity on the U.S.-China trade dispute and the pace of decline in China's industrial sector will emerge. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," dated April 4, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Barry Eichengreen, "Capital Account Liberalization: What Do Cross-Country Studies Tell Us?" World Bank Economic Review 15:3 (2001), 341-65. Available at documents.worldbank.org. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Is King Dollar Facing Regicide?" dated April 27, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Jeff Chelsky, "Capital Account Liberalization: Does Advanced Economy Experience Provide Lessons for China?" World Bank Economic Premise 74 (2012), available at openknowledge.worldbank.org. 6 Please see Donald J. Mathieson and Liliana Rojas-Suarez, "Liberalization of the Capital Account: Experiences and Issues," International Monetary Fund, March 15, 1993, available at www.imf.org; Ricardo Gottschalk, "Sequencing Trade and Capital Account Liberalization: The Experience of Brazil in the 1990s," United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and United Nations Development Programme Occasional Paper (2004), available at unctad.org; see also Sarah M. Brooks, "Explaining Capital Account Liberalization In Latin America: A Transitional Cost Approach," World Politics 56:3 (2004), 389-430. 7 Please see Peter Blair Henry, "Capital Account Liberalization: Theory, Evidence, and Speculation," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2007-32 (2006); see also Eichengreen in footnote 1 above. 8 Please see Reuven Glick, Xueyan Guo, and Michael Hutchison, "Currency Crises, Capital-Account Liberalization, and Selection Bias," The Review of Economics and Statistics 88:4 (2006), 698-714, available at www.mitpressjournals.org. 9 Please see M. Ayhan Kose and Eswar Prasad, "Capital Accounts: Liberalize Or Not?" International Monetary Fund, Finance and Development, dated July 29, 2017, available at www.imf.org. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 This western interest in Chinese capital account liberalization exists entirely aside from any of the aforementioned capital flight pressures from Chinese investors, which could reignite again. Foreign countries would welcome such inflows to some extent but not to the point that they become destabilizing at home or abroad. 12 The earliest rumored deadline for capital account liberalization was the seventeenth National Party Congress of the Communist Party in 2007. Please see Derek Scissors, "Liberalization In Reverse," The Heritage Foundation, May 4, 2009, available at www.heritage.org. 13 Eichengreen highlighted these points with regard to the literature and observations on capital account liberalization across a range of countries. They are highly relevant to China today. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Has The RMB Gone Too Far?" dated February 1, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Embracing Chinese Bonds," dated July 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 16 Raghuram G. Rajan and Luigi Zingales, "The Great Reversals: The Politics of Financial Development in the Twentieth Century," Journal of Financial Economics 69 (2003), 5-50, available at faculty.chicagobooth.edu. 17 China did not commit to fully liberalizing the capital account as part of its WTO accession agreements, but rather the U.S. cites China's use of capital controls as a means of violating other WTO commitments regarding market access, subsidization, etc. At the time China joined the WTO, it was widely believed that its commitments would include gradual liberalization. For instance, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange lifted capital controls imposed during the Asian Financial Crisis in September 2001. Please see Lin Guijun and Ronald M. Schramm, "China's Foreign Exchange Policies Since 1979: A Review of Developments and an Assessment," China Economic Review 14:3 (2003), 246-280, available at www.sciencedirect.com. 18 U.S. Trade Representative, "2015 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," December 2015, available at ustr.gov. 19 U.S. Trade Representative, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 20 Please see U.S. Department of State, "2012 U.S. Model Bilateral Investment Treaty," available at www.state.gov. See also U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Joint U.S.-China Economic Track Fact Sheet of the Fifth Meeting of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue," July 12, 2013, available at www.treasury.gov. 21 See, for instance, U.S. Department of the Treasury, "2015 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue Joint U.S.-China Fact Sheet - Economic Track," June 6, 2015, available at www.treasury.gov. 22 However, Michael Pillsbury, director of the Center for Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and an adviser on Trump's transition team, has argued that the Trump administration's endgame is to implement the well-known World Bank and China State Council Development Research Center report, China 2030, which full-throatedly endorses capital account liberalization. Please see Robert Delaney, "Donald Trump's trade endgame said to be the opening of China's economy," South China Morning Post, April 3, 2018, available at www.scmp.com. For the report, see "China 2030: Building a Modern, Harmonious, and Creative Society," 2013, available at www.worldbank.org. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Reserve currencies are built on a geopolitical and macroeconomic foundation. For the U.S. Dollar, these foundations remain in place, but cracks are emerging. Relative decline in American power, combined with a loss of confidence in the "Washington Consensus" at home, are eroding the geopolitical foundations. Meanwhile, threats to globalization, a slower pace of petrodollar recycling, and stresses in the Eurodollar system are eroding the macroeconomic foundations. The Renminbi is not an alternative to King Dollar, but the euro remains a potential challenger in the coming interregnum years that will see the world transition from American hegemony... to something else. In the long run, we envision a multipolar currency regime to emerge alongside a multipolar geopolitical world order. Feature In this report, BCA's Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange strategies join efforts with contributing editors Mehul Daya and Neels Heyneke (Strategists at Nedbank CIB Research) to examine the conditions necessary for the decline of a reserve currency. Specifically, we seek to answer the question of whether the U.S. dollar is at the precipice of such a decline. With President Donald Trump's overt calls for American geopolitical retrenchment from global commitments, investors have asked whether the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency is nigh. After all, King Dollar has fallen by 9.7% since President Trump's inauguration on January 20, while alternatives of dubious value, such as a slew of cryptocurrencies, have seen a rally of epic proportions (Chart 1). Professor Barry Eichengreen, a world-renowned international economics historian,1 has recently penned an insightful paper proposing a link between the robustness of military alliances and currency reserve status.2 According to the analysis, reserve currency status reflects both economic fundamentals - safety, liquidity, network effects, and economic conditions - and geopolitical fundamentals. In the case of close U.S. military allies, such as South Korea and Japan, the choice of the dollar as store of value is explained far more by the geopolitical links to the U.S., rather than the importance of the dollar for their economies. The authors warn that if the U.S. "withdraws from the world," the impact could be as large as an 80 basis points rise in the U.S. long-term interest rate. Intriguingly, some of what Professor Eichengreen posits could happen has already happened. For example, the share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries by military allies has already declined by a whopping 25% (Chart 2). And yet the demand for King Dollar assets was immediately picked up by non-military allies, proving the resiliency of greenback's status as the reserve currency. Chart 1Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Chart 2Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasuries Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasuries Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasuries When it comes to global currency reserves, the U.S. dollar continues to command 63%, roughly the same level it has commanded since 2000 (Chart 3). Interestingly, alternatives remain roughly the same as in the past, with little real movement (Chart 4). The Chinese renminbi remains largely ignored as a global reserve currency and its use across markets and geographies appears to have declined since the imposition of full capital controls in October 2015 (Chart 5). Chart 3Dollar Remains King Dollar Remains King Dollar Remains King Chart 4The Euro Is The Only Serious Competitor To The King Dollar... Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Chart 5...The Renminbi Is Not Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? However, some cracks in the foundation are emerging. A recent IMF paper, penned by Camilo E. Tovar and Tania Mohd Nor,3 uses currency co-movements to determine which national currencies belong to a particular reserve currency bloc.4 Their work shows that the international monetary system has already transitioned from a bi-polar system - consisting of the greenback and the euro - to a multipolar one that includes the CNY (Chart 6). However, the CNY's influence does not extend beyond the BRICS and is scant in East Asia, the geographical region that China already dominates in trade (Chart 7), albeit not yet geopolitically (Map 1). Chart 6Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency ''Bloc''... Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency '''Bloc'''... Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency '''Bloc'''... Chart 7...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... ...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... ...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... Map 1...Renminbi's "Bloc" Is Not In Asia! Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Our conclusion is that the geopolitical and economic tailwinds behind the greenback's status as a global reserve currency are shifting into headwinds. This process, as we describe below, could increase the risk of a global dollar liquidity shortage, buoying the greenback in the short term. In the long term, however, a transition into a multipolar currency arrangement could rebalance some of the imbalances created by the collapse of the Bretton Woods System and is not necessarily to be feared. The Geopolitical Fundamentals Of A Reserve Currency Nothing lasts forever and the U.S. dollar will one day join a long list of former reserve currencies that includes the Ancient Greek drachma, the Roman aureus, the Byzantium solidus, the Florentine florin, the Dutch gulden, the Spanish dollar, and the pound sterling. All of the political entities that produced these reserve currencies have several factors in common. They were the geopolitical hegemons of their era, capable of controlling the most important trade routes, projecting both hard and soft power outside of their borders, and maintaining a stable economy that underpinned the purchasing power of their currency. Table 1 illustrates several factors that we believe encapsulate the necessary conditions for a dominant international currency. Table 1Insights From History: What Makes A Reserve Currency? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Geopolitical Power As Eichengreen posits, geopolitical fundamentals are essential for reserve currency status. Military power is necessary in order to defend one's national and commercial interests abroad, compel foreign powers to yield to those interests, and protect allies in exchange for their acquiescence to the hegemonic status quo. An important modern world example of such "gunboat diplomacy" was the 1974 agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.5 In exchange for dumping their petro-dollars into U.S. debt, Riyadh received an American commitment to keep the Saudi Kingdom safe from all threats, both regional (Iran) and global (the Soviet Union). It also received special permission to keep its purchases of U.S. Treasuries secret. Chart 8The Exorbitant Privilege In One Chart Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? As with all the empires surveyed in Table 1, allies and vassal states were forced to use the hegemon's currency in their trade and investment transactions as a way of paying for the security blanket. To this day, there is no better way to explain the "exorbitant privilege" that the dollar commands. Chart 8 illustrates that the U.S. enjoys positive net income despite a massively negative net international investment position. It is true that the U.S.'s foreign assets are skewed toward foreign direct investment and equities, investments that have higher rates of returns than the fixed-income liabilities the U.S. owes to the rest of the world. But the U.S.'s positive net income balance has been exacerbated by the willingness of foreigners to invest their assets into the U.S. for little compensation, something illustrated by the fact that between 1971 and 2007, the ex-post U.S. term premium has been toward the lower end of the G10. Additionally, as foreigners are also willing holders of U.S. physical cash, the U.S. government has been able to finance part of its budget deficit with instruments carrying no interest payments. This is what economists refer to as seigniorage, a subsidy to the U.S. government equivalent to around 0.2% of GDP per annum (or roughly $39.5 bn in 2017). In essence, American allies are paying for American hegemony through their investments in U.S. dollar assets, and this lets the U.S. live above its means. But ultimately, the quid pro quo is perhaps as much geopolitical as economic. There is one, non-negligible, cost for U.S. policymakers. The greenback tends to appreciate during periods of global economic stress due to its reserve currency status.6 This means that each time the U.S. needs a weak dollar to reflate its economy, the dollar moves in the opposite direction, adding deflationary pressures to an already weak domestic economy. Compared to the benefits, which offer the U.S. a steady-stream of seigniorage income and low-cost financing, the cost of reserve currency status is acceptable. Economic Power Chart 9U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... Aside from brute force, an empire is built on commercial and trade links. There are two reasons for this. First, trade allows the empire to acquire raw materials to fuel its economy and technological advancement. Second, it also gives the "periphery" a role to play in the empire, a stake in the world system underpinned by the hegemonic core. This creates an entire layer of society in the periphery - the elites enriched by and entrenched in the Empire - with existential interest in the status quo. For the past five centuries, commercial dominance has been underpinned by naval dominance. As the Ottoman Empire and the Ming Dynasty closed off the overland routes in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Europeans used technological innovation to avoid the off-limits Eurasian landmass and establish alternative - and exclusively naval - routes to commodities and new markets. This has propelled a succession of largely naval empires: Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, British, and finally American. Several land-based powers tried to break through the nautical noose - Ottoman Turks, Sweden, Hapsburg Austria, Germany, and the Soviet Union - but were defeated by the superiority of naval-based power. Dominance of the seas allows the hegemonic core to unite disparate and far-flung regions through commerce and to call upon vast resources in case of a global conflict. Meanwhile, the hegemon can deny that commerce and those resources to land-locked challengers. This is how the British defeated Napoleon and how the U.S. and its allies won World War I and II. The U.S. remains the supreme naval power (Chart 9). While China is building up its ability to push back against the U.S. navy in its regional seas (East and South China Seas), it will be decades before it is close to being able to project power across the world's oceans. While the former is necessary for becoming a regional hegemon, the latter is necessary for China to offer non-contiguous allies an alternative to American hegemony. Bottom Line: The foundation of a global reserve currency status is geopolitical fundamentals. The U.S. remains well-endowed in both. American Hegemony - From Tailwinds To Headwinds Chart 10...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline ...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline ...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline The U.S. is already facing a relative geopolitical decline due to the rise of major emerging markets like China (Chart 10). This theme underpins BCA Geopolitical Strategy's view that the world has already transitioned from American hegemony to a multipolar arrangement.7 In absolute terms, the U.S. still retains the hard and soft power variables that have supported the USD's global reserve status and will continue to do so for the next decade (which is the maximum investment horizon of the vast majority of our clients). However, there are three imminent threats to the status quo that may accentuate global multipolarity: Populism: The global hegemon could decide to withdraw from distant entanglements and institutional arrangements. In the U.S., an isolationist narrative has emerged suggesting that America's status as the consumer and mercenary of last resort is unsustainable (Chart 11). President Obama was elected on the promise of withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan; his administration also struck a major deal with Iran to reduce American exposure to the Middle East. Donald Trump won the presidency on an even more isolationist platform and he and several of his advisors have voiced such a view over the past 15 months. The appeal of isolationism could resurface as it is a potent political elixir based on a much deeper rejection of globalization among the American public than the policy establishment realized (Chart 12). Chart 11Trump Is Rebelling Against The Post-Cold War System Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Chart 12Americans Are Rebelling Against The Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Return of the land-based empire: While the U.S. remains the preeminent naval power, its leadership in military prowess could be wasted through a suboptimal grand strategy. The U.S. has two geopolitical imperatives: dominate the world's oceans and ensure the disunity of the Eurasian landmass.8 Eurasia has sufficient natural resources (Russia), population (China), wealth (Europe), and geographical buffer from naval powers (the seas surrounding it) to become self-sufficient. Hence any great power that managed to dominate Eurasia would have no need for a navy as it would become a superpower by default. Why would America's European allies abandon their U.S. security blanket for an alliance with Russia and China? First, stranger shifts in alliance structure have occurred in the past.9 Second, because a mix of U.S. mercantilism and isolationism could push Europe into making independent geopolitical arrangements with its Eurasian peers, even if these arrangements were informal. The advent of the cyber realm: Finally, the advent of the Internet as a new realm of great power competition reduces the relative utility of hard power, such as a navy. Great empires of the past struggled when confronted with new arenas of conflict such as air and submarine. New technologies and new arenas can yield advantages in traditional battlefields. Today, the U.S. must compete for hegemony in space and cyber-space with China, Russia, and other rivals. In these mediums, the U.S. does not have as great of a head start as it has in naval competition. Bottom Line: The U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, its status as a hegemon is in relative decline. Domestic populism, suboptimal grand strategy, and the advent of cyber and outer-space warfare could all accelerate this decline on the margin. The Economic Fundamentals Of U.S. Dollar Reserve Status One unique aspect of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency is that it is a fiat currency, i.e. paper money limited in supply only by policy. Throughout human history, most dominant currency reserves were based on commodities that were rare or difficult to acquire, like silver or gold.10 When the U.S. dollar was decoupled from gold prices in 1971, it became the only recent example of a global reserve currency backed by nothing but faith (the pound was for most of its period of dominance backed by gold). Money serves three functions in the economy. It is a means of payment, a unit of account, and a store of value. The last comes into jeopardy when the reserve currency has to supply the world with more and more liquidity, also known as the "Triffin dilemma". By definition, as the global reserve currency, the USD has to be plentiful enough for the global economy and financial system to function adequately. The U.S. government must constantly supply dollars to this end. Chart 13 illustrates the timeline of global dollar liquidity, which we define as the total U.S. monetary base in circulation (U.S. monetary base plus holdings of U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for foreign officials and international accounts). The world has seen an ever-expanding U.S. dollar monetary base since 1988. Only during periods where the price of money (i.e. the Federal funds rate) has increased, has the money creation process slowed. Now that the expansion of the global USD monetary base is slowing, overall dollar liquidity is as important as the price, if not more (Chart 14). Chart 13Global Dollar Liquidity... Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Chart 14...Drives Global Asset Prices ...Drives Global Asset Prices ...Drives Global Asset Prices The constant increase of dollar liquidity has made the greenback the "lubricant" of today's global financial system. There are three major forces at work beneath this condition: Recycling of petrodollars into the global financial system; Globalization and the build-up of - mainly USD-denominated - FX reserves; Deregulation of the Eurodollar system.11 Petrodollars Commodity exporters, mainly oil producers, sell their products in exchange for U.S. dollars. In addition, most Middle Eastern producers recycle their profits into U.S. dollars due to the liquidity and depth of U.S. capital markets. By 1980, the majority of oil producers were trading in U.S. dollars and were similarly investing their surpluses into the U.S. financial system in the form of U.S. government debt securities. The growth in petrodollars has allowed the world's dollar monetary base to grow substantially. This was both enabled by direct issuance of U.S. debt securities funded by petrodollar purchases and also through the Eurodollar system whereby banks outside the U.S. held large deposits of surplus dollar earnings from Middle East oil producers. Globalization The contemporary wave of globalization began in the mid-1980s, when it became evident that the Soviet Union was in midst of a deep economic malaise. This prompted the new Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to launch perestroika ("restructuring") in 1985, throwing in the proverbial towel in the contest between a statist planned economy and a free market one. Alongside the rise in global trade, financial globalization rose at a very rapid pace as cross-border capital flows more than doubled as a percentage of global GDP from 1990 onward. In the U.S., the economic boom of the 1990s was the longest expansion in history, with growth averaging 4% during the period. The U.S. trade deficit ballooned, providing the world with large amounts of dollar liquidity in the process. The flipside of the massive current account deficit was the accumulation of FX reserves in Europe and Asia, largely denominated in U.S. dollars. These insensitive buyers of U.S. debt indirectly financed the U.S. trade deficit, and also indirectly fuelled the debt super cycle and asset inflation as the "savings glut" compressed the world's risk-free rate and term premium. In other words, financial globalization combined with excess international savings morphed into a global quid pro quo. The world economy needed liquidity to finance growth and capital investment. In a system where the greenback stood at the base of any liquidity build up, this meant that the world needed dollars to finance its development. The world was thus willing to finance the U.S. current account deficit at little cost. The Eurodollar System The Eurodollar system was originally a payment system introduced after World War II as a result of the Marshal Plan. Because global trade was dominated by the U.S. - the only country that retained the capacity to produce industrial goods - foreigners had to be able to access U.S. dollars where they were domiciled in order to buy capital goods. The U.S. current account deficit played a role in growing that Eurodollar market. While a lot of the dollars supplied to the rest of the world through the U.S. current account deficit ended up going back to the U.S. via its large capital account surplus, a significant portion remained in offshore jurisdictions, providing an important fuel for the Eurodollar markets. In fact, more than two-thirds of U.S.-dollar claims in the Eurodollar market can be traced back to U.S. entities. After this original impetus, the Eurodollar market grew by leaps and bounds amid a number of regulatory advantages introduced in the 1980s. These changes in regulations not only deepened the participation of European and Japanese banks in the offshore markets, it also allowed U.S. banks to shift capital to Europe, harvesting a lower cost of capital in the process.12 The next growth phase in the Eurodollar system came with the evolution of shadow banking, in which credit was created off balance sheet by lending out collateral more than once, thus enabling banks to obtain higher gearing. This process is known as "re-hypothecation." In the U.S. there was a limit to which banks were allowed to gear collateral, which was not the case in Europe. Hence, to take advantage of this regulatory leniency, global banks grew further through the offshore market, causing an additional expansion in the Eurodollar market.13 Ultimately, this implies that over the past 30 years, the growth of the Eurodollar system has mainly been a consequence of the architecture of the international financial system. Headwinds To Dollar Liquidity The forces contributing to the extraordinary growth in dollar liquidity have begun to fade. In brief: Protectionism and populism: A slowdown in global trade has occurred for a number of structural, non-geopolitical reasons, especially if one controls for the recovery of energy prices (Chart 15).14 This slowdown implies a slower accumulation of international FX reserves and a reduction of the "savings glut." If protectionism were to compound the effects - by shrinking the U.S. trade deficit - the result for global dollar liquidity would be negative. The consequence would be a certain degree of "quantitative tightening" of global dollar liquidity. Energy prices: Despite the recovery in energy prices, oil producers continue to struggle to rein in their budget deficits. Deficits blew out during the high-spending era buoyed by high oil prices (Chart 16). Today, oil producing countries have less oil revenues to spend on the Treasury market, as their cash is needed at home. Meanwhile, the U.S. is slowly moving towards partial energy independence, further shrinking its trade deficit. Chart 15Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Chart 16Petrodollars Are Scarce Petrodollars Are Scarce Petrodollars Are Scarce Eurodollar system: The monetary "plumbing" has become clogged since 2014 after the Fed stopped growing its balance sheet and sweeping Basel III bank regulations took effect. The cost of acquiring U.S. dollars in Eurodollar markets currently stands at a premium. This extra cost cannot be arbitraged away due to the restrictive capital rules imposed under Basel III, which have raised the cost of capital for banks. This can be seen in the persistent widening of USD cross-currency basis-swap spreads and more recently, in the rise of the Libor-OIS spread (Chart 17). The introduction of interest on excess reserves by the Federal Reserve is further draining dollars from the Eurodollar system. The velocity of dollar usage in international markets is unlikely to return to the pace experienced from 1995 to 2008, when the shadow banking system grew rapidly. To complicate matters, dollar-denominated debt issued outside of the U.S. by non-U.S. entities such as banks, governments, and non-financial corporations has grown substantially. This could exacerbate the scramble for dollars in case of a global shortage. For example, the stock of outstanding dollar debt issued by foreign nonfinancial corporations currently stands at US$10 trillion (Chart 18). Chart 17Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Chart 18Foreign Dollar Debt Is At $10 Trillion Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Why is the Eurodollar system so important? Today is the first time in the world's history that this much debt has been accumulated in the global reserve currency outside of the country that issues that currency. The Eurodollar system is thus a key source of liquidity for global borrowers. It is also necessary to ensure that these borrowers can access U.S. dollars when the time comes to repay their USD-denominated obligations. Chart 19Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility The U.S. trade deficit is effectively the source of the growth of the monetary base in the Eurodollar system, and the stock of dollar-denominated debt issued by non-U.S. entities is the world's broad money supply. With the money multiplier in the offshore USD markets having fallen in response to the regulatory tightening that followed the Great Financial Crisis, broad USD money supply in the Eurodollar system will be hyper sensitive to any decline in the U.S. current account deficit. Less global imbalances would therefore result in a further increase in USD funding costs in the international system, and potentially into a stronger U.S. dollar as well, making this dollar debt very expensive to repay. This raises the likelihood of a massive short-squeeze in favour of the U.S. dollar, challenging the current downward trajectory in the U.S. dollar, at least in the short term. Another consequence of a higher cost of sourcing U.S. dollars in the Eurodollar market tends to be rising FX volatility (Chart 19). An increase in FX volatility should represent a potent headwinds for carry trades. This, in turn, will hurt liquidity conditions in EM economies. Hence, EM growth may be another casualty of problems in the Eurodollar system. Thus, the risks associated with U.S. protectionism go well beyond the risks to global trade. If severe enough, protectionism can threaten the plumbing system of the global economy. Bottom Line: The global economy has been supplied with dollar-based liquidity through the Eurodollar market. At the base of this edifice stands the U.S. trade-deficit, which was then magnified by the issuance of U.S. dollar-denominated debt by non-U.S. entities. This system is becoming increasingly tenuous as Basel III regulations have increased the cost of capital for global money-center banks, resulting in a downward force on the money multiplier in the offshore dollar funding system. In this environment, the risk to the system created by protectionism rises. If Trump and his administration can indeed scale back the size of the U.S. trade deficit, not only will the growth of the U.S. dollar monetary base be broken, but since the monetary multiplier of the Eurodollar system is also impaired, the capacity of the system to provide the dollars needed to fund all the liabilities it has created will decline. This could result in a serious rise in dollar funding costs as well as a tightening of global liquidity that will hurt global growth and result in a dollar short squeeze. This implied precarious situation raises one obvious question: Could we see the emergence of another reserve asset to complement the dollar, alleviating global liquidity risk? If Something Cannot Go On Forever, It Will Stop A global shortage of dollars is not imminent but could result from the forces described above. Even so, it is unlikely that the U.S. dollar faces any sudden end to its role as the leading global reserve currency. However, the world is unlikely to abide by a system that limits its growth potential either. The demise of the Bretton Woods system is important to keep in mind. The Bretton Woods system tied the supply of global liquidity to the supply of U.S. dollars. Initially this was not a problem as the U.S. ran a trade surplus. But it became a significant issue when the rest of the world began to question the U.S. commitment to honouring the $35/oz price commitment amidst domestic profligacy and money printing. Ultimately, the system broke down for this very reason. The strength of the global economy, along with the size of the U.S. current account deficit, was creating too many offshore dollars. Either the global money supply had to shrink, or gold had to be revalued against the dollar. The unpegging of the dollar from gold effectively resulted in the latter. However, the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement that replaced the gold standard with a dollar standard retained the dollar's hegemony. There was simply no alternative at the time. Chart 20Reserve Currency Status ##br##Can Diminish Quickly Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Today, it is unlikely that the global economy will stand idle in the face of a potentially sharp tightening of global liquidity conditions. We posit that this rising dollar funding costs will be the most important factor to decrease the importance of the dollar in the global financial system. Since the demand for the USD as a reserve currency is linked to its use as a liability by banks and financial systems outside of the U.S., if the USD gets downgraded as a source of financing by global banks, the demand for the greenback in global reserves will decline.15 As the share of dollars in foreign reserve coffers decreases, the dollar will likely depreciate over time as it will stop benefiting from the return-inelastic demand from reserve managers. Profit-motivated private investors will demand higher expected returns on dollar assets in order to finance the U.S. current account deficit. Despite this important negative, the dollar will still be the most important reserve asset in the world for many decades. After all, the decline of the pound as the global reserve asset in the interwar period was a gradual affair. Nonetheless, the share of reserves concentrated in USD assets as well as the share of international liabilities issued in USD will decrease, potentially a lot quicker than is thought possible. For example, Eichengreen has shown that the pound sterling's share of non-gold global currency reserves fell from 63% in 1899 to 48% in 1913, just 14 years later (Chart 20). It is instructive that this pre-World War I era coincides with today's multipolar geopolitical context. It similarly featured the decline of a status quo power (the U.K.) and the emergence of a rising challenger (the German Empire). What are the alternatives to the dollar? Obviously, the euro will have a role in this play. The euro today only represents 20% of global reserve assets, and considering the size of the Euro Area economy as well as the depth of its capital markets, the euro's place in global reserves has room to increase. In fact, the share of euros in global reserves is 15% smaller than that of the combined continental European national currencies in 1990 (see Chart 4). The CNY can also expect to see its share of international reserves increase. While China does not have the same capital-market depth as the Euro Area, it is gaining wider currency. The One Belt One Road project is causing many international projects to be financed in CNY and China's economic and military heft is still growing fairly rapidly. Nevertheless, China's closed capital account continues to weigh against the CNY's position. As Chart 21 illustrates, there is a relationship between a country's share of international global payments and inward foreign investment. Essentially, investors want to know that they can do something (buy and sell goods and services) with the currency that they use to settle their payments. In particular, they want to know that they can use the currency in the economy that issues it. As long as it keeps its capital account closed, China will fail to transform the CNY into a reserve currency. Chart 21A Reserve Currency With A Closed Capital Account? Forget About It! Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? This means that for at least the next five years, the renminbi's internationalization will be limited. If U.S. protectionism is severe enough, China's economic transition is less likely to be orderly and capital account liberalization could be delayed further. In terms of investment implications, this suggests that for the coming decade, the euro is likely to benefit from a structural tailwind as global reserve managers increase their share of euro reserves. The key metric that investors should follow to gauge whether or not the euro is becoming a more important source of global liquidity is not just the share of euros in global reserves, but also the amount of foreign-currency debt issued in euros by non-euro area entities in the international markets. Chart 22Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? In all likelihood, before the world transitions toward a unit of account other than the USD, tensions will grow severe, as they did in the late 1960s. It is hard to know when these tensions will become evident. This past winter, the USD basis-swap spread began to widen along with the Libor-OIS spread, but while the Libor-OIS spread remains wide, basis-swap spreads have normalized. Nonetheless, by the end of this cycle, we would expect a liquidity event to cause stress in global carry trades and EM assets. It is important that investors keep a close eye on basis-swap and Libor-OIS spreads to gauge this risk (Chart 22). Additionally, the more protectionist the U.S. becomes, the larger the diversification away from the dollar by both global reserve managers and international bond issuers could become. This is because of two reasons: First, if the U.S. actually manages to pare down its trade deficit, this will accentuate the decline in the supply of base money in the international system. Second, rising trade protectionism out of the White House gives the world the impression that economic mismanagement is taking hold of the U.S., raising the spectre of stagflation. Finally, the next global reserve asset does not have to be a currency. After all, for millennia, that role was fulfilled by commodities such as gold, silver, or copper. Thus, another asset may emerge to fill this gap. At this point in time it is not clear which asset this may be. Bottom Line: A severe liquidity-tightening caused by a scarcity of U.S. dollars would create market tumult around the world. We worry that such a risk is growing. However, it is hard to envision the global economy falling to its knees. Instead, the global system will likely do what it has done many times before: evolve. This evolution will most likely result in new tools being used to increase the global monetary base. At the current juncture, our best bet is that it will be the euro, which will hurt the USD's exchange rate at the margin on a secular basis. This brings up the very important question of whether the euro is politically viable. We have turned to this question many times over the past seven years. Our high conviction view is still that the euro will survive over the foreseeable time horizon.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Mehul Daya Consulting Editor Neels Heyneke Consulting Editor 1 And an erstwhile member of BCA's Research Advisory Board. 2 Please see Eichengreen, Barry et al, "Mars or Mercury? The Geopolitics of International Currency Choice," dated December 2017, available at nber.org. 3 Please see Tovar, Camillo and Tania Mohd Nor, 2018 "Reserve Currency Blocks: A Changing International Monetary System?," IMF Working Paper WP/18/20, Washington D.C. 4 The authors are essentially examining the extent to which national currencies are anchored to a particular reserve currency. 5 Please see David Shapiro, The Hidden Hand Of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling And International Markets, New York: Columbia University Press. Also, Andrea Wong, "The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia's 41-Year Secret Debt," The Independent, dated June 1, 2016, available at independent.co.uk. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Entente cordiale being particularly shocking at the time it was formalized in 1904. Other examples of ideologically heterodox alliances include the USSR's alliance first with Nazi Germany and then with Democratic America during World War II; the notorious alliance of Catholic France with Muslim Turks against its Christian neighbors throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; or Greek alliances with the Carthaginians against Rome in the third century BC. 10 Another exception to this rule was the Yuan Dynasty, established by Mongol ruler Kublai Khan, which issued fiat money made from mulberry bark. In fact, the mulberry trees in the courtyard at the Bank of England serve as a reminder of the origins of fiat money. 11 Eurodollar system simply refers to U.S. dollars that are outside the U.S. 12 Firstly, the absence of Regulation Q in offshore markets meant that regulatory arbitrage was possible, i.e. there was no ceiling imposed on interest rates on deposits at non-U.S. banks. Then, in the late 1990s, the Eurodollar system had another jump start with the amendment to Regulation D, which meant that non-U.S. banks were exempted from reserve requirements. 13 European banks specifically, but also U.S. banks with European branches, were aggressive buyers/funders of exotic derivatives products, such as CDO, MBS, SIVS. Most of these activities were off-balance sheet and took place in the Eurodollar system because a number of regulatory arbitrages existed. This is one of the main reasons that the Federal Reserve's bailout programs were largely focused towards foreign banks. The Fed's swap lines were heavily used by foreign central banks in order to clean up the operations of their own financial institutions. 14 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Why Has Global Trade Slowed?," dated January 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Shah, Nihar, "Foreign Dollar Reserves and Financial Stability," December 2015, Harvard University. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011; "No Apocalypse Now?," dated October 31, 2011; "The Draghi 'Bait And Switch," dated January 9, 2013; "Europe: The Euro And (Geo)politics," dated February 11, 2015; "Greece After The Euro: A Land Of Milk And Honey?," dated January 20, 2016; "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?," dated July 13, 2016; "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017. Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

This month's Special Report is a joint effort by BCA's Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange strategists, along with contributing editors Mehul Daya and Neels Heyneke (Strategists at Nedbank CIB Research). It is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, in which I discussed the short- and long-term outlook for the U.S. dollar from a purely economic perspective. This month's analysis takes a geopolitical perspective, focusing on the possibility that the U.S. dollar will lose its reserve currency status and weaken over the long term. I trust that you will find the Report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Reserve currencies are built on a geopolitical and macroeconomic foundation. For the U.S. Dollar, these foundations remain in place, but cracks are emerging. Relative decline in American power, combined with a loss of confidence in the "Washington Consensus" at home, are eroding the geopolitical foundations. Meanwhile, threats to globalization, a slower pace of petrodollar recycling, and stresses in the Eurodollar system are eroding the macroeconomic foundations. The Renminbi is not an alternative to King Dollar, but the euro remains a potential challenger in the coming interregnum years that will see the world transition from American hegemony... to something else. In the long run, we envision a multipolar currency regime to emerge alongside a multipolar geopolitical world order. In this report, BCA's Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange strategies join efforts with contributing editors Mehul Daya and Neels Heyneke (Strategists at Nedbank CIB Research) to examine the conditions necessary for the decline of a reserve currency. Specifically, we seek to answer the question of whether the U.S. dollar is at the precipice of such a decline. With President Donald Trump's overt calls for American geopolitical retrenchment from global commitments, investors have asked whether the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency is nigh. After all, King Dollar has fallen by 9.7% since President Trump's inauguration on January 20, while alternatives of dubious value, such as a slew of cryptocurrencies, have seen a rally of epic proportions (Chart II-1). Professor Barry Eichengreen, a world-renowned international economics historian,1 has recently penned an insightful paper proposing a link between the robustness of military alliances and currency reserve status.2 According to the analysis, reserve currency status reflects both economic fundamentals - safety, liquidity, network effects, and economic conditions - and geopolitical fundamentals. In the case of close U.S. military allies, such as South Korea and Japan, the choice of the dollar as store of value is explained far more by the geopolitical links to the U.S., rather than the importance of the dollar for their economies. The authors warn that if the U.S. "withdraws from the world," the impact could be as large as an 80 basis points rise in the U.S. long-term interest rate. Intriguingly, some of what Professor Eichengreen posits could happen has already happened. For example, the share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries by military allies has already declined by a whopping 25% (Chart II-2). And yet the demand for King Dollar assets was immediately picked up by non-military allies, proving the resiliency of greenback's status as the reserve currency. Chart II-1Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Chart II-2Geopolitics Is Not Driving ##br##Demand For Treasuries Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasuries Geopolitics Is Not Driving Demand For Treasuries When it comes to global currency reserves, the U.S. dollar continues to command 63%, roughly the same level it has commanded since 2000 (Chart II-3). Interestingly, alternatives remain roughly the same as in the past, with little real movement (Chart II-4). The Chinese renminbi remains largely ignored as a global reserve currency and its use across markets and geographies appears to have declined since the imposition of full capital controls in October 2015 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3Dollar Remains King Dollar Remains King Dollar Remains King Chart II-4The Euro Is The Only Serious Competitor To King Dollar... May 2018 May 2018 Chart II-5...The Renminbi Is Not May 2018 May 2018 However, some cracks in the foundation are emerging. A recent IMF paper, penned by Camilo E. Tovar and Tania Mohd Nor,3 uses currency co-movements to determine which national currencies belong to a particular reserve currency bloc.4 Their work shows that the international monetary system has already transitioned from a bi-polar system - consisting of the greenback and the euro - to a multipolar one that includes the CNY (Chart II-6). However, the CNY's influence does not extend beyond the BRICS and is scant in East Asia, the geographical region that China already dominates in trade (Chart II-7), albeit not yet geopolitically (Map II-1). Chart II-6Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency 'Bloc'... Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency '''Bloc'''... Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency '''Bloc'''... Chart II-7...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... ...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... ...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... Map II-1...Renminbi's 'Bloc' Is Not In Asia! May 2018 May 2018 Our conclusion is that the geopolitical and economic tailwinds behind the greenback's status as a global reserve currency are shifting into headwinds. This process, as we describe below, could increase the risk of a global dollar liquidity shortage, buoying the greenback in the short term. In the long term, however, a transition into a multipolar currency arrangement could rebalance some of the imbalances created by the collapse of the Bretton Woods System and is not necessarily to be feared. The Geopolitical Fundamentals Of A Reserve Currency Nothing lasts forever and the U.S. dollar will one day join a long list of former reserve currencies that includes the Ancient Greek drachma, the Roman aureus, the Byzantium solidus, the Florentine florin, the Dutch gulden, the Spanish dollar, and the pound sterling. All of the political entities that produced these reserve currencies have several factors in common. They were the geopolitical hegemons of their era, capable of controlling the most important trade routes, projecting both hard and soft power outside of their borders, and maintaining a stable economy that underpinned the purchasing power of their currency. Table II-1 illustrates several factors that we believe encapsulate the necessary conditions for a dominant international currency. Table II-1Insights From History: What Makes A Reserve Currency? May 2018 May 2018 Geopolitical Power As Eichengreen posits, geopolitical fundamentals are essential for reserve currency status. Military power is necessary in order to defend one's national and commercial interests abroad, compel foreign powers to yield to those interests, and protect allies in exchange for their acquiescence to the hegemonic status quo. An important modern world example of such "gunboat diplomacy" was the 1974 agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.5 In exchange for dumping their petro-dollars into U.S. debt, Riyadh received an American commitment to keep the Saudi Kingdom safe from all threats, both regional (Iran) and global (the Soviet Union). It also received special permission to keep its purchases of U.S. Treasuries secret. Chart II-8The Exorbitant Privilege In One Chart May 2018 May 2018 As with all the empires surveyed in Table II-1, allies and vassal states were forced to use the hegemon's currency in their trade and investment transactions as a way of paying for the security blanket. To this day, there is no better way to explain the "exorbitant privilege" that the dollar commands. Chart II-8 illustrates that the U.S. enjoys positive net income despite a massively negative net international investment position. It is true that the U.S.'s foreign assets are skewed toward foreign direct investment and equities, investments that have higher rates of returns than the fixed-income liabilities the U.S. owes to the rest of the world. But the U.S.'s positive net income balance has been exacerbated by the willingness of foreigners to invest their assets into the U.S. for little compensation, something illustrated by the fact that between 1971 and 2007, the ex-post U.S. term premium has been toward the lower end of the G10. Additionally, as foreigners are also willing holders of U.S. physical cash, the U.S. government has been able to finance part of its budget deficit with instruments carrying no interest payments. This is what economists refer to as seigniorage, a subsidy to the U.S. government equivalent to around 0.2% of GDP per annum (or roughly $39.5 bn in 2017). In essence, American allies are paying for American hegemony through their investments in U.S. dollar assets, and this lets the U.S. live above its means. But ultimately, the quid pro quo is perhaps as much geopolitical as economic. There is one, non-negligible, cost for U.S. policymakers. The greenback tends to appreciate during periods of global economic stress due to its reserve currency status.6 This means that each time the U.S. needs a weak dollar to reflate its economy, the dollar moves in the opposite direction, adding deflationary pressures to an already weak domestic economy. Compared to the benefits, which offer the U.S. a steady-stream of seigniorage income and low-cost financing, the cost of reserve currency status is acceptable. Chart II-9U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... Economic Power Aside from brute force, an empire is built on commercial and trade links. There are two reasons for this. First, trade allows the empire to acquire raw materials to fuel its economy and technological advancement. Second, it also gives the "periphery" a role to play in the empire, a stake in the world system underpinned by the hegemonic core. This creates an entire layer of society in the periphery - the elites enriched by and entrenched in the Empire - with existential interest in the status quo. For the past five centuries, commercial dominance has been underpinned by naval dominance. As the Ottoman Empire and the Ming Dynasty closed off the overland routes in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Europeans used technological innovation to avoid the off-limits Eurasian landmass and establish alternative - and exclusively naval - routes to commodities and new markets. This has propelled a succession of largely naval empires: Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, British, and finally American. Several land-based powers tried to break through the nautical noose - Ottoman Turks, Sweden, Hapsburg Austria, Germany, and the Soviet Union - but were defeated by the superiority of naval-based power. Dominance of the seas allows the hegemonic core to unite disparate and far-flung regions through commerce and to call upon vast resources in case of a global conflict. Meanwhile, the hegemon can deny that commerce and those resources to land-locked challengers. This is how the British defeated Napoleon and how the U.S. and its allies won World War I and II. The U.S. remains the supreme naval power (Chart II-9). While China is building up its ability to push back against the U.S. navy in its regional seas (East and South China Seas), it will be decades before it is close to being able to project power across the world's oceans. While the former is necessary for becoming a regional hegemon, the latter is necessary for China to offer non-contiguous allies an alternative to American hegemony. Bottom Line: The foundation of a global reserve currency status is geopolitical fundamentals. The U.S. remains well-endowed in both. American Hegemony - From Tailwinds To Headwinds Chart II-10...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline ...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline ...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline The U.S. is already facing a relative geopolitical decline due to the rise of major emerging markets like China (Chart II-10). This theme underpins BCA Geopolitical Strategy's view that the world has already transitioned from American hegemony to a multipolar arrangement.7 In absolute terms, the U.S. still retains the hard and soft power variables that have supported the USD's global reserve status and will continue to do so for the next decade (which is the maximum investment horizon of the vast majority of our clients). However, there are three imminent threats to the status quo that may accentuate global multipolarity: Populism: The global hegemon could decide to withdraw from distant entanglements and institutional arrangements. In the U.S., an isolationist narrative has emerged suggesting that America's status as the consumer and mercenary of last resort is unsustainable (Chart II-11). President Obama was elected on the promise of withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan; his administration also struck a major deal with Iran to reduce American exposure to the Middle East. Donald Trump won the presidency on an even more isolationist platform and he and several of his advisors have voiced such a view over the past 15 months. The appeal of isolationism could resurface as it is a potent political elixir based on a much deeper rejection of globalization among the American public than the policy establishment realized (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Trump Is Rebelling Against The Post-Cold War System May 2018 May 2018 Chart II-12Americans Are Rebelling Against The 'Washington Consensus' May 2018 May 2018 Return of the land-based empire: While the U.S. remains the preeminent naval power, its leadership in military prowess could be wasted through a suboptimal grand strategy. The U.S. has two geopolitical imperatives: dominate the world's oceans and ensure the disunity of the Eurasian landmass.8 Eurasia has sufficient natural resources (Russia), population (China), wealth (Europe), and geographical buffer from naval powers (the seas surrounding it) to become self-sufficient. Hence any great power that managed to dominate Eurasia would have no need for a navy as it would become a superpower by default. Why would America's European allies abandon their U.S. security blanket for an alliance with Russia and China? First, stranger shifts in alliance structure have occurred in the past.9 Second, because a mix of U.S. mercantilism and isolationism could push Europe into making independent geopolitical arrangements with its Eurasian peers, even if these arrangements were informal. The advent of the cyber realm: Finally, the advent of the Internet as a new realm of great power competition reduces the relative utility of hard power, such as a navy. Great empires of the past struggled when confronted with new arenas of conflict such as air and submarine. New technologies and new arenas can yield advantages in traditional battlefields. Today, the U.S. must compete for hegemony in space and cyber-space with China, Russia, and other rivals. In these mediums, the U.S. does not have as great of a head start as it has in naval competition. Bottom Line: The U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, its status as a hegemon is in relative decline. Domestic populism, suboptimal grand strategy, and the advent of cyber and outer-space warfare could all accelerate this decline on the margin. The Economic Fundamentals Of U.S. Dollar Reserve Status One unique aspect of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency is that it is a fiat currency, i.e. paper money limited in supply only by policy. Throughout human history, most dominant currency reserves were based on commodities that were rare or difficult to acquire, like silver or gold.10 When the U.S. dollar was decoupled from gold prices in 1971, it became the only recent example of a global reserve currency backed by nothing but faith (the pound was for most of its period of dominance backed by gold). Money serves three functions in the economy. It is a means of payment, a unit of account, and a store of value. The last comes into jeopardy when the reserve currency has to supply the world with more and more liquidity, also known as the "Triffin dilemma". By definition, as the global reserve currency, the USD has to be plentiful enough for the global economy and financial system to function adequately. The U.S. government must constantly supply dollars to this end. Chart II-13 illustrates the timeline of global dollar liquidity, which we define as the total U.S. monetary base in circulation (U.S. monetary base plus holdings of U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for foreign officials and international accounts). The world has seen an ever-expanding U.S. dollar monetary base since 1988. Only during periods where the price of money (i.e. the Federal funds rate) has increased, has the money creation process slowed. Now that the expansion of the global USD monetary base is slowing, overall dollar liquidity is as important as the price, if not more (Chart II-14). Chart II-13Global Dollar Liquidity... May 2018 May 2018 Chart II-14...Drives Global Asset Prices ...Drives Global Asset Prices ...Drives Global Asset Prices The constant increase of dollar liquidity has made the greenback the "lubricant" of today's global financial system. There are three major forces at work beneath this condition: Recycling of petrodollars into the global financial system; Globalization and the build-up of - mainly USD-denominated - FX reserves; Deregulation of the Eurodollar system.11 Petrodollars Commodity exporters, mainly oil producers, sell their products in exchange for U.S. dollars. In addition, most Middle Eastern producers recycle their profits into U.S. dollars due to the liquidity and depth of U.S. capital markets. By 1980, the majority of oil producers were trading in U.S. dollars and were similarly investing their surpluses into the U.S. financial system in the form of U.S. government debt securities. The growth in petrodollars has allowed the world's dollar monetary base to grow substantially. This was both enabled by direct issuance of U.S. debt securities funded by petrodollar purchases and also through the Eurodollar system whereby banks outside the U.S. held large deposits of surplus dollar earnings from Middle East oil producers. Globalization The contemporary wave of globalization began in the mid-1980s, when it became evident that the Soviet Union was in midst of a deep economic malaise. This prompted the new Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to launch perestroika ("restructuring") in 1985, throwing in the proverbial towel in the contest between a statist planned economy and a free market one. Alongside the rise in global trade, financial globalization rose at a very rapid pace as cross-border capital flows more than doubled as a percentage of global GDP from 1990 onward. In the U.S., the economic boom of the 1990s was the longest expansion in history, with growth averaging 4% during the period. The U.S. trade deficit ballooned, providing the world with large amounts of dollar liquidity in the process. The flipside of the massive current account deficit was the accumulation of FX reserves in Europe and Asia, largely denominated in U.S. dollars. These insensitive buyers of U.S. debt indirectly financed the U.S. trade deficit, and also indirectly fuelled the debt super cycle and asset inflation as the "savings glut" compressed the world's risk-free rate and term premium. In other words, financial globalization combined with excess international savings morphed into a global quid pro quo. The world economy needed liquidity to finance growth and capital investment. In a system where the greenback stood at the base of any liquidity build up, this meant that the world needed dollars to finance its development. The world was thus willing to finance the U.S. current account deficit at little cost. The Eurodollar System The Eurodollar system was originally a payment system introduced after World War II as a result of the Marshal Plan. Because global trade was dominated by the U.S. - the only country that retained the capacity to produce industrial goods - foreigners had to be able to access U.S. dollars where they were domiciled in order to buy capital goods. The U.S. current account deficit played a role in growing that Eurodollar market. While a lot of the dollars supplied to the rest of the world through the U.S. current account deficit ended up going back to the U.S. via its large capital account surplus, a significant portion remained in offshore jurisdictions, providing an important fuel for the Eurodollar markets. In fact, more than two-thirds of U.S.-dollar claims in the Eurodollar market can be traced back to U.S. entities. After this original impetus, the Eurodollar market grew by leaps and bounds amid a number of regulatory advantages introduced in the 1980s. These changes in regulations not only deepened the participation of European and Japanese banks in the offshore markets, it also allowed U.S. banks to shift capital to Europe, harvesting a lower cost of capital in the process.12 The next growth phase in the Eurodollar system came with the evolution of shadow banking, in which credit was created off balance sheet by lending out collateral more than once, thus enabling banks to obtain higher gearing. This process is known as "re-hypothecation." In the U.S. there was a limit to which banks were allowed to gear collateral, which was not the case in Europe. Hence, to take advantage of this regulatory leniency, global banks grew further through the offshore market, causing an additional expansion in the Eurodollar market.13 Ultimately, this implies that over the past 30 years, the growth of the Eurodollar system has mainly been a consequence of the architecture of the international financial system. Headwinds To Dollar Liquidity The forces contributing to the extraordinary growth in dollar liquidity have begun to fade. In brief: Protectionism and populism: A slowdown in global trade has occurred for a number of structural, non-geopolitical reasons, especially if one controls for the recovery of energy prices (Chart II-15).14 This slowdown implies a slower accumulation of international FX reserves and a reduction of the "savings glut." If protectionism were to compound the effects - by shrinking the U.S. trade deficit - the result for global dollar liquidity would be negative. The consequence would be a certain degree of "quantitative tightening" of global dollar liquidity. Energy prices: Despite the recovery in energy prices, oil producers continue to struggle to rein in their budget deficits. Deficits blew out during the high-spending era buoyed by high oil prices (Chart II-16). Today, oil producing countries have less oil revenues to spend on the Treasury market, as their cash is needed at home. Meanwhile, the U.S. is slowly moving towards partial energy independence, further shrinking its trade deficit. Chart II-15Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Chart II-16Petrodollars Are Scarce Petrodollars Are Scarce Petrodollars Are Scarce Eurodollar system: The monetary "plumbing" has become clogged since 2014 after the Fed stopped growing its balance sheet and sweeping Basel III bank regulations took effect. The cost of acquiring U.S. dollars in Eurodollar markets currently stands at a premium. This extra cost cannot be arbitraged away due to the restrictive capital rules imposed under Basel III, which have raised the cost of capital for banks. This can be seen in the persistent widening of USD cross-currency basis-swap spreads and more recently, in the rise of the Libor-OIS spread (Chart II-17). The introduction of interest on excess reserves by the Federal Reserve is further draining dollars from the Eurodollar system. The velocity of dollar usage in international markets is unlikely to return to the pace experienced from 1995 to 2008, when the shadow banking system grew rapidly. To complicate matters, dollar-denominated debt issued outside of the U.S. by non-U.S. entities such as banks, governments, and non-financial corporations has grown substantially. This could exacerbate the scramble for dollars in case of a global shortage. For example, the stock of outstanding dollar debt issued by foreign nonfinancial corporations currently stands at US$10 trillion (Chart II-18). Chart II-17Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Chart II-18Foreign Dollar Debt Is At $10 Trillion May 2018 May 2018 Why is the Eurodollar system so important? Today is the first time in the world's history that this much debt has been accumulated in the global reserve currency outside of the country that issues that currency. The Eurodollar system is thus a key source of liquidity for global borrowers. It is also necessary to ensure that these borrowers can access U.S. dollars when the time comes to repay their USD-denominated obligations. The U.S. trade deficit is effectively the source of the growth of the monetary base in the Eurodollar system, and the stock of dollar-denominated debt issued by non-U.S. entities is the world's broad money supply. With the money multiplier in the offshore USD markets having fallen in response to the regulatory tightening that followed the Great Financial Crisis, broad USD money supply in the Eurodollar system will be hyper sensitive to any decline in the U.S. current account deficit. Less global imbalances would therefore result in a further increase in USD funding costs in the international system, and potentially into a stronger U.S. dollar as well, making this dollar debt very expensive to repay. This raises the likelihood of a massive short-squeeze in favour of the U.S. dollar, challenging the current downward trajectory in the U.S. dollar, at least in the short term. Another consequence of a higher cost of sourcing U.S. dollars in the Eurodollar market tends to be rising FX volatility (Chart II-19). An increase in FX volatility should represent a potent headwinds for carry trades. This, in turn, will hurt liquidity conditions in EM economies. Hence, EM growth may be another casualty of problems in the Eurodollar system. Chart II-19Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility Thus, the risks associated with U.S. protectionism go well beyond the risks to global trade. If severe enough, protectionism can threaten the plumbing system of the global economy. Bottom Line: The global economy has been supplied with dollar-based liquidity through the Eurodollar market. At the base of this edifice stands the U.S. trade-deficit, which was then magnified by the issuance of U.S. dollar-denominated debt by non-U.S. entities. This system is becoming increasingly tenuous as Basel III regulations have increased the cost of capital for global money-center banks, resulting in a downward force on the money multiplier in the offshore dollar funding system. In this environment, the risk to the system created by protectionism rises. If Trump and his administration can indeed scale back the size of the U.S. trade deficit, not only will the growth of the U.S. dollar monetary base be broken, but since the monetary multiplier of the Eurodollar system is also impaired, the capacity of the system to provide the dollars needed to fund all the liabilities it has created will decline. This could result in a serious rise in dollar funding costs as well as a tightening of global liquidity that will hurt global growth and result in a dollar short squeeze. This implied precarious situation raises one obvious question: Could we see the emergence of another reserve asset to complement the dollar, alleviating global liquidity risk? If Something Cannot Go On Forever, It Will Stop A global shortage of dollars is not imminent but could result from the forces described above. Even so, it is unlikely that the U.S. dollar faces any sudden end to its role as the leading global reserve currency. However, the world is unlikely to abide by a system that limits its growth potential either. The demise of the Bretton Woods system is important to keep in mind. The Bretton Woods system tied the supply of global liquidity to the supply of U.S. dollars. Initially this was not a problem as the U.S. ran a trade surplus. But it became a significant issue when the rest of the world began to question the U.S. commitment to honouring the $35/oz price commitment amidst domestic profligacy and money printing. Ultimately, the system broke down for this very reason. The strength of the global economy, along with the size of the U.S. current account deficit, was creating too many offshore dollars. Either the global money supply had to shrink, or gold had to be revalued against the dollar. The unpegging of the dollar from gold effectively resulted in the latter. However, the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement that replaced the gold standard with a dollar standard retained the dollar's hegemony. There was simply no alternative at the time. Today, it is unlikely that the global economy will stand idle in the face of a potentially sharp tightening of global liquidity conditions. We posit that this rising dollar funding costs will be the most important factor to decrease the importance of the dollar in the global financial system. Since the demand for the USD as a reserve currency is linked to its use as a liability by banks and financial systems outside of the U.S., if the USD gets downgraded as a source of financing by global banks, the demand for the greenback in global reserves will decline.15 As the share of dollars in foreign reserve coffers decreases, the dollar will likely depreciate over time as it will stop benefiting from the return-inelastic demand from reserve managers. Profit-motivated private investors will demand higher expected returns on dollar assets in order to finance the U.S. current account deficit. Despite this important negative, the dollar will still be the most important reserve asset in the world for many decades. After all, the decline of the pound as the global reserve asset in the interwar period was a gradual affair. Nonetheless, the share of reserves concentrated in USD assets as well as the share of international liabilities issued in USD will decrease, potentially a lot quicker than is thought possible. Chart II-20Reserve Currency Status ##br##Can Diminish Quickly May 2018 May 2018 For example, Eichengreen has shown that the pound sterling's share of non-gold global currency reserves fell from 63% in 1899 to 48% in 1913, just 14 years later (Chart II-20). It is instructive that this pre-World War I era coincides with today's multipolar geopolitical context. It similarly featured the decline of a status quo power (the U.K.) and the emergence of a rising challenger (the German Empire). What are the alternatives to the dollar? Obviously, the euro will have a role in this play. The euro today only represents 20% of global reserve assets, and considering the size of the Euro Area economy as well as the depth of its capital markets, the euro's place in global reserves has room to increase. In fact, the share of euros in global reserves is 15% smaller than that of the combined continental European national currencies in 1990 (see Chart II-4 on page 25). The CNY can also expect to see its share of international reserves increase. While China does not have the same capital-market depth as the Euro Area, it is gaining wider currency. The One Belt One Road project is causing many international projects to be financed in CNY and China's economic and military heft is still growing fairly rapidly. Nevertheless, China's closed capital account continues to weigh against the CNY's position. As Chart II-21 illustrates, there is a relationship between a country's share of international global payments and inward foreign investment. Essentially, investors want to know that they can do something (buy and sell goods and services) with the currency that they use to settle their payments. In particular, they want to know that they can use the currency in the economy that issues it. As long as it keeps its capital account closed, China will fail to transform the CNY into a reserve currency. Chart II-21A Reserve Currency With A Closed Capital Account? Forget About It! May 2018 May 2018 This means that for at least the next five years, the renminbi's internationalization will be limited. If U.S. protectionism is severe enough, China's economic transition is less likely to be orderly and capital account liberalization could be delayed further. In terms of investment implications, this suggests that for the coming decade, the euro is likely to benefit from a structural tailwind as global reserve managers increase their share of euro reserves. The key metric that investors should follow to gauge whether or not the euro is becoming a more important source of global liquidity is not just the share of euros in global reserves, but also the amount of foreign-currency debt issued in euros by non-euro area entities in the international markets. In all likelihood, before the world transitions toward a unit of account other than the USD, tensions will grow severe, as they did in the late 1960s. It is hard to know when these tensions will become evident. This past winter, the USD basis-swap spread began to widen along with the Libor-OIS spread, but while the Libor-OIS spread remains wide, basis-swap spreads have normalized. Nonetheless, by the end of this cycle, we would expect a liquidity event to cause stress in global carry trades and EM assets. It is important that investors keep a close eye on basis-swap and Libor-OIS spreads to gauge this risk (Chart II-22). Chart II-22Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? Additionally, the more protectionist the U.S. becomes, the larger the diversification away from the dollar by both global reserve managers and international bond issuers could become. This is because of two reasons: First, if the U.S. actually manages to pare down its trade deficit, this will accentuate the decline in the supply of base money in the international system. Second, rising trade protectionism out of the White House gives the world the impression that economic mismanagement is taking hold of the U.S., raising the spectre of stagflation. Finally, the next global reserve asset does not have to be a currency. After all, for millennia, that role was fulfilled by commodities such as gold, silver, or copper. Thus, another asset may emerge to fill this gap. At this point in time it is not clear which asset this may be. Bottom Line: A severe liquidity-tightening caused by a scarcity of U.S. dollars would create market tumult around the world. We worry that such a risk is growing. However, it is hard to envision the global economy falling to its knees. Instead, the global system will likely do what it has done many times before: evolve. This evolution will most likely result in new tools being used to increase the global monetary base. At the current juncture, our best bet is that it will be the euro, which will hurt the USD's exchange rate at the margin on a secular basis. This brings up the very important question of whether the euro is politically viable. We have turned to this question many times over the past seven years. Our high conviction view is still that the euro will survive over the foreseeable time horizon.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Mehul Daya Consulting Editor Neels Heyneke Consulting Editor 1 And an erstwhile member of BCA's Research Advisory Board. 2 Please see Eichengreen, Barry et al, "Mars or Mercury? The Geopolitics of International Currency Choice," dated December 2017, available at nber.org. 3 Please see Tovar, Camillo and Tania Mohd Nor, 2018 "Reserve Currency Blocks: A Changing International Monetary System?," IMF Working Paper WP/18/20, Washington D.C. 4 The authors are essentially examining the extent to which national currencies are anchored to a particular reserve currency. 5 Please see David Shapiro, The Hidden Hand Of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling And International Markets, New York: Columbia University Press. Also, Andrea Wong, "The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia's 41-Year Secret Debt," The Independent, dated June 1, 2016, available at independent.co.uk. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Entente cordiale being particularly shocking at the time it was formalized in 1904. Other examples of ideologically heterodox alliances include the USSR's alliance first with Nazi Germany and then with Democratic America during World War II; the notorious alliance of Catholic France with Muslim Turks against its Christian neighbors throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; or Greek alliances with the Carthaginians against Rome in the third century BC. 10 Another exception to this rule was the Yuan Dynasty, established by Mongol ruler Kublai Khan, which issued fiat money made from mulberry bark. In fact, the mulberry trees in the courtyard at the Bank of England serve as a reminder of the origins of fiat money. 11 Eurodollar system simply refers to U.S. dollars that are outside the U.S. 12 Firstly, the absence of Regulation Q in offshore markets meant that regulatory arbitrage was possible, i.e. there was no ceiling imposed on interest rates on deposits at non-U.S. banks. Then, in the late 1990s, the Eurodollar system had another jump start with the amendment to Regulation D, which meant that non-U.S. banks were exempted from reserve requirements. 13 European banks specifically, but also U.S. banks with European branches, were aggressive buyers/funders of exotic derivatives products, such as CDO, MBS, SIVS. Most of these activities were off-balance sheet and took place in the Eurodollar system because a number of regulatory arbitrages existed. This is one of the main reasons that the Federal Reserve's bailout programs were largely focused towards foreign banks. The Fed's swap lines were heavily used by foreign central banks in order to clean up the operations of their own financial institutions. 14 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Why Has Global Trade Slowed?," dated January 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 15 Shah, Nihar, "Foreign Dollar Reserves and Financial Stability," December 2015, Harvard University. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011; "No Apocalypse Now?," dated October 31, 2011; "The Draghi 'Bait And Switch," dated January 9, 2013; "Europe: The Euro And (Geo)politics," dated February 11, 2015; "Greece After The Euro: A Land Of Milk And Honey?," dated January 20, 2016; "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?," dated July 13, 2016; "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017.

Highlights It is well established that portfolio flows play an important role in determining exchange rates. ETF flows are considerably timelier than the standard measures of investment flows, and they permit more precise tracking of currency demand. Economies with a low absolute value of basic balance of payment as a share of GDP tend to have USD exchange rates that are sensitive to equity ETF flows. The currencies of economies with high positive net international investment positions (NIIP), like Japan, Norway and Switzerland, have been impervious to equity ETF flows. For currencies with high exchange-rate sensitivities, flows into flagship country equity ETFs tend to lead currency moves by about six months. EUR/USD and GBP/USD could depreciate in the short term, while emerging market and commodity currencies may have more room to appreciate before they roll over. Feature A Vote Of Confidence Mutual fund flows are an entrenched measure of investor sentiment. Data on mutual fund flows from the Investment Company Institute (ICI) and other providers are widely followed. The view that international portfolio flows tend to be backward looking is reasonably well supported. Empirical evidence suggests that flows into a country's equity market coincide with, or lag, its performance. After all, it can be argued that foreign assets don't pour into a country's stock market until local demand has already driven prices higher, raising its global profile. But portfolio flows play a direct determining role in currency fluctuations. Cyclical fundamental supports for exchange rates include a country's current account balance, net foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows. The last is also a measure of sentiment. So are mutual fund and ETF flows. After all, currency movements are ultimately a reflection of investors' confidence in a country's economy and markets. Benefits Of A "Great Rotation" While current account balances and net FDI transactions are better suited to long-term exchange-rate forecasting, portfolio flows exert a powerful influence on immediate currency trends. However, conventional measures of portfolio flows are released with a time lag. Because they are publicly listed securities, ETFs have to comply with high standards of daily liquidity and information transparency. An investor can easily track an ETF's share count on a weekly basis. In contrast to conventional aggregated flow measures, ETF flows offer the added benefit of allowing for more granularity at the individual-bourse level. Conventional flow measures tend to sum flows from mutual funds and flows from ETFs. But today, the market capitalization of U.S.-listed ETFs is US$2.5 trillion, and assets have rotated from actively managed mutual funds into cheaper index-tracking alternatives. As ETFs get larger and offer a clearer window into investors' preferences, the analysis of ETF flows is becoming increasingly relevant for investors' decision making (Chart 1). Chart 1A Mirror Image A Mirror Image A Mirror Image All Currencies Are Equal, But Some Currencies Are More Equal Than Others Table 1The NOK, CHF And JPY Should Sit On One Side Of The Spectrum And The AUD, CAD And EUR On The Other Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? While all currencies are affected by foreign flows, some currencies display a greater sensitivity to this factor than others. In theory, countries with high positive net international investment positions (NIIP) should be less affected by foreign portfolio flows. A high positive NIIP indicates that domestic investors own more assets abroad than foreigners own locally. Therefore, the demand stemming from domestic investors when shifting their assets in and out of the country is an overwhelming determinant of their exchange rate. Countries with very high positive NIIP include Norway, Switzerland and Japan (Table 1). On a cyclical horizon, currencies are a function of a country's current account balance, FDI and portfolio flows. The sum of the first two items is also known as the narrow basic balance of payments (BBOP). Mathematically, countries that exhibit a low absolute BBOP as a share of GDP (-2% to +2%) should also be more sensitive to portfolio flows. Countries with a narrow basic balance close to equilibrium include Australia, Canada, Japan and the Eurozone. The Non-Resident ETFs Limitation The U.S.-listed ETF market is currently the largest and most developed in the world (Chart 2). Flows into unhedged U.S.-listed country equity ETFs are a good proxy for U.S. investors' demand for that country's currency. We are excluding hedged vehicles as they have zero net impact on currency demand. Investors hedge their currency exposure by selling the foreign currency forward, effectively locking in the number of dollars they will receive for every unit of foreign currency sold. The purchase of the underlying equity to create the ETF increases the demand for the foreign currency while the commitment to sell that currency also increases its supply. From an exchange-rate perspective, the entire transaction is a wash. Currently, the lion's share of ETF assets under management (AUM) for any country's equity is held by one or two flagship funds. We use the flows into these unhedged flagship country equity funds to gauge the demand from USD-based investors for a particular currency (Table 2). Chart 2A U.S.-Dominated ETF Market Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Table 2Flagship Regional And Broad Commodity ETFs Listed On U.S. Exchanges Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Estimating the other leg of the two-way trade is far more challenging. Because ETFs listed outside the U.S. are not currently as firmly established as U.S. vehicles, they may not provide as accurate a read on external demand for the USD. In the particular case of the E.U., the UCITS1 regime allows all E.U.-based investors access to ETFs listed on any bourse within the E.U., obscuring the home-currency source of USD demand, be it euro, sterling, franc or any of the varieties of krone/a. A Leading Indicator Of Exchange Rates In spite of this data limitation, we have found that the analysis based on gross ETF flows still yields compelling results. The Most Robust Relationships Perhaps the most impressive relationships pertain to the Eurozone and emerging markets. We have found that flows into flagship unhedged U.S.-listed Eurozone and emerging markets equity ETFs have led the fluctuations in the EUR/USD and aggregate EM/USD exchange rates by six months (Chart 3 and Chart 4). It makes sense that the demand for U.S.-listed Eurozone Equity ETFs should be a significant driver of the EUR/USD: this cross is the most traded currency pair in the world, accounting for nearly a quarter of global FX turnover, and the Eurozone is a very open economy. Meanwhile, the observed relationship with EM exchange rates also makes sense as the key marginal price setters in EM capital markets often are the foreign investors, which tend to provide the marginal liquidity in these markets. U.S. investors' demand for U.K. equities also exhibits interesting leading properties in determining the direction of GBP/USD six months out (Chart 5). Chart 3Country Equity ETF Flows Perfectly Lead The EUR/USD... Country equity ETF flows perfectly lead the EUR/USD Country equity ETF flows perfectly lead the EUR/USD Chart 4...As Well As Aggregate EM/USD Exchange Rates... …as well as aggregate EM/USD exchange rates… …as well as aggregate EM/USD exchange rates… Chart 5...And Do A Good Job Leading GBP/USD …and do a good job leading GBP/USD. …and do a good job leading GBP/USD. Resource Economies Slightly different variables are at play when it comes to commodity currencies. They are open economies highly levered to emerging markets and Chinese demand. We found that U.S. investors' demand for commodities and EM equities are a better leading indicator of commodity currencies than the demand for the countries' respective equities (Charts 6, 7 and 8). The size of the aggregate AUM of the flagship Australia, Canada and New Zealand ETFs, relative to the aggregate AUM in flagship EM and commodity ETFs, suggests that only the most globally dedicated U.S. investors would seek exposure to peripheral DM equity markets and that most players would prefer direct EM/commodity exposures. Australia, Canada and New Zealand account for just over half of emerging markets' representation in the MSCI All Country World Index. Chart 6Commodity Currencies Are Also Led By... Commodity currencies are also led by Commodity currencies are also led by Chart 7...Flows Into EM Equity ETFs... Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Chart 8...And Flows Into Broad Commodity ETFs Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies? Peripheral G10 Currencies And The Yen Chart 9The Swedish Krona Is Also Sensitive To Flows Into The Eurozone The Swedish Krona is also sensitive to flows into the Eurozone. The Swedish Krona is also sensitive to flows into the Eurozone. We have found that the relationship between flows into Japanese equities, Norwegian equities and Swiss equities ETFs and the USD/JPY, USD/NOK and CHF/USD is much weaker. Consistent with Table 1, this result is unsurprising, given these economies' high NIIP. The Swedish krona's low correlation to flows into Swedish equity ETFs doesn't fit the theoretical framework as easily. Sweden is an open economy that is highly leveraged to global trade, but the EUR acts as an anchor for the SEK, dampening its fluctuations against the USD. We found that the sum of flows into the flagship Swedish and Eurozone equity ETF predicts USD/SEK moves better than the flows into the Swedish ETF alone (Chart 9). Finally, both the NOK and the SEK may not be on U.S. investors' radar, as USD/SEK and USD/NOK only represent 1.3% and 0.9% of global FX turnover. Investment Implications We are well aware that the data limitation only allows us to assess one leg of a two-way trade. The results are nonetheless compelling, and we will look to refine our measure as soon as we can gain more clarity into the origin of the ETF flows. That said, ETF flows do offer a fairly timely measure of portfolio flows, and their six-month lead on exchange rates is worth investors' attention. From these indicators, we can most reasonably expect the EUR and the GBP to depreciate in the short run, while aggregate EM and commodity currencies may have more room to appreciate before their run is complete. More broadly, a U.S.-based investor should consider the signal from ETF flows when deciding whether or not to hedge his/her foreign equity investments. Our global model portfolios currently include the unhedged iShares MSCI Eurozone, United Kingdom and EM equity ETFs (tickers: EZU, EWU and EEM). In light of these results, we may consider switching into HEZU and HEWU, the respective USD-hedged versions of the MSCI Eurozone and U.K. trackers, when we reassess our model portfolios at the beginning of May. We will leave our EM currency exposure unhedged. Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com 1 UCITS stands for Undertakings for the Collective Investment of Transferable Securities. It creates a harmonized regime for the sale of mutual funds throughout the European Union. In the case of ETFs, it allows the same instrument to be listed on several European stock exchanges.

Highlights Dear Client, This week, we are publishing a Special Report produced by Mark McClellan, author of The Bank Credit Analyst and Mathieu Savary, author of Foreign Exchange Strategy. This report discusses the long-term outlook for the dollar and argues that the greenback is in a structural downtrend. Cyclically too, the dollar is likely to continue to soften. However, despite this negative multi-year view on the USD, BCA still sees a high probability of a dollar rebound in 2018. This move would therefore be a countertrend bounce. Best regards, John Canally, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy In this Special Report, we review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar. The long-term structural downtrend in the dollar is intact. This trend reflects both a slower underlying pace of U.S. productivity growth relative to the rest of the world and a persistent external deficit. The U.S. shortfall on its net international investment position, now at about 40% of GDP, is likely to continue growing in the coming decades. Fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, but the situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding sustainability. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see little reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are some parallels today with the Nixon era, but we do not expect the same outcome for the dollar. The Fed is unlikely to make the same mistake as it made in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There are risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. While the underlying trend in the dollar is down, cyclical factors are likely to see it appreciate on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Growth momentum, which moved in favor of the major non-U.S. currencies in 2017, should shift in the greenback's favor this year. U.S. fiscal stimulus is bullish the dollar, despite the fact that this will worsen the current account balance. Additional protectionist measures should also support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. Feature The U.S. dollar just can't seem to get any respect even in the face of a major fiscal expansion that is sure to support U.S. growth. Nonetheless, there are a lot of moving parts to consider besides fiscal stimulus: a tightening Fed, accumulating government debt, geopolitical tension and growing trade protectionism among others. The interplay of all these various forces can easily create confusion about the currency outlook. Textbook economic models show that the currency should appreciate in the face of stimulative fiscal policy and rising tariffs, at least in the short term, not least because U.S. interest rates should rise relative to other countries. However, one could also equate protectionism and a larger fiscally-driven external deficit with a weaker dollar. Which forces will dominate? In this Special Report, we sort out the moving parts. We review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar in the short- and long-term. Tariffs And The Dollar Let's start with import tariffs. In theory, higher tariffs should be positive for the currency as long as there is no retaliation. The amount spent on imports will fall as consumer spending is re-directed toward domestically-produced goods and services. A lower import bill means the country does not need to export as much to finance its imports, leading to dollar appreciation (partially offsetting the competitive advantage that the tariff provides). Tariffs also boost inflation temporarily, which means that higher U.S. real interest rates should also lift the dollar to the extent that the Fed responds with tighter policy. Chart 1At Full Employment,##BR##Import Tariffs Raise Rates U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? That said, the tariffs recently announced by the Trump Administration are small potatoes in the grand scheme. The U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. The positive impact on U.S. growth is also modest as the tariffs benefit only two industries, and higher domestic prices for steel and aluminum undermine U.S. consumers of these two metals. A unilateral tariff increase could be mildly growth-positive if there is no retaliation by trading partners. This was the result of a Bank of Canada study, which found that much of the growth benefits from a higher import tariff are offset by an appreciation of the currency.1 Even a short-term growth boost is not guaranteed. A detailed analysis of the 2002 Bush steel tariff increase found that the import tax killed many more jobs than it created.2 Shortages forced some U.S. steel-consuming firms to source the metal offshore, while others made their steel suppliers absorb the higher costs, leading to job losses. A recent IMF3 study employed a large macro-economic model to simulate the impact of a 10% across-the-board U.S. import tariff without any retaliation. It found that tariffs place upward pressure on domestic interest rates, especially if the economy is already at full employment (Chart 1). This is because the central bank endeavors to counter the inflationary impact with higher interest rates. However, a stronger currency and higher interest rates eventually cool the economy and the Fed is later forced to ease policy. This puts the whole process into reverse as interest rate differentials fall and the dollar weakens. The economic outcome would be much worse if U.S. trading partners were to retaliate and the situation degenerates into a full-fledged trade war involving a growing number of industries. In theory, the dollar would not rise as much if there is retaliation because foreign tariffs on U.S. exports are offsetting in terms of relative prices. But all countries lose in this scenario. China is considering only a small retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs as we go to press, but the trade dispute has the potential to really heat up. The bottom line is that the Trump tariffs are more likely to lead to a stronger dollar than a weaker one, although far more would have to be done to see any meaningful impact. Fiscal Stimulus And The Dollar Traditional economic theory suggests that fiscal stimulus is also positive for the currency in the short term. The boost in aggregate demand worsens the current account balance, since some of the extra government spending is satisfied by foreign producers. The U.S. dollar appreciates as interest rates increase relative to the other major countries, attracting capital inflows. The currency appreciation thus facilitates the necessary adjustment (deterioration) in the current account balance. The impact on interest rates is similar to the tariff shock shown in Chart 1. All of the above market and economic adjustments should be accentuated when the economy is already at full employment. Since the domestic economy is short of spare capacity, a vast majority of the extra spending related to fiscal stimulus must be imported. Moreover, the Fed would have to respond even more aggressively to the extent that inflationary pressures are greater when the economy is running hot. The result would be even more upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Reality has not supported the theory so far. The U.S. dollar weakened after the tax cuts were passed, and it did not even get a lift following the Senate spending plan that was released in February. The broad trade-weighted dollar has traded roughly sideways since mid-2017. Judging by the market reaction to the fiscal news, it appears that investors are worried about a potential replay of the so-called Nixon shock, when fiscal stimulus exacerbated the 'twin deficits' problem, investors lost confidence in policymakers and the dollar fell. Twin deficits refers to a period when the federal budget deficit and the current account deficit are deteriorating at the same time. Chart 2 highlights that the late 1960s/early 1970s was the last time that the federal government stimulated the economy at a time when the economy was already at full employment. Seeing the parallels today, some investors are concerned the dollar will decline as it did in the early 1970s. Chart 2A Replay Of The Nixon Years? A Replay Of The Nixon Years? A Replay Of The Nixon Years? Current Account And Budget Balances Often Diverge... Chart 3Twin Deficits And The Dollar Twin Deficits And The Dollar Twin Deficits And The Dollar The two deficits don't always shift in the same direction. In fact, Chart 3 highlights that they usually move in opposite directions through the business cycle. This is not surprising because the current account usually improves in a recession as imports contract more than exports, but the budget deficit rises as tax revenues wither. The process reverses when the economy recovers. The current account balance equals the government financial balance (i.e. budget deficit) plus the private sector financial balance (savings less investment spending). Thus, swings in the latter mean that the current account can move independently of the budget deficit. Even when the two deficits move in the same direction, there has been no clear historical relationship between the sum of the fiscal and current account balances and the value of the trade-weighted dollar (shaded periods in Chart 3). In the early 1980s, the twin deficits exploded on the back of the Reagan tax cuts and the military buildup, but the dollar strengthened. In contrast, the dollar weakened in the early 2000s, a period when the twin deficits rose in response to the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and a booming housing market. ...But Generally Fiscal Expansion Undermines The Current Account Over long periods, a sustained rise in the fiscal deficit is generally associated with a sustained deterioration in the external balance. Numerous academic studies have found that every 1 percentage-point rise in the budget deficit worsens the current account balance by an average of 0.2-0.3 percentage points over the medium term. One study found that the current account deteriorates by an extra 0.2 percentage points if the fiscal stimulus arrives at a time when the economy is at full employment (i.e. an additional 0.2 percentage points over-and-above the 0.2-0.3 average response, for a total of 0.4 to 0.5).4 Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment today, these estimates imply that the expected two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline over 2018 and 2019 could add almost a full percentage point to the U.S. current account deficit (from around 3% of GDP currently to 4%). It could be even worse over the next couple of years because the private sector is likely to augment the government sector's drain on national savings. The mini capital spending boom currently underway will lift imports and thereby contribute to a further widening in the U.S. external deficit position. Chart 4Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Nonetheless, theory supports the view that the dollar will rise in the face of fiscal stimulus, at least in the near term, even if this is accompanied by a rising external deficit. Theory gets fuzzier in terms of the long-term outlook for the currency. However, the traditional approach to the balance of payments suggests that the equilibrium value of the dollar will eventually fall. An ongoing current account deficit will accumulate into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt that must be serviced. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart 4). The dollar will eventually have to depreciate in order to generate a trade surplus large enough to allow the U.S. to cover the extra interest payments on its growing stock of foreign debt. The structural depreciation of the U.S. dollar observed since the early 1980s supports the theory, because it has trended lower along with the NIIP/GDP ratio. However, the downtrend probably also reflects other structural factors. For example, U.S. output-per-employee has persistently fallen relative to its major trading partners for decades (Chart 4, third panel). The bottom line is that, while the dollar is likely to remain in a structural downtrend, it should receive at least a short-term boost from the combination of fiscal stimulus and higher tariffs. What could cause the dollar to buck the theory and depreciate even in the near term? We see three main scenarios in which the dollar could fall on a 12-month investment horizon. (1) Strong Growth Outside The U.S. First, growth momentum favored Europe, Japan and some of the other major countries relative to the U.S. in 2017. This helps to explain dollar weakness last year because the currency tends to underperform when growth surprises favor other countries in relative terms. It is possible that momentum will remain a headwind for the dollar this year. Nonetheless, this is not our base case. European and Japanese growth appears to be peaking, while fiscal stimulus should give the U.S. economy a strong boost this year and next. (2) A Lagging Fed The Fed will play a major role in the dollar's near-term trend. The Fed could fail to tighten in the face of accelerating growth and falling unemployment, allowing inflation and inflation expectations to ratchet higher. If investors come to believe that the Fed will remain behind-the-curve, rising long-term inflation expectations would depress real interest rates and thereby knock the dollar down. This was part of the story in the Nixon years. Under pressure from the Administration, then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns failed to respond to rising inflation, contributing to a major dollar depreciation from 1968 to 1974. We see this risk as a very low-probability event. Today's Fed acts much more independently of Congress beyond its dual commitment on inflation and unemployment. And, given that the economy is at full employment, there is nothing stopping the FOMC from acting to preserve its 2% inflation target if it appears threatened. Chair Powell is new and untested, but we doubt he and the rest of the Committee will be influenced by any political pressure to keep rates unduly low as inflation rises. Even Governor Brainard, a well-known dove, has shifted in a hawkish direction recently. President Trump would have to replace the entire FOMC in order to keep interest rates from rising. We doubt he will try. (3) Long-Run Sustainability Concerns It might be the case that the deteriorating outlook for the NIIP undermines the perceived long-run equilibrium value of the currency so much that it overwhelms the impact of rising U.S. interest rates and causes the dollar to weaken even in the near term. This scenario would likely require a complete breakdown in confidence in current and future Administrations to avoid a runaway government debt situation. Historically, countries with large and growing NIIP shortfalls tend to have weakening currencies. The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. One could argue that the external deficit represents the U.S. "living beyond its means," because it consumes more than it produces. Another school of thought is that global savings are plentiful, and investors seek markets that are deep, liquid and offer a high expected rate of return. Indeed, China has willingly plowed a large chunk of its excess savings into U.S. assets since 2000. If the U.S. is an attractive place to invest, then we should not be surprised that the country runs a persistent trade deficit and capital account surplus. But even taking the more positive side of this debate, there are limits to how long the current situation can persist. The large stock of financial obligations implies flows of income payments and receipts - interest, dividends and the like - that must be paid out of the economy's current production. This might grow to be large enough to significantly curtail U.S. consumption and investment. At some point, foreign investors may begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We are not suggesting that foreign investors will suddenly dump their U.S. stocks and bonds. Rather, they may demand a higher expected rate of return in order to accept a rising allocation to U.S. assets. This would imply that the dollar will fall sharply so that it has room to appreciate and thereby lift the expected rate of return for foreign investors from that point forward. Chart 5 shows that a 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. Any deficit above this level would imply a rapidly deteriorating situation. A 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040. The fact that the current account averaged 4.6% in the 2000s and 2½% since 2010 confirms that the NIIP is unlikely to stabilize unless major macroeconomic adjustments are made (see below). Chart 5Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Academic research is inconclusive on how large the U.S. NIIP could become before there are serious economic consequences and/or foreign investors begin to revolt. Exorbitant Privilege The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The U.S. is also able to get away with offering foreign investors a lower return on their investment in the U.S. than U.S. investors receive on their foreign investment. Chart 6 provides a proxy for these two returns. Relatively safe, but low yielding, fixed-income investments are a large component of foreign investments in the U.S., while U.S. investors favor equities and other assets that have a higher expected rate of return when investing abroad (Chart 7). This gap increased after the Great Recession as U.S. interest rates fell by more than the return U.S. investors received on their foreign assets. Today's gap, at almost 1½ percentage points, is well above the 1 percentage point average for the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. Chart 6U.S. Investors Harvest##BR##Higher Returns U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns Chart 7Composition Of Net International##BR##Investment Position U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? A yield gap of 1.5 percentage points may not sound like much, but it has been enough that the U.S. enjoys a positive net inflow of private investment income of about 1.2% of GDP, despite the fact that foreign investors hold far more U.S. assets than the reverse (Chart 6, top panel). In Chart 8 we simulate the primary investment balance based on a persistent 3% of GDP current account deficit and under several scenarios for the investment yield gap. Perhaps counterintuitively, the primary investment surplus that the U.S. currently enjoys will actually rise slightly as a percent of GDP if the yield gap remains near 1½ percentage points. This is because, although the NIIP balance becomes more negative over time, U.S. liabilities are not growing fast enough relative to its assets to offset the yield differential. Chart 8Primary Investment Balance Simulations Primary Investment Balance Simulations Primary Investment Balance Simulations However, some narrowing in the yield gap is likely as the Fed raises interest rates. Historically, the gap does not narrow one-for-one with Fed rate hikes because the yield on U.S. investments abroad also rises. Assuming that the yield gap returns to the pre-Lehman average of 1 percentage point over the next three years, the primary investment balance would decline, but would remain positive. Only under the assumption that the yield gap falls to 50 basis points or lower would the primary balance turn negative (Chart 8, bottom panel). Crossing the line from positive to negative territory on investment income is not necessarily a huge red flag for the dollar, but it would signal that foreign debt will begin to impinge on the U.S. standard of living. That said, the yield gap will have to deteriorate significantly for this to happen anytime soon. What Drives The Major Swings In The Dollar? While the dollar has been in a structural bear market for many decades, there have been major fluctuations around the downtrend. Since 1980, there have been three major bull phases and two bear markets (bull phases are shaded in Chart 9). These major swings can largely be explained by shifts in U.S./foreign differentials for short-term interest rates, real GDP growth and productivity growth. A model using these three variables explains most of the cyclical swings in the dollar, as the dotted line in the top panel of Chart 9 reveals. Chart 9U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors The peaks and troughs do not line up perfectly, but periods of dollar appreciation were associated with rising U.S. interest rates relative to other countries, faster relative U.S. real GDP growth, and improving U.S. relative productivity growth. Since the Great Recession, rate differentials have moved significantly in favor of the dollar, although U.S. relative growth improved a little as well. Productivity trends have not been a factor in recent years. Note that the current account has been less useful in identifying the cyclical swings in the dollar. Looking ahead, we expect short-term interest rate differentials to shift further in favor of the U.S. dollar. We assume that the Fed will hike rates three additional times in 2018 and another three next year. The Bank of Japan will stick with its current rate and 10-year target for the foreseeable future. The ECB may begin the next rate hike campaign by mid-2019, but will proceed slowly thereafter. We expect rate differentials to widen by more than is discounted in the market. As discussed above, we also expect growth momentum to swing back in favor of the U.S. economy in 2018. U.S. productivity growth will continue to underperform the rest-of-world average over the medium and long term. Nonetheless, we expect a cyclical upturn in relative productivity performance that should also support the greenback for the next year or two. Conclusion Reducing the U.S. structural external deficit to a sustainable level would require significant macro-economic adjustments that seem unlikely for the foreseeable future. We would need to see some combination of a higher level of the U.S. household saving rate, a balanced Federal budget balance or better, and/or much stronger growth among U.S. trading partners. In other words, the U.S. would have to become a net producer of goods and services, and either Europe or Asia would have to become a net consumer of goods and services. Current trends do not favor such a role reversal. Indeed, the U.S. twin deficits are sure to move in the wrong direction for at least the next two years. Longer-term, pressure on the federal budget deficit will only intensify with the aging of the population. The shortfall in terms of net foreign assets will continue to grow, which means that the long-term structural downtrend in the trade-weighted value of the dollar will persist. Other structural factors, such as international productivity trends, also point to a long-term dollar depreciation. It seems incongruous that the U.S. dollar is the largest reserve currency and that U.S. is the world's largest international debtor. The situation is perhaps perpetuated by the lack of an alternative, but this could change over time as concerns over the long-run viability of the Eurozone ebb and the Chinese renminbi gains in terms of international trade. The transition could take decades. The U.S. twin-deficits situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is anywhere close to the point where investors would begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see no reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are other risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. In 2018, we expect the dollar to partially unwind last year's weakness on the back of positive cyclical forces. Additional protectionist measures should support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 A Wave of Protectionism? An Analysis of Economic and Political Considerations. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2008-2. Philipp Maier. 2 The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002. Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman. February 4, 2003. 3 See footnote to Chart 1. 4 Fiscal Policy and the Current Account. Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 7859 September 16, 2010.