China

Highlights President Trump is as protectionist as Candidate Trump; USD shortage to tighten global financial conditions; Go Long MXN/RMB as a tactical play on U.S.-China trade war; Brexit risks are now overstated; EU will not twist the knife. EUR/GBP is overbought; go short. Feature "We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it's going to be America First." U.S. President Donald Trump, January 20, 2017, Inaugural Address What are the investment implications of an "America First" world? First, it may be useful to visualize the "America Second" world that President Trump is looking to leave in the rear-view mirror. Chart 1 shows the cost of hegemony. Since the Nixon shock in 1971, the U.S. has seen its trade balance deepen and its military commitments soar, in absolute terms. For President Donald Trump, the return on American investment has been low. Wasteful wars, crumbling infrastructure, decaying factories, stagnant wages, this is what the U.S. has to show for two decades of hegemony. Chart 1United States: The Cost Of Hegemony On the other hand, the U.S. has enjoyed the exorbitant privilege of its hegemonic position. In at least one major sense, America's allies (and China) are already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets. Chart 2 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege." Despite a deeply negative net international investment position, the U.S. has a positive net investment income.1 Chart 2The "Exorbitant Privilege" Being the global hegemon effectively lowers U.S. borrowing costs and domestic interest rates, giving U.S. policymakers and consumers an "interest rate they do not deserve." That successive administrations decided to waste this privilege on redrawing the map of the Middle East and giving the wealthiest Americans massive tax cuts, instead of rebuilding Middle America, is hardly the fault of the rest of the world! Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability and deep liquidity of the market, and the perceived stability of its political system. More importantly, they hold U.S. assets because the U.S. acts as both a global defender and a consumer of last resort. If Washington were to raise barriers to its markets and become a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and decide to diversify more rapidly. Investors can interpret Trump's "America First" agenda broadly as an effort to dramatically reduce the U.S. current account deficit. Certainly we see his statements on renegotiating NAFTA, facing off against China on trade, and encouraging U.S. exports with tax legislation as parts of a broad effort aimed at improving the U.S. trade balance. If the U.S. were to pursue these protectionist policies aggressively, the end result would be a massive shortage of U.S. dollars globally, a form of global financial tightening. The rest of the world is not blind to the dangers of an America focused on reducing its current account deficit. According to the reporting of Der Spiegel magazine, Chancellor Angela Merkel sent several delegations to meet with the Trump team starting in 2015! No doubt Berlin was nervous hearing candidate Trump's protectionist talk, given that Germany runs one of the largest trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In the last such meeting, taking place after the election was decided, Trump's son-in-law and White House advisor, Jared Kushner, asked the Germans a point-blank question, "What can you do for us?"2 In the 1980s, the U.S. asked West Germany and Japan the same question. The result was the 1985 Plaza Accord that engineered the greenback's depreciation versus the deutschmark and the yen (Chart 4). Recent comments from Donald Trump suggest that he would like to follow a similar script, where dollar depreciation does the heavy lifting in adjusting the country's current account deficit.3 Chart 3Trump's Black List Chart 4The Impact Of The Plaza Accord The Trump administration may have dusted off the Reagan playbook from the 1980s, but the world is playing a different game in 2017. First, the Soviet Union no longer exists and certainly no longer has more than 70,000 tanks ready to burst through the "Fulda Gap" towards Frankfurt. President Trump will find China, Germany, and Japan less willing to help the U.S. close its current account deficit, particularly if Trump continues his rhetorical assault on everything from European unity to Japanese security to the One China policy. Second, China, not U.S. allies Germany and Japan, has the largest trade surplus with the U.S. It is very difficult to see Beijing agreeing to a coordinated currency appreciation of the RMB, particularly when it is being threatened with a showdown over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Third, even if China wanted to kowtow to the Trump administration, it is not clear that RMB appreciation can be engineered. The country's capital outflows have swelled to a record level of $205 billion (Chart 5) and the PBoC has continued to inject RMB into the banking system via outright lending to banks and open-market operations (Chart 6). Unlike Japan in 1985, China is at the peak of its leveraging cycle and thus unwilling to see its currency - and domestic interest rates - appreciate. At best, Beijing can continue to fight capital outflows and close its capital account. But even this creates a paradox, since the U.S. administration can accuse it of currency manipulation even if such manipulation is preventing, not enabling, currency depreciation!4 Chart 5China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows Chart 6PBoC Injects Massive Liquidity To conclude, the world is (re)entering a mercantilist era and sits at the Apex of Globalization.5 The new White House is almost singularly focused on bringing the U.S. current account deficit down. It intends to do this by means of three primary tools: Protectionism: The Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed a "destination-based border adjustment tax," which would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. (It would levy the corporate tax on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs, thus giving a rebate to exporters who make revenues abroad while incurring costs domestically.)6 While the proponents of the new tax system argue it is equivalent to the VAT systems in G7 economies, the change would nonetheless undermine America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." In our view, it would be the opening salvo of a global trade war. Dirigisme: President Trump has not shied away from directly intervening to keep corporate production inside the U.S. He has also insisted on a vague proposal to impose a 35% "border tax" on U.S. corporates that manufacture abroad for domestic consumption. (Details are scant: His Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has denied an across-the-board tax of this nature, but has confirmed that one would apply to specific companies.) Structural Demands: Trump's approach suggests that he wishes to force structural changes on trade surplus economies in order to correct structural imbalances in the American economy - and in this process he is not adverse to lobbing strategic threats. While he holds out the possibility of charging China with currency manipulation, in fact he can draw from a whole sheet of American trade grievances not limited to the currency to demand major changes to their trade relationship. The fundamental problem for the global economy is that in order to reduce the U.S. current account deficit, the world must experience severe global tightening. Dollars held by U.S. multinationals abroad, which finance global credit markets, will come back to the U.S. and tighten liquidity abroad. And emerging market corporate borrowers who have overextended themselves borrowing in U.S. dollars will struggle to repay debts in appreciating dollars. These structural trends are set to exacerbate an already ongoing cyclical process. As BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has recently pointed out, global demand for U.S. dollars is rising faster than the supply of U.S. dollars.7 Our EM team's first measure of U.S. dollar liquidity is "the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for official and international accounts." The second measure "is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreign residents." As Chart 7 and Chart 8 illustrate, both calculations indicate that dollar liquidity is in a precipitous decline already. Meanwhile, foreign official holdings of U.S. Treasury securities is contracting, while the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreigners has stalled (Chart 9). Chart 7Dollar Liquidity Declining... Chart 8... Any Way You Look At It Chart 9Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Chart 10It Hurts To Borrow In USD Concurrently, U.S. dollar borrowing costs continue to rise (Chart 10). Our EM team expects EM debtors with U.S. dollar liabilities to either repay U.S. dollar debt or hedge it. This will ultimately increase the demand for U.S. dollars in the months ahead. Near-term U.S. dollar appreciation will only reinforce and accelerate the mercantilist push in the White House and Congress. President Trump and the GOP in the House will find common ground on the border-adjustment tax, which Trump recently admitted he did not understand or look favorably upon. The passage of the law, or some such equivalent, has a much greater chance than investors expect. So does a U.S.-China trade war, as we argued last week.8 How should investors position themselves for the confluence of geopolitical, political, and financial factors we have described above? The world is facing both the cyclical liquidity crunch that BCA's Emerging Markets Team has elucidated and the potential for a secular tightening as the Trump administration focuses its efforts on closing the U.S. current account deficit. Five investment implications are top of our mind: Chart 11Market Response To Trump Win On High End Chart 12Market Is Priced For 'Magnificent' Events Buy VIX. The S&P 500 has continued to power on since the election, buoyed by positive economic surprises, strong global earnings, and the hope of a pro-business shift in the White House. The equity market performance puts the Trump presidency in the upper range of post-election market outcomes (Chart 11). However, with 10-year Treasuries back above fair value, the VIX near 12, and EM equities near their pre-November high, the market is pricing none of the political and geopolitical risks of an impending trade war between the U.S. and China, nor is it pricing the general mercantilist shift in Washington D.C. (Chart 12). As a result, we recommend that clients put on a "mercantilist hedge," like deep out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts, or VIX calls. For instance, a long VIX 20/25 call spread for March expiry. Long DM / Short EM. Mercantilism and the U.S. dollar bull market are the worst combination possible for EM risk assets. We therefore reiterate our long-held strategic recommendation of being long developed markets / short emerging markets. Overweight Euro Area Equities. Investors should overweight euro area equities relative to the U.S. As we have discussed in the 2017 Strategic Outlook, political risks in Europe this year are a red herring.9 We will expand on the upcoming French elections in next week's report. Meanwhile, investors appear complacent about protectionism and what it may mean for the S&P 500, which sources 44% of its earnings abroad. European companies, on the other hand, could stand to profit from a China-U.S. trade war. Chart 13Peso Is A Buy Versus Trump's Enemy #1 Chart 14Peso As Cheap As During Tequila Crisis Long MXN/RMB. As a tactical play on the U.S.-China trade war, we recommend clients go long MXN/RMB (Chart 13). The peso is now as cheap as it was in early 1995, at the heights of the Tequila Crisis, as per the BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy model (Chart 14). While Mexico remains squarely in Trump's crosshairs on immigration and security, the damage to the currency appears to be done and has ironically made the country's exports more competitive. In addition, Trump's pick for Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has informed his NAFTA counterparts that "rules of origin" will be central to NAFTA re-negotiation. This can be interpreted as the U.S. using every tool at its disposal to impose punitive measures on China, including forcing NAFTA partners to close off the "rules of origin" loophole.10 But the reality is that the U.S. trade deficit with its NAFTA partners is far less daunting than that with China (Chart 15). Meanwhile, we remain negative on the RMB for fundamental reasons that we have stressed in our research. Small Is Beautiful. We continue to recommend that clients find protection from rising protectionism in small caps. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, also points out that small caps in the U.S. will benefit as the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, which will benefit small caps disproportionally to large caps given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies will benefit most from any cuts in regulations, most of which have been written by multinationals in order to create barriers to entry (Chart 16). Of course, we could just be paranoid! After all, much of Trump's proposed policies - massive tax cuts, infrastructure spending, major rearmament, the border wall - would increase domestic spending and thus widen the current account deficit, not shrink it. And all the protectionism and de-globalization could just be posturing by the Trump administration, both to get a better deal from China and Europe and to give voters in the Midwest some political red meat. Chart 15China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Chart 16Small Is Beautiful But Geopolitical Strategy analysts get paid to be paranoid! And we worry that much of Trump's promises that would widen U.S. deficits are being watered down or pushed to the background. Yes, we have held a high conviction view that infrastructure spending would come through, but now it appears that it will be complemented with significant spending cuts. The next 100 days will tell us which prerogatives the Trump Administration favors: rebuilding America directly, or doing so indirectly via protectionism. If the former, then the current market rally is justified. If the intention is to reduce the current account deficit, look out. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Brexit: A Brave New World Miranda: O brave new world! Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. — Shakespeare, The Tempest The U.K. Supreme Court ruled on January 24 that parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which enables the U.K. to "exit" the European Union. This decision, as well as Theresa May's January 17 "Brexit means exit" speech, caught us in London while visiting clients. Reactions were mixed. The pound continues to rally. January 16 remains the low point in the GBP/USD cross since the vote to leave on June 23 last year (Chart 17). Chart 17Has Brexit Uncertainty Bottomed? Should investors expect more downside to the pound or do the recent events mark a bottom in political uncertainty? The market consensus suggests that further volatility in the pound is warranted for three reasons: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Prime Minister May's assertion that the U.K. would seek to exit the common market is negative for the country's economy; Legal uncertainties about Brexit remain. We disagree with this assessment, at least in the short and medium term. Therefore, the pound rally on the day of May's speech was warranted, although we agree that exiting the EU Common Market will ultimately be suboptimal for the country's economy. First, by setting out a clean break from the EU, including the common market, Prime Minister May has removed a considerable amount of political uncertainty. As we pointed out in our original net assessment of Brexit, leaving the EU while remaining in its common market is illogical.11 Paradoxically, the U.K. stood to lose rather than regain sovereignty if it left the EU yet remained in the common market (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Quite Un-British Lack Of Common Sense Behind Soft Brexit Why? Because membership in the common market entails a financial burden, full adoption of the acquis communautaire (the EU body of law), and acceptance of the "Four Freedoms," including the freedom of movement of workers. Given that the Brexit vote was largely motivated by concerns of sovereignty and immigration (Chart 18), it did not make sense to vote to leave the EU and then seek to retain membership in the common market. Apparently May and her cabinet agree. Chart 18It's Sovereignty, Stupid! Second, now that the U.K. has chosen to depart from the common market, the EU no longer needs to take as hostile of a negotiating position as before. The EU member states were not going to let the U.K. dictate its own terms of membership. That would have set a precedent for future Euroskeptic governments looking for an alternative relationship with the bloc, i.e. the so-called "Europe, à la carte" that European policymakers dread. But now that the U.K. is asking for a clean exit, with a free trade agreement to be negotiated in lieu of common market membership, the EU has less reason to punish London. An FTA arrangement will be beneficial to EU exporters, who want access to the U.K. market, and it will send a message to Euroskeptics on the continent that there is no alternative to full membership. Leaving the EU means leaving the market and falling back - at best - to an FTA-level relationship that the EU shares with Mexico and (most recently) Canada. Third, leaving the EU and the common market are political, not legal, decisions, and the lingering legal battles are neither avoidable nor likely to be substantive. Theresa May had already stolen thunder when she said that the final deal with the EU would be put to a vote in parliament. The Supreme Court ruling - as well as other legal hangups - could conceivably give rise to complications that bind the government's hands, but most likely parliament will pass a simple bill or motion granting permission for the government to invoke Article 50. That is because the referendum, and public opinion since then, speak loud and clear (Chart 19). The Conservative Party remains in a comfortable lead over the Labour Party (Chart 20), which itself is not opposing the referendum outcome. In addition, the House of Commons has already approved the government's Brexit timetable by a margin of 372 seats in a 650-seat body - with 461 ayes. That is a stark contrast with a few months ago when around 494 MPs were said to be against Brexit. Chart 19No 'Bremorse' Or 'Bregret' Chart 20Tories Still Triumphant The bigger question comes down to the parliamentary vote on the deal that is to be negotiated over the next two years. Could the Parliament vote down the final agreement with the EU? Absolutely. However, it is unlikely. The economic calamity predicted by many commentators has not happened, as we discuss below. Bottom Line: The combination of the Supreme Court decision and Prime Minister May's speech has reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The EU will negotiate hard with the U.K., but the main cause of consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - is now off the table. Yes, the EU does hold all the cards when it comes to negotiating an FTA agreement, and the process could entail some alarming twists and turns (given the last-minute crisis in the EU-Canada FTA). But we do not expect EU-U.K. negotiations to imperil the pound dramatically beyond what we've already seen. Will Leaving The Common Market Hurt Britain? Does this mean that Brexit is "much ado about nothing?" In the short and medium term, we think the answer is yes. In the long-term, leaving the EU Common Market is a suboptimal outcome for three reasons: Trade - Net exports rarely contribute positively to U.K. growth (Chart 21) and the trade deficit with the EU is particularly deep. As such, proponents of Brexit claim that putting up modest trade barriers against the EU could be beneficial. However, the U.K. has a services trade surplus with the EU (Chart 22). While it is not as large as the trade deficit, there was hope that the eventual implementation of the 2006 EU's Services Directive would have opened up new markets for U.K.'s highly competitive services industry and thus reduced the trade deficit over time. As the bottom panel of Chart 22 shows, the U.K.'s service exports to the rest of the world have outpaced those to the EU, suggesting that there is much room for improvement. This hope is now dashed and the EU may go back to putting up non-tariff barriers to services that reverse Britain's modest surplus with the bloc. Free Trade Agreements rarely adequately cover services, which means that the U.K.'s hope of expanding service exports to a new high is probably gone. Chart 21U.K. Is Consumer-Driven Chart 22Service Exports At Risk After Brexit Foreign Investment - FDI is declining, whether for cyclical reasons or because foreign companies fear losing access to Europe via the U.K. It remains to be seen how FDI will respond to the U.K.'s renunciation of the common market, but it is unlikely to be positive (Chart 23). The U.K.'s financial sector will also be negatively impacted since leaving the common market will mean that London will no longer have recourse to the EU judiciary in order to stymie European protectionism.12 This is unlikely to destroy London's status as the global financial center, but it will impact FDI on the margin. Labor Growth - The loss of labor inflow will be the biggest cost of Brexit. A decrease of immigration from the EU could reduce the U.K.'s labor force growth by a maximum of two-thirds, translating to a 25% loss in the potential GDP growth rate (Chart 24). While the U.K. is not, in fact, closing off all immigration, labor-force growth will decline, and potential GDP with it. Chart 23FDI To Suffer From Brexit? Chart 24Labor Growth Suffers Most From Brexit In addition, the EU Common Market forces companies to compete for market share in the developed world's largest consumer market. This competition is supposed to accelerate creative destruction and thus productivity, while giving the winners of the competition the spoils, i.e. a better ability to establish "economies of scale." In a 2011 report, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) published an econometric study that compared four scenarios: the U.K. remains in the common market as the EU fully liberalizes trade; the U.K. remains in the EU's single market, but does not fully liberalize trade with the rest of the EU; the U.K. leaves the common market; the U.K. enters NAFTA.13 Of the four scenarios, only the first leads to an increase in wealth for the U.K., with 7.1% additional GDP over ten years. U.K. exports would increase by 47%, against 38.1% for its imports. Wages of both skilled and unskilled workers would increase as well. Meanwhile, the report finds that closer integration with NAFTA would not compensate for looser U.K. ties with the EU. In fact, the U.K. national income would be 7.4% smaller if the U.K. tied up with NAFTA instead of taking part in further trade liberalization on the continent. Why rely on a 2011 report for the assessment of benefits of the common market? Because it was written by a competent, relatively unbiased international body and predates the highly politicized environment surrounding Brexit that has since infected almost all think-tank research. And yet the more recent research echoes the 2011 report in terms of the negative consequences of leaving the common market.14 In addition, the BIS study actually attempts to forecast the benefit of further removing trade barriers in the single market, which is at least the intention of the EU Commission. That said, our concerns regarding the U.K. economy are long-term. It may take years before the full economic impact of leaving the common market can be assessed. In addition, much of our analysis hinges on the Europeans fully liberalizing the common market and removing the last remaining non-tariff barriers to trade, particularly of services. At the present-day level of liberalization, the U.K. may benefit by leaving. In addition, we do not expect a balance-of-payments crisis in the U.K. any time soon. The U.K. current account is deeply negative, unsurprisingly so given the deep trade imbalance with the EU and world. However, our colleague Mathieu Savary, Vice-President of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has pointed out that the elasticity of imports to the pound is in fact negative, a very surprising result. This reflects an extremely elevated import content of British exports. A lower pound is therefore unlikely to be the most crucial means of improving the current-account position. Certainly leaving the common market will not improve the competitiveness of British exports in the EU. Chart 25The U.K.'s Basic Balance Is Healthy But this raises a bigger question: why does the U.K. have to improve its current account deficit? As our FX team points out in Chart 25, despite having a current-account deficit of nearly 6% of GDP, the U.K. runs a basic balance-of-payments surplus of 12%, even after the recent fall in FDI inflows. The reason for the massive balance-of-payments surplus is the financial account surplus of 6.17% of GDP, a feature of the U.K. being a destination for foreign capital, which flows from its status as a global financial center and prime real estate destination. In other words, leaving the common market will not change the fundamentals of the U.K. balance of payments much. The country will remain a global financial center and will still run a capital account surplus, which will suppress the country's interest rates, buoy the GBP, and give tailwinds to imports of foreign goods. Meanwhile, exports will not benefit as they will face marginally higher tariffs as the country exits the EU Common Market. At best, new tariffs will be offset by a cheaper GBP. As such, leaving the common market is not going to be a disaster for the U.K. Nor will it be a panacea for the country's deep current account deficit. And that is okay. The U.K. will not face a crisis in funding its current account deficit. What is clear is that for the time being, the U.K. economy is holding up. Our forex strategists recently argued that U.K.'s growth has surprised to the upside and that the improvement is sustainable: Monetary and fiscal policy are both accommodative (Chart 26); Inflation is limited; Tight labor market drives up wages and puts cash in consumers' pockets (Chart 27); Credit growth remains robust (Chart 28). Chart 26Easy Money Smooths The Way To Brexit Chart 27British Labor Market Tightening Chart 28U.K. Credit Growth Looking Good This means that the political trajectory is set for the time being. "Bremorse" and "Bregret" will remain phantoms for the time being. Bottom Line: Leaving the common market is a suboptimal but not apocalyptic outcome for the U.K. The combination of decent economic performance and lowered political uncertainty in the near term will support the pound. Given the pound's 20% correction since the June referendum, we believe that the market has already priced in the new, marginally negative, post-Brexit paradigm. The Big Picture It is impossible to say whether the long-term negative economic effects of Brexit will affect voters drastically enough and quickly enough for Scotland, or parliament, to act in 2018 or 2019 and modify the government's decision to pursue a "Hard Brexit." It seems conceivable if something changes in the fundamental dynamics outlined above, but we wouldn't bet on it. At the moment even a new Scottish referendum appears unlikely (Chart 29). Scottish voters have soured on independence, perhaps due to a combination of continued political uncertainty in the EU (Scotland's political alternative to the U.K.) and a collapse in oil prices (arguably Scotland's economic alternative to the U.K.). The issue is not resolved but on ice for the time being. Chart 29Brexit Not Driving Scots To Independence (Yet) More likely, the government will get its way on Brexit and the 2020 elections will mark a significant popular test of the Conservative leadership and the final deal with the EU. Then the aftermath will be an entirely new ballgame for the U.K. and all four of its constituent nations. If Britain's new beginning is founded on protectionism and dirigisme - as the government suggests - then the public is likely to be disappointed. The "brave new world" of Brexit may prove to be rather mundane, disappointing, and eerily reminiscent of the ghastly 1970s.15 Hence the Shakespeare quote at the top of this report. The political circumstances of Brexit resemble the U.K. landscape before it joined the European Economic Community in 1973: greater government role in the economy, trade protectionism, tight labor market, higher wages, and inflation. Yet this was a period when the U.K. economy underperformed Europe's. The U.K.'s eventual era of outperformance was contingent on the structural reforms of the Thatcher era and expanded access to the European market (Chart 30). It remains to be seen what happens when the U.K. leaves the market and rolls back Thatcherite reforms. The weak pound and proactive fiscal policy will fail to create a manufacturing revolution. That is because most manufacturing has hollowed out because of automation, not foreign workers stealing Britons' jobs. Moreover, as for the pound, it is important to remember that currency effects are temporary and any boost to exports that the weak pound is generating will be short-lived, as with the case of China in the 1990s and the EU in the past two years (Chart 31). Chart 30U.K. Growth To Lag Europe's Once Again? Chart 31Export Boost From Devaluation Is Fleeting In addition, we would argue that, in an environment of de-globalization - in which tariffs are rising, albeit slowly for the time being (Chart 32) - the EU Common Market provides Europe with a mechanism by which to protect its vast consumer market. The U.K. may have chosen the precisely wrong time in which to abandon the protection of continental European protectionism. It could suffer by finding itself on the outside of the common market as global tariffs begin to rise significantly. Chart 32Protectionism On The March What about the restoration of the "Special Relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S.? Could moving to the "front of the queue" on negotiating an FTA with the world's largest economy make a difference for the U.K.? Perhaps, but as the BIS study above indicates, an FTA with North America or the U.S. alone is unlikely to replace the benefits of the common market. In addition, it is difficult to imagine how a protectionist U.S. administration that is looking to massively decrease its current account deficit will help the U.K. expand trade with the U.S. By contrast, Trump's election in the United States poses massive risks to globalization, both through his protectionism and the strong USD implications of his core policies. This will reverberate negatively across the commodities and EM space. In such an environment, the U.K. may not be able to make much headway in its "Global Britain" initiatives to conclude fast trade deals with EM economies that stand to lose the most in the de-globalization era. Bottom Line: As a trading nation, the U.K. is likely to lose out in a prolonged period of de-globalization. Membership in the EU could have served as a bulwark against this global trend. Investment Implications We diverge from our colleagues in the Foreign Exchange Strategy and European Investment Strategy when it comes to the assessment of political risk looming over Brexit.16 The decision to leave the common market will alleviate the pressure on Europeans to seek vindictive punishment. Earlier, the U.K. was forcing them to choose between making an exception to the rules and demonstrating the negative consequences of leaving the bloc. Now the U.K. is self-evidently taking on its own punishment - the economic burden of leaving the common market - and the EU will probably deem that sufficient. Will the EU play tough? Yes, especially since the EU retains considerable economic leverage over Britain (Chart 33). But the stakes are far smaller now. Furthermore, investors should remember that core European states - especially France and Germany - remain major military allies of the U.K. and will continue to be deeply intertwined economically. As such, we believe that the pound has already priced in the new economic paradigm and that the expectations of political uncertainty ahead of the U.K.-EU negotiations may be overdone. We therefore recommend that investors short EUR/GBP outright. Our aforementioned forex strategist Mathieu Savary argues that, on an intermediate-term basis, the outlook for this cross is driven by interest rate differentials and policy considerations. Due to the balance-sheet operations conducted by the BoE and ECB, interest rates in the U.K. and the euro area do not fully reflect domestic policy stances. Instead, Mathieu uses the shadow rates. Currently, shadow rates unequivocally point toward a lower EUR/GBP (Chart 34). In fact, balance-sheet dynamics point toward shorting EUR/GBP. Chart 33EU Holds The Cards In FTA Negotiation Chart 34Shadow Rates Point To Stronger GBP For full disclosure, Mathieu cautions clients to wait on executing a short EUR/GBP until after Article 50 is enacted. By contrast, we think that political uncertainty regarding Brexit likely peaked on January 16. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive a much lower return on U.S. assets while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 2 Please see Spiegel Online, "Donald Trump and the New World Order," dated January 20, 2017, available at Spiegel.de. 3 In a widely-quoted interview with The Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump said that the U.S. dollar is "too strong." He continued that, "Our companies can't compete with [China] now because our currency is too strong. And it's killing us." Please see The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Warns on House Republican Tax Plan," dated January 16, 2017, available at wsj.com. 4 We would note that the Trump administration and its Treasury Department have considerable leeway over how they choose to interpret China's foreign exchange practices. In 1992, when the U.S. government last accused China of currency manipulation, it issued a warning in its spring report before leveling the accusation in the winter report. The RMB did not depreciate in the meantime but remained stable, and Treasury noted this approvingly; however, Treasury chose 1989 as the base level for its assessment, and found manipulation. The Trump administration could use much more aggressive interpretive methods than this to achieve its ends. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, and Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options," dated January 11, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Critics, including Trump supporters, claim that NAFTA sets too low of a threshold for the domestic content of a good deemed to have originated within the NAFTA countries. Goods that are nearly 40% foreign-made can thus be treated as NAFTA-made. This is one of many contentious points in the trade deal. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 In 2015, the U.K. took the ECB to court over its decision to require financial transactions denominated in euros to be conducted in the euro area, i.e. out of the City, and won. This avenue of legal redress will no longer be available for the U.K., allowing EU member states to slowly introduce rules and regulations that corral the financial industry - or at least to the parts focused on transactions in euros - out of London. 13 Please see Bank of International Settlements, "The economic consequences for the U.K. and the EU of completing the Single Market," BIS Economics Paper No. 11, dated February 2011, available at www.gov.uk. 14 Please see Her Majesty's Government, "H.M. Treasury Analysis: The Long-Term Economic Impact Of EU Membership And The Alternatives," Cmnd. 9250, April 2016, available at www.gov.uk. and Jagjit S. Chadha, "The Referendum Blues: Shocking The System," National Institute Economic Review 237 (August 2016), available at www.niesr.ac.uk. 15 We were going to use "grey" to describe Britain in the 1970s. However, our colleague Martin Barnes, BCA's Chief Economist, insisted that "grey" did not do the "ghastly" 1970s justice. When it comes to the U.K. in the 1970s, we are going to defer to Martin. 16 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “May’s Brexit Speech: No Substance,” dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Dear client, This week, we are sending you an abbreviated version of our weekly bulletin as we are also publishing a piece written by our colleague Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President for our Global Investment Strategy service. This report, titled “U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017”, deals in great details with the Republican tax plans. In this report, Peter analyses the economic and financial market implications of the plan and concludes it is likely to be an additional support to the dollar bull market if it gets implemented in full, but not one without repercussions. I trust you will find this report very interesting and relevant. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Feature After continuing to sell off, the dollar regained some composure toward the end of the week. Not only did an elevated CPI print for December contribute to this rally, but so did Fed Chair Janet Yellen's comment that the U.S. economy was getting closer to the FOMC objectives and that the Fed was now closer to being capable of raising rates multiple times a year between now and 2019. Chart 1Froth Had Dissipated##br## From Treasury Yields Additionally, we had been expecting a correction in the dollar as we worried that U.S. bond yields would retrace some of their ascent. The pullback materialized and U.S. bond yields traded in line with our fair value estimate earlier this week (Chart 1). This meant that much of the froth in the dollar had dissipated. Based on these developments, is it time to buy the dollar again? On a cyclical basis, the dollar will make new highs in 12-18 months. However, short-term considerations remain complex. There are two President Trump out there: "Good Trump" and "Bad Trump". Good Trump is a president that talks about deregulation and tax cuts as well as various stimulus measures. This is the president that turbo charged the dollar after the election on hopes of a stronger U.S. economy. Bad Trump is the campaign Trump, the populist president that wants to revive protectionism and that promotes acrimonious international relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world, China in particular. The markets had expected Good Trump to be the first Trump to emerge, yet, the new president seems to have elected to present his Bad Trump profile first. In a way, this makes sense. Trump is focusing on the more economically painful parts of his program, campaign promises wanted by his electorate. This way, Good Trump can swoosh in and save the day by helping the economy closer to the mid-term election in late 2018, in the aim of solidifying the Republican control of Congress. With the 10-year yield back above fair value, the VIX near 12, and EM equities near their pre-November high, the market is not pricing in any flare up of tensions with China, nor any deflationary shock that could emanate from such tensions (Chart 2). Investors were hoping that the talks of stimulus and deregulation would come first, instead they are getting a president that bullies corporations and build up tensions in Asia. The deflationary nature of the tension comes from the reality that while the Chinese economy has improved, China remains handicapped by a large debt load and a low demand for credit. It is ill equipped to handle foreign shocks. Moreover, the easing in Chinese monetary conditions will soon lose steam. Chinese monetary conditions eased because Chinese real rates fell from nearly 12% to -2% on the back of a powerful rebound in the Chinese producer prices (PPI) (Chart 3). This improvement in PPI was itself a byproduct of a rebound in commodity inflation. However, this rebound is soon behind us. Commodity prices troughed in Q1 2016, and have recently slowed their pace of ascent. This means that in the coming months, Chinese PPI will rollover as well and Chinese real borrowing costs will rise again (Chart 4). Chart 2All Must ##br##Go Well Chart 3Can Chinese Monetary ##br##Conditions Improve Further? Chart 4The Commodity Rebound Was A Key Factor##br## Behind The Chinese PPI Rebound This could prove problematic for China where loan demand remains very tepid, pointing to a potential down leg in Chinese industrial activity (Chart 5). This also raises the specter of renewed devaluation pressures on the Chinese yuan, as this would create another valve to alleviate deflationary pressures in the Chinese economy (Chart 6). Further RMB weakness would be welcomed neither by Trump, nor by the markets. Chart 5Chinese Loan Demand ##br##Remains Moribund Chart 6The RMB Is Another Relief Value For##br## Chinese Deflationary Pressures Taking all these factors into account, we remain warry of betting on a strong dollar against the euro and the yen in the coming weeks, at least not until bonds become cheap on our fair value gauge, reflecting these Chinese deflationary risks and a higher geopolitical risk premium. Chart 7EUR/GBP Is Misaligned##br## With Fundamentals Also, this means that we could see a dichotomy emerge between the narrow dollar (DXY) and the broad dollar. While lower bond yields are supportive of the euro and the yen, they do very little for EM and commodity currencies. In fact, EM and commodity currencies are highly leveraged to the Chinese economy and will be vulnerable to any flare up of tensions between China and the U.S., especially after currencies like the AUD and the CAD had already rallied 5% and 4% respectively since the last week of 2016. Thus, we would recommend investors favor risk-off currencies like the euro, the Swiss franc, and the yen at the expense of the AUD, NZD, CAD, and NOK. For the GBP, last week, we published an optimistic take on the British economy. We are looking to short EUR/GBP as rate differentials are still widely bearish of that cross (Chart 7). However, we warned that in anticipation of the actual triggering of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the GBP could come under duress. A risk-off event would only strengthen this case. Thus, we remain confident in our preferred strategy to short EUR/GBP once it hits 0.93. Bottom Line: The dollar correction is advanced but is now likely to become more differentiated. Tensions created by a protectionist and bellicose Trump are likely to push bonds into expensive territory. While the attending bond rally could support the euro, the Swiss franc, and the yen against the dollar, these same tensions are likely to support the dollar against EM and commodity currencies. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights China's supply-side structural reforms will focus mainly on its coal and steel markets this year. In addition, environmental policies will become stricter in 2017, as Beijing puts more weight on environmental protection than economic development. As as result, supply growth will slow, particularly in steel markets, which will be good news for global steel producers and bad news for iron ore exporters in Australia and Brazil. While we are more bearish on iron ore than steel due to supply-side reforms and stricter environmental policies, we remain cautious getting short iron ore, given the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures are backwardated (prompt prices exceed deferred prices). This indicates buyers are willing to pay more for prompt delivery (e.g., next week) than they are for deferred delivery (e.g., next year). Energy: Overweight. The Saudi-Russia production deal will slow the rate of growth in supply relative to demand, which will tighten physical markets. This will cause inventories to draw, and the backwardation in crude to deepen. Our long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI recommendation is up 700%. We are long at +$0.04/bbl, and will risk the spread going to -$0.05/bbl. We will take profits at $0.50/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. Supply-side reforms, coupled with environmental restrictions will slow the growth of steel production in China this year, benefiting producers ex-China. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold markets will become increasing volatile, with the Fed likely to keep any rate-hike decision on hold until it has greater clarity re the incoming Trump administration's fiscal policy intentions. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA's most recent supply-demand balances continue to paint a bearish picture for grains, with global ending stocks expected to grow. Feature China will continue its supply-side structural reforms this year, focusing mainly on its coal and steel markets. China environmental policies will become stricter in 2017. This year will mark the first time the central government puts more weight on environmental protection over economic development in evaluating officials' performance since 1949, when the People's Republic of China was established. Supply growth will be slower than last year due to continuing reforms, and stricter environmental policies in the country. Among base metals and bulks, the steel and iron ore markets will be most affected. This will be good news for global steel producers and bad news for global iron ore producers. We are more bearish on iron ore than steel strategically, due to these supply-side reforms, stricter environmental policies, scrap steel substitution, and rising global iron ore supply. That said, we remain cautious getting short iron ore, given the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures are backwardated (prompt prices exceed deferred prices). This indicates buyers are willing to pay more for prompt delivery (e.g., next week) than they are for deferred delivery (e.g., next year). We are downgrading nickel from bullish to neutral, both tactically and strategically. We also are downgrading our tactically bullish stance on aluminum to neutral, as the Indonesian government on January 12 unexpectedly allowed exports of nickel ore and bauxite under certain conditions. China's Supply-Side Reforms In 2017 In 2016, steel prices rallied more than 90% from year-end 2015 levels, but Chinese crude steel and steel products production rose a mere 0.4% and 1.3% yoy, respectively. Back in 2009, when steel prices rose about 30% from November 2008 to August 2009, production grew 12.9% and 17.8% yoy for Chinese crude steel and the output of steel products, respectively (Chart 1). Chart 1China: A Slower Steel Production##br## Recovery Than In 2009 One reason for these disparate performances can be found in the massive production cuts made in China last year to crude steel capacity. In February 2016, China's central government announced that it planned to cut 100 to 150 million metric tons (mmt) of crude steel capacity over the five-year period of 2016-2020. While the country aimed to cut 45 mmt in 2016, the actual reduction accelerated in 2016H2 making the full year decrease much larger. According to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), 70 mmt of crude steel capacity was taken off line last year, equivalent to 6.2% of total crude steel production capacity in China. This explains, in part, the much slower crude steel production recovery last year when compared to the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) recovery in 2009. How much crude steel production capacity will China cut in 2017? Even though last year's 70 mmt capacity cut means about half of the five-year 100-150 mmt capacity-cut target was already achieved, the Chinese government does not show any sign of moderating its desire to see additional cuts. The Chinese Central Economic Work Conference (December 14-16, 2016) emphasized that 2017 will be a year to deepen supply-side structural reforms. Although the central government still has not finalized its 2017 target, we believe a further 40-50 mmt cut in 2017 is possible. For example, China's largest steel producing province - Hebei - has already announced its 2017 crude steel capacity reduction target, which will be 14.39 mmt, similar to its 2016 target of 14.22 mmt. We would note here that the actual cut for the Hebei province in 2016 was 16.24 mmt, much higher than the target, indicating officials will seek to err on the high side when it comes to taking production off line. In December 2016, the country launched a nationwide crackdown on production of so-called shoddy steel, also known as ditiaogang in Chinese - low-quality crude steel made from scrap metal, which is commonly used to produce substandard construction steel products. This material accounts for about 4% of Chinese crude steel output. Last week, the Chinese government ordered a full ban on "shoddy steel" production to be completed before June 30, 2017. This month, 12 inspection groups were sent to major shoddy steel producing provinces to oversee the implementation of the directive. In 2017, the Chinese government also plans to: rein in new steel production capacity; scrutinize new projects; push for more mergers; and generally tighten supervision in the steel sector. In early January, China's top economic planner - the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) - toughened its tiered electricity pricing to limit availabilities to outdated steel producers, and to advance its goal of capacity cuts. According to the NRDC website, the new measures raised the price paid by "outdated" steelmakers by 66.7% to 0.5 yuan per kWh, effective on Jan. 1, 2017. Outdated steelmakers, in the government's reckoning, are those scheduled to be phased out - for example, those shoddy steel producers - most of which are privately owned small- or medium- scale mills. Bottom Line: A further capacity cut will limit Chinese steel production growth in 2017. China's Environmental Policies In 2017 In 2016, the Chinese government increased the frequency at which it sent environmental inspection teams to major metal-producing provinces and cities, to ensure the smelters and refiners comply with state environmental rules. Factories that failed to meet environmental standards were ordered to permanently or temporarily shut down, depending on the severity of their violations. This year, with persistent and intensifying smog becoming a greater threat to the health of China's population, environmental policies will only get stricter, resulting in more frequent supply disruptions, especially in its steel industry. In addition to plant-specific environmental measures, in late 2016, China rolled out rules to evaluate the "green" efforts of local governments. For the first time since 1949, when the People's Republic of China was established, the central government indicated it would put more weight on environmental protection than on economic development, as measured by GDP, in evaluating local government officials' performance. This likely will reduce the local governments' incentive to support unqualified or unprofitable steel/aluminum production. Bottom Line: China's stricter environmental policies will cause more supply disruptions and increase production costs for the Chinese metal sector, especially the steel industry. Our Views On Iron Ore And Steel In 2017 We are strategically neutral on steel prices and bearish on iron ore prices. Supply-side reforms and stricter environmental policies in China likely will result in zero growth or even a small contraction in Chinese steel production, which may well support steel prices while reducing iron ore demand. This will be good news for global steel producers ex-China, and bad news for global iron ore producers. China is determined to cull all "shoddy steel" production by the end of June, which will make considerable volumes of scrap steel available to be used in good-quality steel production. Chinese steel producers are currently willing to replace iron ore with scrap steel in their steel production, given scrap steel prices are cheap versus iron ore and steel product prices (Chart 2). In addition, using scrap as an input to produce crude steel will save steel producers money on coking coal, the price of which has surged over the past year. Chinese steel demand growth may remain robust in 2017H1. Last year's stimulus still has not run out of steam, and this year's fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative.1 Raw-material costs in the form of iron ore, coking coal and oil soared versus levels seen last year, which means the production costs of steel now are much higher than last year. This will support steel prices (Chart 3). Chart 2More Scrap Steel Will Replace##br## Iron Ore In Steel Production Chart 3Cost Push Will Support ##br##Steel Prices Steel product inventories at the major cities in China are still low; producers' inventory holdings have declined to levels last seen in 2014, which also will be supportive of steel prices (Chart 4). China's iron ore inventories are high, while domestic iron ore production is recovering (Chart 5, panels 1 and 2). With slowing domestic steel production, Chinese iron ore import growth likely will be subdued this year (Chart 5, panel 3). Global iron ore supplies are increasing. The "Big Three" producers - Vale, Rio Tinto, and BHP - all plan to boost production in response to profitable iron ore prices this year. Indeed, this month, Vale started its first iron-ore shipments from the giant new S11D mine. Chart 4Low Inventory Supports Steel Prices As Well Chart 5Limited Chinese Iron Ore Import Growth In 2017 Bottom Line: The outlook for steel prices this year is brighter relative to iron ore in 2017, although, the backwardation in the Dalian Commodity Exchange's iron-ore futures suggests markets may be pricing in tighter iron-ore supply in the near term. We will explore this in future research. Downgrading Our Nickel And Aluminum Views We are downgrading nickel from bullish to neutral, both tactically and strategically. Chart 6Downgrading Nickel And Aluminum View In November, we expected the global nickel supply deficit to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply. One major reason we were bullish nickel was that there was no sign Indonesia's export ban - imposed in January 2014 - would be removed. With elevated global nickel output, surging Chinese nickel pig iron (NPI) imports, and rebounding Indonesian nickel ore exports, Chinese NPI production will recover in 2017, which will reduce the country's need for refined nickel imports (Chart 6). Our long Dec/17 LME nickel contract versus Dec/17 LME zinc contract was stopped out for a 5.1% loss this week. We are no longer bullish nickel versus zinc. We also are downgrading our tactically bullish stance on aluminum to neutral, after the Indonesian government unexpectedly allowed exports of nickel ore and bauxite under certain conditions earlier this month. We are removing our buy limit order to go long Mar/17 aluminum contracts if it falls to $1,640/MT from our shopping list. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China Commodity Focus: How China's Monetary And Fiscal Policy Will Affect Metal Markets," dated January 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Grains/Softs Global Grain Stocks Set To Rise Overall: Despite some positive developments in the U.S. - where corn supplies are falling faster than demand - we remain underweight grains. This is largely because of the continued growth of production relative to consumption globally, which looks like it will lift global stocks by the end of the 2016-17 crop year in September. While we do expect a slight decrease in output this year, it is difficult to upgrade our view at this point (Table 1). Table 1World Grains Estimates - January 2017 Wheat: Worldwide, output growth in Argentina, Russia and the EU added 1.3mm tons of production to global supplies. In the U.S., ending stocks are projected to reach levels not seen since the late 1980s, according to the USDA. Global consumption, meanwhile, is projected to increase a mere 100k tons, according to the USDA, which will lift ending stocks 1.2mm tons by the end of the crop year to a record 253.3mm tons. Corn: U.S. production is expected to fall, which, along with higher usage in the ethanol market, will contribute to lower stocks. However, on a global basis, production is set to outstrip consumption resulting in higher ending stocks at the end of the crop year. Soybeans: Same story here: Production growth outstripping consumption, leaving ending stocks higher by close to 7% yoy, based on the USDA's estimates. Rice: In relative terms, the rice market has the most bullish fundamentals - global production and consumption are roughly balanced, leaving expected ending stocks slightly above last year's level. We continue to favor rice over the other grains (save wheat) for this reason. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017

Highlights Deflation has decisively ended, and the economy is making a gradual transition towards inflation. The upshot is that growth is reviving rapidly in nominal terms. It is unrealistic to expect exports to be a main growth driver for the Chinese economy in the post-crisis world - even without protectionist pressures from President-elect Trump. The "Trump" wildcard serves as a wake-up call for Chinese policymakers to further focus on supporting domestic demand. There is a strengthening case for cyclical improvement in manufacturing investment. This further limits downside risk and sets the stage for potential positive surprises in the coming months. Feature Investors will be paying close attention to President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration speech this coming Friday, which may allow for a clearer understanding of his world view and economic policies, as well as their global implications. The inauguration will overshadow China's key economic statistics to be released later this week, and which we expect to show that the Chinese economy has picked up sequentially. As political uncertainty will stay elevated and deserves close monitoring going forward, it is equally important to keep in mind the economic big picture. In the next two months, China's economic data will once again be heavily distorted by the Chinese New Year holiday, making it more difficult to detect genuine growth trends. In last week's report, we laid out our view on China's growth and policy outlook for 2017.1 This week, we offer a reality check and our take on some key cyclical issues. Watch For Inflation Surprises The biggest change in China's macro condition in the past year, in our view, has been the sharp turnaround in producer prices. Rising PPI has lifted corporate pricing power, reduced real interest rates and eased financial stress in some heavy industries, the weakest link in the corporate sector - all of which are important reasons behind China's growth improvement of late. Looking forward, we expect inflation will remain well behaved. Improving producer prices is to a large extent attributable to RMB depreciation, which has already begun to crest. The trade-weighted RMB's depreciation has halted, and it is unrealistic to expect it to continue to depreciate at an ever-accelerating pace (Chart 1). This should cap the upside of PPI inflation. The headline consumer price index (CPI), the broader inflation measure, was fairly stable throughout last year's roller coaster ride in PPI (Chart 2). Moreover, the fluctuation in headline CPI was mainly attributable to food prices, which have been noisy due to seasonal factors and unexpected supply-demand disruptions, but have been largely trendless in recent years. There is no case for a food-induced inflation outbreak. Chart 1PPI Inflation Is Peaking Chart 2No Case For Food Inflation More fundamentally, although the Chinese economy has strengthened, it is still operating below potential. Historically, runaway inflation has always occurred when the economy overheated, which is far from the current situation (Chart 3). Without a strong growth rebound, it is difficult to expect genuine inflationary pressures. In short, the current environment is best characterized as "easing deflation" rather than "rising inflation," and our base case remains that inflationary pressures will stay at bay. Nonetheless, it is important to note that strong deflationary pressures have prevailed since the global financial crisis, which has led to major adjustments in the world economy. In China's case, for example, capital spending has slowed sharply. Meanwhile, cutting excess capacity has been an explicit policy priority, which, together with strengthening demand may lead to a quick rise in prices. Last year's sharp rebound in steel, thermal coal and some other raw materials prices provided clear evidence of this. Indeed, several factors warn against being overly complacent about the inflation outlook. For producers, the improvement in pricing power appears rather broad based, as both industrial firms and the service sector have been reporting rising levels in their respective output prices. In other words, rising prices are not just contained in resource sectors associated with global commodities prices and Chinese capacity cuts. For consumers, inflation expectations have begun to rise (Chart 4). Consumers' inflation expectations may be just a response to changes in prices rather than a leading indicator for future price moves. However, there has been a significant pickup in confidence on future income growth, which is likely a reflection of a tighter labor market and rising wages. If this trend holds, it would make it a lot easier for producers to pass through rising input costs to end users. Chart 3Inflation Vs Economic Overheating Chart 4Inflation Expectations Are On The Rise Overall, it is premature to worry about an inflation outbreak, and we do not consider inflation as a major policy constraint for the People's Bank of China. However, it appears that deflation has decisively ended, and the economy is making a gradual transition towards inflation. The upshot is that growth is reviving rapidly in nominal terms, supercharged by both improvement in real activity and a rising GDP deflator. Nominal GDP may reclaim a double-digit annual pace in the coming quarters. Exports: Why Has The Historical Correlation Broken Down? China's latest export numbers continued to disappoint, falling by 6.1% in dollar terms from a year ago. Part of the decline is due to falling prices measured in dollar terms; exports in volume terms are considerably stronger. Nonetheless, the export sector has been a chronic underperformer in the Chinese economy in recent years. Historically, China's export sector performance was highly predictable based on some key domestic and global variables - this correlation has clearly broken down since 2015 (Chart 5). If the historical correlation still held, export growth should have rebounded sharply. Many have viewed the divergence as a sign that Chinese exporters have lost competitiveness, which does not seem credible, as Chinese exports have continued to gain global market share. In our view, the chronic disappointment of the Chinese export sector's performance is due to several factors. First, the global financial crisis was a watershed event that marked structural breaks in economic correlations. Since then, consumers in the developed world have been focusing on deleveraging and fixing their balance sheets, and therefore the growth recovery has not led to a corresponding increase in demand - and imports for - consumer goods. Second, protectionist pressures have been on the rise since the global financial crisis, as all countries have tried to protect domestic producers in the face of weak final demand. Anti-dumping measures initiated by World Trade Organization member countries have increased notably in recent years, a growing share of which have been targeted at Chinese exporters (Chart 6). The high profile anti-dumping measures adopted by the Obama administration against Chinese tire and steel products have caused significant damage to Chinese producers and exporters.2 Chart 5Exports Have Disappointed Chart 6Protectionism Is Already On The Rise Finally, Chinese export numbers have been distorted by disguised capital flows driven by speculation on the RMB exchange rate. The sharp swings in Chinese exports to Hong Kong since the global financial crisis can be viewed as proxy for shifting expectations on the yuan (Chart 7). Immediately after the global financial crisis, the RMB was widely expected to rise against the dollar, leading to a massive surge in Chinese sales to Hong Kong as exporters overstated export revenues to bring more foreign currencies onshore. The tide completely reversed in early 2014 when the RMB began to drop against the greenback. Exporters may have been underreporting overseas sales so they could park part of their foreign revenues offshore in anticipation of a weaker RMB, weighing on overall export sector performance. Whatever the reason, the important point here is that it is unrealistic to expect exports to be a main growth driver for the Chinese economy in the post-crisis world - even without protectionist pressures from President-elect Trump. In recent years the Chinese authorities systematically overestimated the vigor of global demand, and export sector performance almost always lagged the government's annual targets, which contributed to chronic growth disappointments. In this regard, the "Trump" wildcard serves as a wake-up call for Chinese policymakers to further focus on supporting domestic demand. Has Investment Bottomed? With exports chronically disappointing, domestic capital spending holds the key for economic growth. Policy driven investment on infrastructure construction has held up strongly since 2013, while private sector investment mainly in the mining and manufacturing sectors has downshifted sharply. Looking forward, infrastructure spending will likely remain buoyant, supported by both public budgetary sources and public-private-partnerships (PPPs).3 What's changing is that capital spending in the manufacturing sector may have bottomed from a cyclical point of view. Inventory destocking in the manufacturing sector has become very advanced. Improving new orders and rising producer prices should lead to a restocking cycle. There has been a notable improvement in corporate sector profitability and confidence of late, which has historically led capital spending in the manufacturing sector (Chart 8). Consistently, the latest credit numbers show a significant pickup in medium- and long-term loans by the corporate sector, which are typically used to finance investment spending rather than replenish working capital. Chart 7Hong Kong Trade And The RMB Chart 8Manufacturing Capex Has Bottomed The long-term outlook for Chinese private capital spending hinges critically on structural reforms on many fronts. As far as the corporate sector is concerned, it is widely recognized that China's overall tax burden is not high by global standards, but is primarily shouldered by the corporate sector rather than households, and a rebalancing is long overdue. The government under incumbent Premier Li Keqiang has been focusing on reducing administrative red tape and mandatary employee benefits provided by employers as ways to cut corporate sector costs. If the Chinese authorities can implement reforms despite the populist resistance to shifting some of the tax burden from the corporate sector to households, it could further boost corporate profitability and revive animal spirits among Chinese entrepreneurs, leading to another round of investment boom. Any tax reform measures in this direction should be viewed as a major positive development. For now, we see a strengthening case for cyclical improvement in manufacturing investment, after decelerating for over six years. The current sub-par "new normal" growth trajectory rules out a sharp revival in capex, but the marginal change in "second derivatives" is still important as it diminishes a chronic growth headwind. This further limits downside risk and sets the stage for potential positive surprises in the coming months. Stay tuned. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1, 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard," dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture," dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Trump's protectionism supercharges our theme of Sino-American tensions. China is at a stark disadvantage to the U.S. in a trade war. China cannot give concessions easily; it may batten down the hatches. Remain short RMB; but go long "One China," i.e. mainland stocks versus Taiwan/Hong Kong. Feature "Life's short span forbids us to enter on far reaching hopes." - Horace, Odes "Of course, you know, this means war." - Bugs Bunny, Looney Tunes President-elect Trump has said he will not designate China a "currency manipulator" on the first day of his presidency, contrary to what he promised during the campaign. Is this a sign that Trump is "normalizing" after the wild threats of his campaign? What are the real risks of a U.S.-China "trade war"? How should investors prepare? Trade War Is More Likely Than You Think BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has long cautioned investors that geopolitical tensions in East Asia were severely underestimated by the market.1 In 2013, we argued that a Sino-American military conflict was more likely than most of our clients dared to think.2 And over the past several years, in one-on-one conversations and in presentations at numerous conferences, we have stressed that tensions in East Asia could imperil the largest trade relationship. Why so alarmist? We have always based our analysis on three key pillars: Multipolarity: With the U.S. in a relative decline, containing China's rise has become a national security issue. The U.S. "Grand Strategy" operates under the imperative that no regional power is allowed to become a regional hegemon, as that would be a stepping stone to global competition. "Pivot" To Asia: The U.S. geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East was from the start designed to free up more U.S. resources for Asia. While the Obama Administration pursued the pivot cautiously, it was putting the infrastructure in place for a confrontation with China. Regional dynamics: China is surrounded by neighbors that are cautious about Beijing's intentions for geographic, historical, and strategic reasons. They have therefore sought to balance their increasing economic addiction to China with deeper military and political links to the U.S. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Trump's victory has made markets considerably less oblivious to the risks we have stressed to clients for the past five years. The idea that a trade war might erupt is now widely discussed. And Trump's repeated statements about Taiwan, North Korea, and the South China Sea have awoken some investors to the reality that a trade conflict could spill over into strategic areas, and vice versa. Nevertheless, judging by the ebullient market reaction relative to previous U.S. presidential transitions, most investors think that cool heads will inevitably prevail. They may be right, but from where we sit it is premature - and imprudent - to bet on it. Make no mistake, China, not NAFTA, will suffer the brunt of Trump's efforts to fulfill his protectionist campaign promises (Chart 1). We see 70% odds that a "crisis event" will affect U.S.-China trade patterns in a significant way over the next four years. How Did We Get Here? The Global Financial Crisis caused a sharp break in Sino-American relations: It interrupted the economic symbiosis between China and American households refused to keep re-leveraging, forcing China to become more internally driven economy (Chart 2). With final demand in the U.S. declining, China decided to re-leverage with credit, injecting its existing overproduction and overcapacity with steroids. But this only accelerated China's capture of global export market share, while supercharging the deflationary global effects (Chart 3). On top of its credit policies, China has struggled to internationalize the RMB. So now, it is not only still washing the world with its industrial overcapacity but also inadvertently - or not so innocently - reducing the prices of its goods with the weakening of its currency (Chart 4). Chart 2U.S.-China Symbiosis Has Died Chart 3China's Historic Export Grab Chart 4China Still Exporting Deflation U.S.-China trade disputes have a long history. China's WTO entrance was agreed only with the stipulation that China be treated as a "non-market economy" for 15 years. Punitive trade bills almost passed through Congress in 2005 and 2010-11, for instance, but were held back at the last minute.3 Since 2009, in particular, protectionist policies have emerged. President Obama began his term with an unprecedented use of the authority under Section 421 of the 1974 Trade Act to punish China for "market distorting" exports of car tires, and with protectionist "Buy America" provisions in his economic stimulus package. After that, a sequence of tit-for-tat punitive measures took place affecting a range of goods on both sides, attempted Chinese investments in the U.S., and American companies operating in China. China's meteoric rise, surging trade surpluses with the U.S., and the rapid loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs was the main cause of tension (Chart 5). Americans benefited from China's rise, namely from cheaper goods and lower interest rates, but it caused significant economic dislocations.4 Meanwhile Chinese protectionism discouraged American elites that had endorsed China's rise on the hopes of gradually unfolding market access. Amid the heightened political risks of the global recession and its aftermath, China intensified intellectual property theft, non-tariff barriers, indigenous innovation policies, and cyber-attacks.5 The saving grace, for markets, was that the aforementioned tensions always remained within bounds. The WTO was a mutually recognized adjudicator. Also, the rival American and Chinese commercial authorities played a slow, step-by-step, predictable game, with the punitive measures being mostly proportional. When pressures flared in the U.S., the executive branch stayed Congress's hand; meanwhile China's government could steamroll any internal opposition to its trade policies. No more. Hillary Clinton might have helped contain trade tensions, but the outlook has darkened irrespective of Trump. Notably, American multinational corporations have increasingly decried Chinese protectionism and lobbied for the U.S. government to help persuade China to give them greater market access and a better legal-regulatory climate (Chart 6). As the Obama administration exited the stage in December 2016, the U.S., Japan and others refused to accept China's "market economy" status despite the fifteen-year deadline coming due. This means the U.S. and its allies explicitly wanted to reserve the power to impose anti-dumping duties more easily on China, which is what "Non-Market Economy" status entails (Chart 7).6 China considers this delay an outright violation of U.S. commitments under WTO. Chart 5A Tale Of Two Manufacturers Chart 6American Business Under Pressure In China Chart 7China's Non-Market Status A Liability Further, Clinton had promised to create a special prosecutor for trade disputes and to triple the number of enforcement officers. More broadly, she wanted to continue Obama's "Pivot to Asia" policy that had roiled U.S.-China strategic relations. Bottom Line: U.S.-China trade relations had already turned sour as a result of the divergence of interests following the Global Financial Crisis. China has emerged as a trade juggernaut and the U.S. corporate and political establishments have become far more anxious about it recently. Now Trump has supercharged the situation. Will Trump "Normalize" In Office? With Trump, the U.S. is likely to undergo a "regime change" in terms of how trade policy is conducted - the only question is how long-lasting it will be. U.S. presidents have very few constraints on trade and foreign policy (Table 1). Ignore Trump's statements and look at his team: Incoming Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, National Trade Council chief Peter Navarro, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.7 This group, especially Navarro, is stridently hawkish on China and appears ready to bring the full weight of the United States' economic and strategic advantages to the table in order to negotiate a new framework of relations. Table 1Trump Is Not Constrained On Trade Policy The model is the renegotiation of trade relations with an ascendant Japan in the 1980s. And China looks ripe for a crackdown by this yardstick. The penetration of Chinese exports meet or exceed Japan's position at its peak in the 1980s (Chart 8). Meanwhile the RMB has not appreciated nearly as much as the yen had done by this time (Chart 9). Ultimately the two resolved their differences because Japan acceded to major U.S. demands, strengthening its currency after the 1985 Plaza Accord and accelerating financial liberalization. It helped that the two were staunch allies without genuine security tensions (unlike the U.S. and China today). Chart 8China Has Gotten Away ##br##With More Than Japan Did Chart 9Reagan Forced Faster ##br##Appreciation On Japanese Yen From the Trump administration's point of view, the standard trade remedies have failed given that U.S. trade deficits have deteriorated all along. True, China has made considerable structural adjustments in recent years (Chart 10). But relative to the U.S., China has not really changed its ways. In fact, the current account surplus, which has collapsed from 10% to around 2% since 2008, is now roughly equal to the trade surplus with the United States (Chart 11). Chart 10China's Economic Rebalancing Under Way Chart 11China's Trade Surplus With U.S. Indispensable Therefore we do not put much stock in Trump's claim that he will not call China a currency manipulator on day one - this does not signal a "normalization" or softening of Trump's protectionist line. There was always a technical issue with this pledge that made the timing awkward.8 The manipulator charge will remain a Sword of Damocles hanging over China this year and next, but it is also only one tool in Trump's toolkit - and not the most intimidating one either (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Calling China A Currency Manipulator: The Process At a minimum, Trump could easily do what Obama did in February 2009 on tires - simply approve recommendations from his own Treasury Department for tariffs on specific goods. At a more aggressive level, he has the example of Richard Nixon before him. Nixon imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods in 1971. We would not put it beyond Trump to take arbitrary actions within the four-year term if international economic conflicts heat up dramatically. (We will be especially leery in the lead-up to the 2018 or 2020 elections if Trump's touted deal-making is not going his way.) Congress is not likely to prove a major constraint, at least not at first. Trump's election is a strong signal that the U.S. populace wants more protectionist policies. Congressional Republicans are limited, given the laws empowering the president on trade, and they will face the reality that his electoral strategy succeeded in great part because of voter demand for protectionism in key Midwestern states. Democrats, in these and other competitive states, have to perform verbal gymnastics to oppose Trump's positions on trade that substantially echo their own. And as mentioned, U.S. multinationals are not likely to "domesticate" Trump - rather, they will lobby for relative moderation or tactfulness within his general framework. Bottom Line: Trump is relatively unconstrained on trade policy. We expect his administration to begin with a "shot across the bow" in the first 100 days - a mostly but not entirely symbolic punitive measure against China - and then to seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years. We expect the initial shot to rattle markets, then for a calming period to ensue, which will give a false sense of security. But given the lack of constraints on Trump, we are not optimistic. What Are China's Options? In a trade war with the U.S., China is outgunned on every front. Its economy is far more vulnerable to a disruption of exports to the U.S. than vice versa (Chart 12). It does not have ready alternatives to the U.S., given that U.S. imports of Chinese goods are roughly equal to Japanese, South Korean, German, Vietnamese and British imports combined. And China is most competitive in goods that the U.S. can easily source elsewhere (Chart 13). Chart 12The Numbers Favor The U.S. In A Trade War Chart 13The U.S. Can Find Substitutes For China Yes, China can disrupt the supply chain for the iPhone, but no, the Trump administration is not going to confuse Apple's interests with what it views as the "National Interest." Certainly China will favor non-American companies - Airbus over Boeing, etc - but the U.S. growth model is not reliant on exports, so it is not clear that the Trump administration will heed Boeing's cries about long-term competitiveness. The states most exposed to Chinese retaliation - Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Louisiana, and South Carolina - will not harm his electoral base. His Midwestern Rust Belt states could suffer, according to some research, but voters there may approve of his protectionist measures and Trump's other economic policies may blunt the short-term impact of Chinese retaliation.9 Looking at major Chinese export categories to the U.S., like textiles, electrical machinery, and equipment, suggests that 30 million Chinese jobs could be affected - perhaps ten times as many as the comparable U.S. jobs at risk from Chinese retaliation (far more than proportional given population). There is one factor that stands in China's favor. The history of trade wars says something different than the raw balance of trade. Like all wars, trade wars seek political ends, and a government's internal unity and resilience can be critical to its ability to bear out the worst.10 Politically, it is not clear that the U.S. has a better stomach for a full trade war than China: The U.S. remains divided - Polarization will worsen under Trump given his low approval ratings, low favorability, narrow popular victory margin, and controversial policy inclinations. Though China-bashing and economic patriotism can win some support, and we do not expect Congress or the corporate lobby to prevent Trump from launching a trade crusade if he wishes, nevertheless we see a fair chance that Trump would lose credibility and be forced to moderate his stance once negative trade consequences began to be felt at home. China is relatively unified - Xi has set himself up to be the "core" of power in the Communist Party in anticipation of worsening domestic conditions.11 It is worth remembering that the original use of the "core leader" moniker emerged in the wake of the Tiananmen Square crackdown when the Western world imposed sanctions on a newly liberalized China and it was forced to retreat into its shell from 1989-1992 (Chart 14). China's leadership wants to make the country less dependent on the U.S., and more autarkic, but is having difficulty imposing austere changes on itself. Trump may hasten the reforms while giving Chinese leaders a convenient "foreign devil" to distract the populace from the pain of restructuring. Chart 14China Rode Out Western Pressure In 1989 The above should not suggest that China wants a trade war, however. Trump is threatening to kick the export leg out from under its growth model at a time when the other leg - investment - stands at risk from domestic credit excesses.12 But the recent case study of Russia and economic sanctions is instructive. President Vladimir Putin used sanctions to blame all of the economic ills that befell Russia on the West, even though the Kremlin was often at fault. That policy largely worked. Bottom Line: China stands to suffer the most economically in a trade war with the United States. Chinese policymakers may therefore choose to ride out the economic costs of a trade war while blaming the U.S. for the pain. But closing its economy today would derail global growth and cause a dramatic spike in geopolitical risk, unlike in 1989. Strategic Spillover Trump's approach is likely to increase geopolitical risk because he wants to use the strategic disagreements plaguing Sino-American relations as leverage to get concessions on trade. The three hot spots are: Taiwan - Tensions with Taiwan spiked when Trump revealed that his administration considers the "One China" policy to be up for negotiation. China has engaged in serious saber-rattling in response, both around Taiwan and in the South China Sea. By linking trade disputes with Taiwan, Trump likely made it harder for Xi to compromise on the former without looking weak on the latter. Trump's negotiating style may work in business, but will not work with China on Taiwan, which is a matter of sovereignty and a clear red line. North Korea - Trump has said North Korea will not manage to test an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), which it is preparing to do. He is threatening to hold China to account for not curbing the North's violations of UN resolutions on nuclear proliferation and missile development. This would likely mean an expansion of the practice adopted under Obama of sanctioning Chinese entities for dealing with North Korean partners. This situation would likely shake up markets that have normally been able to ignore North Korea. South China Sea - Trump has repeatedly signaled that China has militarized the South China Sea, and his incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested that China be deprived of access, a policy that would trigger a shooting war if operationalized. Persistent tensions here are unlikely to go away anytime soon and could spark a diplomatic crisis or naval conflict (if not with the U.S. then with regional players like Vietnam). Thus Trump's administration is likely to make serious demands on China regarding its strategic situation and national security even while demanding an overhaul of trade policies that will force difficult economic reforms on China. Bottom Line: China's political strengths at home make it unlikely to compromise on Trump's major strategic demands. Contrary to adding leverage in trade negotiations - where the U.S. already has the upper hand - using these issues as negotiating tools is likely to cause China to fear for its security and thus become more defiant. Risks To The View The risk to this view would be that the U.S. and China manage to negotiate a new framework and actually improve relations, with the U.S. giving more respect to China's legitimate rights and regional initiatives in exchange for Chinese concessions. But is China capable of conceding significantly on Trump's major demands? RMB appreciation? No. Many commentators have pointed out that Trump's view of the RMB is outdated - the PBoC is now propping it up, not suppressing it. The driver of RMB weakness is China's excessive monetary and credit expansion, weakening productivity growth, domestic investors' desires to move capital out, corporate deleveraging, the need for stimulus, tightening Fed policy, and rising geopolitical risks. While it is possible that the PBoC will defend the RMB to the hilt, the near-term path of least resistance is down, and that sets China on a collision course with the Trump administration. Market access and dumping? Yes. Trump complains that China taxes U.S. imports unfairly and dumps goods into the American market, killing jobs. To appease the U.S., China could take concrete steps to remove non-tariff barriers and open wider investment avenues for U.S. businesses - it has recently suggested it might do so.13 Less likely, it could accelerate overcapacity cuts and reduce subsidies to state-owned enterprises. These moves would fit with its avowed reform goals and strengthen Chinese self-sufficiency in the long run, and Xi's administration likely has the power to do them. China could also improve intellectual property protections and declare a ceasefire on cyber-attacks on companies. All of this is possible, but clearly extremely difficult to achieve. Strategic concerns? Maybe. It is conceivable but unlikely that China could de-escalate matters in the South China Sea and agree to a "freedom of navigation" guarantee for the United States, which is not a party to the territorial disputes. A significant compromise on North Korea would be even less likely, since China is unwilling to move beyond the usual, ineffective management and impose real hardship on the regime for its violations of UN resolutions and improving nuclear and missile capabilities. One impetus for China to concede on these points is that it is fearful of creating instability in a politically sensitive year in which it will oversee a major five-year leadership rotation at its National Party Congress. Trump may deliberately threaten to disrupt the transition in order to extract concessions. Bottom Line: We operate on a constraint-based methodology: Trump has very few constraints on trade policy, China has major constraints on making these concessions, so there is no basis for assuming that the two countries will skip conflict and go directly to a new level of cooperation. Investment Recommendations We remain short the RMB. The currency has fallen by 5.62% since we initiated this trade. The trade itself has suffered a bit since the end of last year as a result of the PBoC's efforts to fight speculation. But monetary expansion sans productivity improvements continues apace in China, and we expect USD strength to persist, so we think there is room for the RMB to fall further. In the near term, however, the USD could experience further pullback as investors start pricing the negatives of the Trump administration. Therefore we are closing our long USD/EUR trade for a 4.55% gain. We remain somewhat positive on China relative to EM - because of the relative unity and centralization of its government and financial resources at its disposal - but we would not recommend investing in Chinese assets in the absolute due to the heightened internal and external risks outlined above. Hence we propose going long the "One China" policy, i.e. long Chinese mainland stocks versus Taiwan and Hong Kong (Chart 15). This enables us to play the fact that mainland valuations are depressed while the global trend of de-globalization and the conflicts within Greater China and with the U.S. are likely to increase uncertainties about Hong Kong and Taiwan. These two are particularly vulnerable to tighter regulations or sanctions from Beijing. Yan Wang, Senior Vice-President at BCA's China Investment Strategy, argues that while there is no case for a clear directional move in Chinese stocks - especially given the ongoing tightening of policies on the property sector - nevertheless they should be favored relative to global equities, given that growth is improving, fiscal policy will remain accommodative, and valuations are depressed (Chart 16).14 Meanwhile our negative outlook on China in absolute terms supports a globally negative outlook on cyclical equities relative to defensives. Cyclicals move with EM in general and China in particular. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President in charge of U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that EM performance does not warrant the sharp rise in U.S. cyclicals versus defensives, nor that in globally oriented versus domestically oriented stocks (Chart 17).15 This creates the opportunity for a tactical short. Chart 15Chinese Stocks Are Cheap Chart 16China Trades With Cyclicals Chart 17Go Long The 'One China Policy' Finally, we caution investors about investing in companies with major exposure to China (Table 2). We would recommend that clients short a "China, Inc" Index of the top 20 S&P 500 stocks exposed to trade with China relative to the rest of S&P 500. The "China, Inc" stocks have been outperforming the market for a while (Chart 18). We fear that China may retaliate against some of these firms as the trade war with the U.S. heats up. Table 2'China, Inc.' May Suffer From Trade War Chart 18Short 'China, Inc.' Relative To Market Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President, marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kurri, Research Analyst 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Imad Moosa, The U.S.-China Trade Dispute: Facts, Figures And Myths (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012). 4 For prominent research on this topic, please see David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning From Labor-Market Adjustment To Large Changes In Trade," Annual Review of Economics 8 (2016), pp. 205-40, available at www.annualreviews.org; Autor et al., "Foreign Competition And Domestic Innovation: Evidence From U.S. Patents," NBER Working Paper No. 22879, December 2016, available at www.nber.org. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, and "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Scholars have shown that countries granting China market economy status have subsequently initiated fewer antidumping cases against it. Please see Francisco Urdinez and Gilmar Masiero, "China And The WTO: Will The Market Economy Status Make Any Difference After 2016?" The Chinese Economy 48:2 (2015), pp. 155-172. Technically speaking, the difference in duty rates can be substantial between market and non-market economies; please see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "U.S.-China Trade: Eliminating Nonmarket Economy Methodology Would Lower Antidumping Duties For Some Chinese Companies," GAO-06-231, January 2006, available at www.gao.gov. 7 Ross has criticized China more heavily since joining Trump; Navarro is the author of Death By China: Confronting The Dragon, A Global Call To Action (Pearson, 2011); together they criticized China in a paper for Trump's campaign, "Scoring The Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts," dated September 29, 2016, available at assets.donaldjtrump.com. Lighthizer worked on Ronald Reagan's Treasury Department's team that engaged in the tough trade negotiations with Japan in the mid-1980s. 8 The existing statutory procedure, now enshrined in Title VII of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, involves the Treasury Department making semi-annual assessments and potentially initiating bilateral or multilateral negotiations. According to the more or less standard time frame since 1988, any charges of currency manipulation would occur in the April report at earliest, and more likely in the October report or thereafter. For Trump to have designated China a manipulator on day one, he would either have had to issue a simple statement of intent or an executive directive that bypassed the formal foreign exchange review process. 9 Please see Andy Kiersz, "Here's Every State's Biggest International Trading Partner," Business Insider, October 20, 2016, available at www.businessinsider.com. See also Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 10 Serbia "defeated" the much larger Austria-Habsburg in their "Pig War" in the early 1900s, while Ireland won most of its key demands from England despite losing the "Economic War" of the 1930s. Russia's attempts over the past decade to bully Ukraine into submission have not succeeded in achieving Russia's political aims. In each of these cases, a far greater economic disparity existed than currently exists between the U.S. and China, and yet even then the weaker country's popular support, and the willingness of neighbors to exploit the new trade opportunities that opened up, enabled the weaker country to win the political clash of wills. 11 Please see "China: Xi Is A "Core" Leader... So What?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "China unveils new plan to further open economy to foreign investment," Reuters, January 17, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard," dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 High-Conviction Calls," dated January 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights In any country, excess national savings, i.e., current account surpluses, lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but have no implications on domestic loan creation. Savings are not necessary for the banking system to originate loans. Quite the opposite, new loans boost purchasing power and spending and, thereby, create new income and additional savings. Unlimited loan/money creation will ultimately lead to currency depreciation and/or inflation. The RMB is at major risk because Chinese banks continue creating enormous amount of credit/money "out of thin air." Feature This week we publish the third report in our trilogy series on money, credit, savings and investment, where we address several misconceptions that dominate mainstream macroeconomic thought as well as the investment industry. Our previous Special Reports were: Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses, and China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB.1 This third report focuses on: (1) Elaborating on the link - or lack thereof - between the investment-savings identity and domestic credit creation in any country; (2) Demonstrating how new loans lead to new income and ultimately new savings creation, and not, vice versa; (3) Discussing the macro limits to money/credit creation among banks. Macroeconomics has many areas that are not well understood or developed. We do not pretend to have all the answers related to savings and loan origination and their links to other factors. Even though all points of this report are applicable to any economy, the practical relevance and goal of our analysis is to demonstrate that China's credit excesses are not the natural outcome of its unique macro features such as a high savings rate. In fact, the leverage expansion that has been underway since early 2009 (Chart I-1) is nothing more than a credit bubble driven by banks willingness to create credit exponentially and policymakers' tolerance of it. Chart I-1Chinese Companies Are Extremely Leveraged That said, this does not mean that the Chinese credit bubble is about to burst. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service has been negative on China's credit cycle and growth since 2010, yet has never used the word "crisis". China may well experience one at some point, but it is impossible to time it. A more distinct possibility is that the country's growth could stagnate/slump further, and financial markets leveraged to its growth sell off materially - particularly in the wake of last year's rally. The investment implications are that there is more downside to Chinese financial markets and China-related plays globally. National Savings And Domestic Credit Creation One of the prevailing notions that justifies China's large credit excesses, as elaborated by some of my colleagues at BCA and others in the investment industry as well as academia is as follows: A current account surplus implies that national savings exceed investment. If a country generates a lot of national savings, as China does, it must either absorb those savings through domestic investment or, where possible, export the savings to the rest of the world by running a large current account surplus. As a reminder to readers, the investment-savings identity is as follows: Investment = Savings is an identity for a closed economy; and Savings (S) - Investment (I) = Current Account Balance (CA) holds true for an open economy. While on the surface this proposition might appear very intuitive, a deeper examination reveals there is no link at all between the national savings-investment identity (S - I = CA) and domestic credit creation in any country: S - I = CA is an identity of the real economy. It means an economy produces more goods and services than it consumes, and that the difference between production and consumption (excess supply) is being exported. Hence, "excess savings" here are "real excess savings" in the form of goods and services that were produced but not consumed in the economy, but rather sold abroad. These "real excess savings," or the CA surplus, have nothing to do with aggregate deposits in the country's banking system, or money/credit origination by its banks. As we elaborated in the first report of our three-part series, banks do create loans and deposits "out of thin air". Banks do not intermediate deposits into loans. They create deposits when they originate loans. For a more detailed discussion on this, readers should refer to our report titled, Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses.2 Consequently, banks can create as much in the way of loans as they like (subject to the regulatory capital constraints), regardless of the country's current account balance. Chart I-2 and Chart I-3 depict that, historically, in various countries there has been no correlation between the national and household savings rates and bank credit origination. Chart I-2China: Credit And Savings ##br##Are Not Correlated Chart I-3The U.S., Korea And Taiwan: ##br##Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated When a country runs a current account surplus, it does not mean it brings in "excess savings" and invests those funds domestically. A current account surplus (or an excess of national savings over investment) only means that the country's net foreign assets will rise - i.e., the nation's "excess savings" have to be exported in the form of capital outflows (more on this below). On the whole, the S - I = CA identity is derived from the national accounts and balance of payments, and it has no relationship to how loans and deposits are created within the domestic banking system. Empirical evidence supports neither positive nor negative correlation between the current account balance and loan origination. For example, Germany has had massive current account surpluses, but its non-financial debt-to-GDP ratio has been stable (Chart I-4). On the contrary, the U.S. and Turkey have been running large current account deficits, while their domestic credit and leverage has boomed (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-4Germany: National Savings And Debt Chart I-5U.S.: National Savings And Debt Chart I-6Turkey: National Savings And Debt As the popular argument goes, more national savings lead to more deposits within the domestic banking system and ultimately more domestic loans stem from the application of the intermediation of loanable funds (ILF) model of banking. The ILF model states that banks intermediate deposits (savings) into loans. Yet, as we argued in the first report of this series, the ILF model is simply wrong. Commercial banks create both loans and deposits, simultaneously, "out of thin air". Consequently, any macro thesis that uses or relies on the ILF model is misguided. Bottom Line: National savings is a real economy concept, and has no relevance to loan creation and leverage in the country in question. Below we show that current account (CA) surpluses ("excess savings") lead to an accumulation of net foreign assets, but have no implication for domestic leverage. CA Surplus = Accumulation Of Net Foreign Assets CA surpluses are consistent with a nation expanding its net foreign assets, while CA deficits are congruent with a reduction in a country's net foreign assets. They do not suggest anything about domestic credit origination and leverage. Chart I-7U.S. Net International Investment Position The mechanism of converting CA surpluses into net foreign assets (external assets minus external liabilities) is somewhat different between fully floating and managed exchange rate regimes, so we consider both cases: A fully flexible exchange rate (the central bank does not interfere in the currency market): Let's assume Country A had a current account surplus over a given period. Exporters can keep the proceeds abroad and buy foreign assets, or bring them back and sell these dollars to other domestic players who want to buy foreign assets. Alternatively, exporters can sell these dollars to foreigners who sold assets in Country A and want to repatriate capital out of Country A. In this case, the nation's net foreign assets still rise because foreigners' claims on its assets shrink. Provided the central bank does not intervene in the currency market and the balance of payments, by definition, equals zero, the current account surplus is offset by a deficit on capital/financial accounts. In brief, the sole result of an excess of national savings relative to domestic investment is net capital/financial outflows and an ensuing increase in a country’s net foreign assets. This does not lead to any change in the banking system’s local currency loans.3 Chart I-7 demonstrates that the U.S.'s net foreign assets have dropped from - US$ 0.4 trillion in 1995 to - US$ 6 trillion currently, because the U.S. has been running current account deficits - i.e., on a net basis, foreigners have accumulated enormous amounts of claims on America. In spite of these persistent CA deficits and a low national savings rate, the U.S. bank loan-to-GDP ratio has risen substantially over the same period, proving the lack of relationship between national savings and loan origination. In the case of a managed or fixed exchange rate system (i.e., when the central bank intervenes in the currency market, by buying/selling foreign exchange), the dynamics are somewhat different, yet the end result is the same. If Country B has a current account surplus and its central bank is involved in managing the exchange rate, the central bank could buy foreign currency and thereby accumulate net foreign assets. Hence, the dynamics are the same, but the nation's central bank, rather than other economic agents, amasses more net foreign assets. If foreign exchange interventions are not completely sterilized, the central bank’s accumulation of foreign assets will be accompanied by issuance of high-power money (banks' reserves at the central bank) and new money (bank deposit) creation, but not a loan creation.4 Some observers might argue that the increase of bank reserves at the central bank would lead commercial banks to originate more loans. However, in the first and second reports of our trilogy series, we documented that commercial banks in the majority of countries, including all advanced economies and China, do not require central bank liquidity to originate loans. On the contrary, banks originate loans first and then, if needed, ask the central bank for liquidity. Chart I-8The PBoC Has Begun ##br##Targeting Rates In Recent Years In the case of China, there is evidence that from early 2014 until very recently, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) was targeting short-term interest rates (Chart I-8). When any central bank targets the price of money (interest rates), it cannot steer/manage the quantity of money - i.e., it has to provide/withdraw as much liquidity as commercial banks desire at a given interest rate level. Therefore, since early 2014, the PBoC has met commercial banks' demand for liquidity by keeping interest rates at its preferred target. In such a case, commercial banks - not the PBoC - decide on the amount of loan origination at a given interest rate level. Even in this case, the CA balance has no bearing on loan origination by commercial banks. Central banks nowadays steer loan growth and economic growth primarily via interest rates. Unless the current account dynamics lead the monetary authorities to alter interest rates, balance of payments dynamics will not have direct impact on credit growth. Bottom Line: A CA surplus raises a nation's net foreign assets, while a CA deficit reduces its net foreign assets. CA balances do not affect or determine commercial banks' capacity for domestic credit creation. Savings Are Not A Constraint On Loan Origination Mainstream economic literature typically relies on treating deposits as savings - i.e., refraining from spending by households or enterprises. Then, it uses the Intermediation of Loanable Funds (ILF) model to argue those savings flow to the banking system to become deposits. In turn, banks intermediate these savings (deposits) into loans. We have to again emphasize that the ILF model is simply wrong - in reality, this is not how the banking system works in any country in the world. This was the focal point of the first report of our trilogy. In particular, Fabian Lindner states that "...saving does not finance investment. No saving and abstention of consumption is needed for any lending to take place since lending and borrowing money are pure financial transactions that only affect gross financial assets and liabilities."5 Similarly, Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof utter: "In the ILF model, bank loans represent the intermediation of real savings, or loanable funds, between non-bank savers and non-bank borrowers. But in the real world, the key function of banks is the provision of financing, or the creation of new monetary purchasing power through loans, for a single agent that is both borrower and depositor". 6 They also provide a further distinction between savings and financing: "...if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore, by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does." 6 Let's consider an example: Company A - which intends to build a production facility - requests a loan from Bank Z. After approving the loan request, Bank Z opens an account for Company A and grants a loan of $100 million by crediting Company A's bank account and in turn creating purchasing power for the company. Hence, Bank Z originated a loan and deposit of $100 million "out of thin air". As Company A uses this amount to pay for construction of production facility, it pays the builder, architects, engineers and various suppliers. These entities, in turn, pay their own suppliers as well as their employees, while the profits (dividends) are remitted to shareholders. All entities, and ultimately their employees and shareholders involved in the project, derived income from the original loan. Thus, their income was contingent on the loan that was originated by Bank Z and spent by Company A. Without it, these households, other companies and their shareholders would not have earned that income. In turn, these households and companies would spend/consume part of their income and save the other part. A few observations: Loan creation by Bank Z generated household income and enterprise profits that otherwise would not have occurred. This extra income would produce extra saving. In other words, without the loan origination by Bank Z, these extra savings would not have arisen. The fact that all companies and their employees involved in this project decided to save a part of their income does not mean they deposited new funds at their banks. Their "savings" already existed in the banking system. In fact, these deposits were created by Bank Z when the latter originated the loan. Ultimately, with banks willing to originate new loans, spending can exceed current income. Claudio Borio of the Bank for International Settlements corroborates this point: "Crucially, the provision of financing does not require someone to abstain from consuming. It is purely a financial transaction and hence distinct from saving... The equality of saving and investment is an accounting identity that always holds ex post and reveals nothing about financing patterns. In ex post terms, being simply the outcome of expenditures, saving does not represent a constraint on how much agents are able to spend ex ante. If we step back from comparative statics and consider the underlying dynamics, it is only once expenditures take place that income and investment, and hence saving, are generated".7 Bottom Line: Savings are not necessary for the banking system to originate loans and finance investment and consumption. Quite the opposite, new loans boost spending and create new income and additional savings (even though they may not impact the savings rate). Applying this to China, this means that the absolute amount of household savings is high because before 2008 booming exports, and since 2008 mushrooming loan growth, produced robust income growth. In sum, households decide on their savings rate, yet the credit boom since 2008 has tremendously boosted their income and has thereby expanded the absolute amount of their savings. Limits On Country Loan Origination Does this mean any country (specifically, its commercial banks) can originate unlimited amounts of loans/money, and thereby print their way to prosperity? To date, no country we are aware of has accomplished this. Indeed, if this were the case, there would be no poor countries. In the first report of our trilogy, we elaborated on the constraints banks face in originating loans, such as tighter monetary policy, lack of credit demand, government regulations and capital requirements, bank shareholders appetite to lend and liquidity constraints for banks. Chart I-9China: Signs Of Budding Inflation Herein we elaborate on limits at a macro level for banks to originate loans and finance investment and consumption. The supply side of an economy and its capacity to produce goods and services that are in demand is ultimately a macro constraint on credit/money issuance. China's ability to sustain such rapid money creation has been due to its strong supply side - i.e., its productive capacity. This makes China different from other emerging markets such as Turkey. China has low inflation and a CA surplus, while Turkey has had high inflation and a large CA deficit. Ultimately, a country's growth trajectory depends on its potential growth, which is the sum of labor force growth and productivity growth. China's "economic miracle" of the past 30 years has been due to its productivity, not credit/money creation. Money/credit origination greases the wheels of the supply side "machine" but does not replace it. Indeed, China's productivity boom over the past three-plus decades has been due to reforms that have allowed for the emergence and development of private enterprises, and attracting foreign technology/know-how. It has not been due to government control over the economy and credit creation. By and large, China is facing two potential growth trajectories, as depicted in Chart I-12 and Chart I-13 and explained in Box 1 on pages 13-15. A credit-driven economic downtrend entails deflation, while the path towards socialism warrants inflation. Barring a deflationary credit-driven growth slump, inflation in China will pick up sooner than later. The reason is that growing state control of the economy and resource allocation means poor capital allocation and much slower productivity - and in turn potential GDP growth. The latter, along with double-digit credit, creates fertile ground for an inflation outbreak (Chart I-9). If banks create too much money/credit, the price of money will go down- i.e., the currency will ultimately depreciate both versus foreign currencies as well as relative to goods/services and real assets like property. Chinese banks have created too much money (RMBs), and it is not surprising property prices have gone exponential and that the RMB is under downward pressure. In fact, Chinese households may be sensing there are too many RMBs floating around, and want to get rid of them by converting them into foreign currencies and buying real assets (real estate). On the whole, the exchange rate is a key to China's macro dynamics. If unrelenting credit creation persists, the yuan will continue to fall because Chinese households and companies will be reluctant to hold local currency. In such a case, credit origination will have to be curtailed to stabilize the exchange rate. Bottom Line: Unlimited credit/money creation will ultimately produce a major currency depreciation and/or inflation. These, in turn, will short-circuit the credit boom. Conclusions When investors and commentators justify exponential moves in credit or asset prices by the unique features of a particular economy - implying this time is really different - critical consideration is warranted. For example, Japan's 1980s bubble was justified by exclusive particularities of the Japanese economy; Hong Kong's real estate bubble of the 1990s was justified by limited land on the island; and the U.S. tech bubble of the late 1990s was explained by a "new era of productivity brought on by technology." Needless to say, in retrospect we know that these were bubbles, and they all deflated. Explaining away China's exponential surge in domestic leverage as a bi-product of its high savings rate makes us wary. The report explains why high national savings rates do not warrant high credit creation. China is facing two potential growth roadmaps, as depicted in Chart I-11 and Chart I-12 and elaborated in Box 1 (see page 13-15). Regardless of which way China's economy evolves, the medium-term outlook for mainland growth is downbeat. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team expects double-digit RMB depreciation in the next 12 months. We continue to recommend short positions in the RMB via 12-month NDFs. This is the rationale behind our negative stance on Asian currencies. We believe EM equities, credit markets and currencies will underperform their DM counterparts, regardless of the trajectory of share prices in the U.S./DM. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com BOX 1 Two Growth Path Forward For China1 1. Short-Term Pain / Long-Term Gain If the authorities were to allow market forces to prevail, the state should withdraw meaningfully from the credit allocation process. In that case, credit markets will bring discipline to both debtors and creditors - in effect, an emerging perception of potential losses rather than government-led bailouts will make creditors less willing to lend, and debtors less willing to borrow and expand. The result will be a considerable dampening in credit origination. In this scenario, it is very likely that credit growth slows from 12% currently to the level of potential nominal GDP growth of 7-8% or lower (Chart I-10), leading to a classic credit-driven economic downtrend (Chart I-11). In that case, cyclical growth will undershoot. Chart I-10China: Credit Is Outpacing ##br##GDP Growth By Wide Margin Chart I-11Capitalist-Style Credit-Driven Downtrend However, potential GDP growth (the red line in Chart I-11) - which has been falling in recent years - will stabilize and probably improve. The reason being that by allowing market forces to prevail in credit allocation and corporate restructuring/reorganization, China will ultimately improve its capital allocation and productivity. In brief, potential GDP growth - which equals productivity growth plus labor force growth - will stop falling and, in fact, could improve as productivity growth ameliorates. 2. No Short-Term Pain But Long-Term Stagnation It is essential to differentiate cyclical growth drivers from structural ones. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, structural growth will tumble and China will embark on a path of economic stagnation. That said, the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart I-12. Chart I-12Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation And Inflation A rising role of state and government officials in capital allocation and business decision-making guarantees suboptimal capital allocation, resulting in poor efficiency and declining productivity growth. Since China's labor force growth is projected to be flat-to-negative, the sole source of potential GDP growth going forward will be productivity growth. Besides, it is much easier to achieve high productivity growth in manufacturing than in the service sector. Finally, high productivity growth is possible when the productivity level was low. From the current levels, it is hard to grow productivity more than 5-6% annually. Chart I-13Socialist Put Will Depress ##br##Productivity Growth If we assume China's productivity is now about 6% (which is already very high) (Chart I-13), and if the country embarks down this path, odds are that productivity growth might drop by 100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1%. Given that labor force growth will be zero, if not contracting, in five years' time, potential GDP will drop to 1% or so, as shown in Chart I-12 on page 14. Hence, this path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-recovery cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably the first mini-cycle. How can investors invest in this scenario? The mini-cycles depicted in Chart I-12 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. Besides, financial market swings for China-related plays will differ from the economy's growth mini-cycles because markets can be driven by factors other than growth like politics, geopolitics, credit events, and other global variables such as the U.S. dollar and bond yields. In short, this analysis explains why we have been and remain bearish on China-related financial markets despite the stimulus that has been injected about a year ago. Investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Without that, investors cannot make money. 1 Originally published in January 11, 2017 EMS Weekly Report. 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, the links are available on page 18. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, the link is available on page 18. 3 This example assumes that neither the central bank nor local commercial banks are buying foreign currency. In the case when a commercial bank buys foreign currency, that transaction creates new money/deposit in the banking system although it does not create a new loan. The opposite is also true: when a commercial bank sells foreign currency, existing money/deposits are destroyed. 4 This example assumes that the local commercial banks are not buying foreign currency and only the central bank buys foreign currency from non-banks. 5 Lindner, F. (2015), "Does Saving Increase the Supply of Credit? A Critique of the Loanable Funds Theory", World Economic Review 4: 1-26, 2015 6 Jakad, Z. and Kumhof, M. (2015), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", Bank of England, Working Paper 529, May 2015 7 Borio, C. and Disyatat, P. (2015), "Capital Flows and the Current Account: Taking Financing (more) Seriously", BIS Working Papers, No. 525, October 2015 Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights China's monetary and fiscal policy in 2017 will likely remain accommodative, in order to achieve the goal of an average 6.5% GDP growth over the next five years. China's policies related to its property market will be much more restrictive than the previous two years. Chinese metal demand will grow at a slower pace than last year, as reflationary policies are throttled back. Feature Base metals and bulk markets had a fantastic year in 2016, a complete reversal of their miserable performance in 2015 (Chart 1, panels 1 and 2). Last year, the LMEX base metal index, steel prices and iron ore prices were up 30%, 75%, and 91%, respectively (using average prices in January and December). In comparison, during the same period of 2015, the LMEX index, steel and iron ore were down 22%, 30%, and 41%, respectively. Massive supply reductions, and recovering demand caused by China's reflationary fiscal and monetary policies, were the driving forces behind these sharp rallies in bulks and base metals prices last year. Both the official manufacturing PMI and Keqiang index, which are broadly used as key measures of Chinese economic conditions, reached a three-year high in late 2016 (Chart 1, panels 3 and 4). Clearly, metal prices had already discounted a positive outlook vis-a-vis Chinese economic growth, which was boosted by a series of reflationary policy initiatives in the past two years. The question now is: will reflationary monetary and fiscal policies continue into 2017? If so, on how large a scale will it be? What factors could limit or even prevent reflationary policies in China? A look back China's reflationary policies actually started in late 2014, when the property market and overall economy showed signs of weakness. The country accelerated its reflationary policies throughout 2015 and maintained a moderate reflationary stance in 2016, in order to spur domestic economic growth. Monetary policy: China cut its central-bank directed policy rate five times in 2015 from 5.6% to 4.35%, the lowest level since the data started in 1980 (Chart 2, panel 1). The People's Bank of China (PBoC), the country's central bank, also lowered the reserve requirement ratio at banks - the amount of reserves banks must keep on hand - four times in 2015 and once in 2016 from 18% to 15%, the lowest level since May 2010 (Chart 2, panel 2). Chart 1China Reflationary Policy Drove ##br##Metal Price Rallies In 2016 Chart 2Both Monetary and Fiscal Policies ##br##Were Reflationary Last Year Fiscal policy: China halved its 10% sales tax on passenger cars with engines up to 1.6 liters in October 2015, which boosted auto sales and production significantly last year (Chart 2, panel 3). The country also maintained its high-growth infrastructure investment last year (Chart 2, panel 4). Real estate-related policy: China loosened its housing-related policies extensively since September 2014, by among other things, reducing down-payment requirements for first-time home buyers, and reducing down payments needed to finance second homes. The goal of the policies was to reduce elevated housing inventories. Indeed, those policies, along with the combination of falling mortgage rates, revived the Chinese property market in 2016, and sparked a massive rally in steel-making commodities - metallurgical coal and iron ore - and in base metals. For the first 11 months of last year, the average selling prices of 70 cities and the total floor-space-sold area rose 13.6% and 24.3% yoy, respectively, which considerably improved from the 2015 same period's 6% and 7.4% yoy growth. The floor-space-started area had an even more significant improvement - a growth of 7.6% for the first 11 months of last year versus a deep contraction of 14.7% yoy for the same period of 2015 (Chart 3). What now? This year, we continue to expect accommodative monetary and fiscal policy in China. "Stability" was the key word during the three-day Central Economic Work Conference (December 14-16, 2016), an annual meeting that set out economic targets and policy priorities for next year. "Stability" means the country's leaders will try to implement policies designed to keep the country's GDP growth around 6.5% this year, the average GDP growth target for the five years between 2016 and 2020, under China's five-year plan. China's economic growth is on a downtrend, coming in at 6.9% in 2015, and a predicted 6.7% in 2016 (for the first three quarters of 2016, China's GDP growth was all 6.7%) (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 3Property Market Policy: ##br##Greatly Loosened In 2015 And 2016 Chart 4We Expect Chinese Monetary And Fiscal Policies ##br##To Stay Accommodative This Year The market's expectation for China's 2017 GDP growth currently is 6.5%. Even though President Xi has stated he is open to growth in China falling below 6.5%, too far below this level - for example, below 6% - could cause widespread disappointment in the country and trigger the "instability" leaders are trying to avoid. Hence, monetary accommodation likely will persist in 2017. As both headline inflation and core inflation in China still are not elevated, we do not expect any rate hikes or increases in the reserve requirement ratio to be announced by the PBoC this year (Chart 4, panel 2). In addition, the RMB depreciated considerably last year, which helps the country's exports and, to some extent, stimulates domestic economic growth (Chart 4, panel 3). In mid-December last year, Chinese policymakers raised the tax on small-engine autos slightly - from 5% last year to 7.5% this year - but this is still below its normal 10% level. This also indicates the country wants to maintain a moderate, but not too expansionary, level of fiscal stimulus In 2017. In 2016, most of Chinese automobile production growth came from small-engine passenger cars, which clearly benefited from this policy (Chart 4, panel 4). This year, we still expect positive growth in Chinese vehicle production but at a much slower rate than last year. Curbing Property Market Exuberance Regarding the Chinese property market, our take-away from the Central Economic Work Conference was that "curbing the speculative home purchases, containing asset bubbles and financial risks" will be among the country's top 2017 priorities. In comparison, back in 2016, reducing housing inventories was the focus. Indeed, with property sales recovering, inventory has fallen from its 2015 peak. Inventories still are elevated, but most of the overhang is in third- and fourth-tier cities, with some of it in even smaller cities (Chart 4, panel 5). A continuation of stricter housing policies deployed since last September to cool the over-heated domestic property market is expected. For example, Beijing raised the down payment for first-time homebuyers from 30% to 35%. Down payments for second homes rose from 30% to a minimum of 50%. For a second home larger than 140 square meters, the down payment is now 70%. So far, more than 20 cities have declared similarly strict policies to control speculative buying in property markets. Currently, a record high 20% of people surveyed plan to buy a new house in the next three months, which indicates further cooling measures are needed for the property market (Chart 5, panel 1). In the meantime, new mortgage loans as a share of home sales in value also reached a record high of 49%, and real estate-related loans as a share of total new bank loans now stand at a 6-year high, signaling financial risk in these markets is rising (Chart 5, panels 2 and 3). All of these factors signal that the Chinese authorities will maintain their restrictive property market policies in 2017. This will be negative for the country's bulk and base metals demand, as the property market accounts for some 35% of demand for these commodities. In conclusion, China's monetary and fiscal policies are likely to stay accommodative in 2017, while the country's housing market is facing restrictive policies. Shifting Economic Drivers For Bulk and Base Metal Demand We would like to remind our clients that China's economic structure is shifting: Services (also known as the "tertiary sector") account for a rising share of GDP, and are not big users of bulks or metals, while manufacturing (i.e., the "secondary sector) demand for these commodities is slowing. Services now account for 51.4% of GDP, while manufacturing now accounts for 39.8% (Chart 6). The GDP weight of services is up from 42% ten years ago, while the GDP weight of manufacturing is down 8 percentage points over the same period. Chart 5Property Market Policy Will Remain ##br##Restrictive in 2017 Chart 6China's Economic Structure Shift Is ##br##Negative To Metals Demand This shift is negative for metal demand growth, as the related manufacturing activity growth slows faster than the overall GDP growth. Overall, we believe Chinese bulk and base metal demand growth in 2017 will slow as a result of less expansionary policies than prevailed last year, and a more restrictive domestic housing market. Next week The Chinese Central Economic Work Conference also emphasized that 2017 will be a year to deepen supply-side structural reforms, which we will discuss in our next week's pub. We also will address the impact of Chinese environmental policy on Chinese metal output. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com ENERGY Chart 7Evidence Of Production Cuts Will Lift Oil Prices Oil Production Expected To Fall Reports of production cuts and reduced volumes being made available to U.S. and Asian refiners have been trickling out since the start of the year, lending underlying support to prices globally (Chart 7). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) is reducing exports of heavy-sour crudes favored by U.S. Gulf refiners, and boosting light-sweet sales, which will compete with North Sea volumes and U.S. shale production. This should tighten the spread between the light-sweet benchmarks Brent and WTI vs. Dubai (medium/heavy-sour). Reduced volumes being shipped by KSA to Asian refiners - particularly to Chinese refiners - will support Brent prices. We continue to expect the production cuts negotiated under the leadership of KSA and Russia to become apparent next month, and for inventories to draw in response. Continued high output by Iraq likely will be reduced in the near future. U.S. shale-oil output most likely will increase in 2H17 by ~ 200k to 300k b/d on average, given higher prices supporting drilling economics. Our expectation for global demand growth remains ~ 1.4mm b/d this year, roughly in line with 2016 growth. Given these underlying fundamentals, we expect inventories will begin showing sharp draws, causing backwardation in crude-oil markets to re-emerge in 2H17. As such, we are re-establishing our Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 WTI front-to-back spread - i.e., buying Dec/17 WTI and selling Dec/18 WTI against it. This spread was in contango going to press, making it particularly compelling. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017

Highlights Barring major external disruption, Chinese GDP growth will likely continue to accelerate into the first half of 2017. The overall policy stance will stay accommodative to safeguard against potentially negative shocks from abroad. Trade tensions between the world's two largest economies will inevitably increase, the degree of which matters greatly for how the Chinese economy as well as the global economy perform in the medium to long term. The dollar trend will continue to dictate the USD/RMB cross rate in the near term. The PBoC will continue to intervene heavily to prevent excessive currency weakness. Shorting the CNH/USD is not much different from a direct bet on the dollar index. Aggressive directional bet on Chinese shares is not warranted in the near term. Strategically favor Chinese equities over their global peers. Feature China has rung into 2017 with strengthening growth momentum that has been building in recent months, but the New Year clearly brings new challenges. China is on the receiving end of two major external uncertainties - namely, the anti-globalization backlash from the U.S. under President-elect Donald Trump and the outlook for the U.S. dollar, both of which are completely beyond its control. 2017 will also be a highly charged year in Chinese politics, as the ruling Communist Party prepares for a generational leadership reshuffle. This means the Chinese leadership will be more sensitive to perceived "provocations" from abroad, making political risk between the U.S. and China even less predictable. The Chinese authorities will remain highly vigilant about economic and financial stability. Meanwhile, the government will continue to mobilize the public sector and fiscal resources to support the economy, as external uncertainties mount. Domestic Demand Should Remain Buoyant Most of the recent data releases coming out of China have surprised to the upside, and the regained strength appears rather broad-based (Chart 1). Some indicators that are highly sensitive to industrial activity such as transportation freight, electricity generation and construction machine sales have rebounded sharply, partly due to last year's low base. Meanwhile, the consumer sector has remained buoyant, with strong expansion in durable goods sales such as cars and air conditioners. Looking forward, we expect the economy to continue to improve, at least in the next two quarters. Leading indicators are still strengthening. The latest PMI figures, both manufacturing and non-manufacturing, have continued to climb, and remain above the boom-bust threshold. The labor market is on the mend. The employment component of the PMIs has been rising in recent months, indicating increased hiring as the economy picks up (Chart 2). This could lead to a self-feeding virtuous cycle where an improving labor market leads to rising income growth and strengthening aggregate demand, which further boosts overall business activity and the labor market. Chart 1Broad-Based Recovery Chart 2Labor Market On The Mend The corporate sector is recovering. Inventories are exceptionally low, setting the stage for inventory restocking, which could further boost production (Chart 3). Profit growth among both private and state-owned enterprises has continued to accelerate. Rising profits are easing financial stress, particularly for debt-laden, asset-heavy sectors. This is also reflected in banks' asset quality; banks' non-performing loan accumulation has slowed sharply of late (Chart 4). In addition, recovery in the corporate sector should also bode well for investment, which is still subdued. The housing crackdown since early October has once again set the stage for negative surprises. Home sales have already begun to slow, and the government appears determined to check housing demand. A key difference between now and previous rounds of housing crackdowns is that developers have been quite cautious throughout the current cycle1: confidence has been downbeat, and housing starts have remained quite weak. Consequently, housing inventories have been quickly depleted nationwide. The demand crackdown has dashed hopes for a housing-led growth recovery, but low inventories and sluggish housing construction has also reduced the risk of another housing-led investment bust, which has typically followed previous housing tightening campaigns. Chart 3Inventory Restocking Will ##br##Further Boost Production Chart 4Corporate Sector Recovery ##br## Also Helps Banks Our model shows that Chinese GDP growth likely accelerated notably in the final quarter of the year, and the momentum will probably carry forward into the first half of 2017, assuming no major external disruption (Chart 5). The inauguration of Donald Trump next week marks the biggest uncertainty for China's growth outlook in recent history due to his well-publicized anti-globalization stance, especially his proposed harsh anti-China trade policies. Chart 5Growth Should Continue To Improve The Trump Wildcard Speculation on President-elect Trump's forthcoming China policies run amok, ranging from pragmatic deal-making, simmering frictions and tit-for-tat retaliation, to the inevitability of a full-fledged trade war and even to a geo-strategic alliance with Russia against China. It is impossible to tell at the moment where reality will eventually end up, but what is clear is that trade tensions between the world's two largest economies will inevitably increase, the degree of which matters greatly for how the Chinese economy as well as the global economy perform in the medium to long term. Low-profile trade tensions and punitive barriers will prove damaging to specific sectors and industries, but should not have a major macro impact. Chinese products that are likely to be subject to American punitive tariffs are some heavy industries such as metals. The usual suspects that may fall victim to Chinese retaliation are American transportation equipment and agricultural products - two main American export items to China. At the macro level, however, China's export sector performance should improve on a cyclical basis, especially if "Trumponomics" successfully lifts U.S. economic growth this year (Chart 6). As one of the major beneficiaries of globalization, China stands to suffer if the broad globalization trend reverses. The saving grace is that exports as a share of the Chinese economy have already almost halved to below 20%, a level comparable to the early 2000s before China joined the World Trade Organization (Chart 7). In other words, China's "globalization dividends" have already diminished to some extent. Moreover, Chinese exports depend more on the U.S. market than the other way around. Therefore, it is in China's best interests to avoid an escalation of trade frictions with the U.S., simply because it has more to lose.2 Nonetheless, it goes without saying that no country gains in a trade war, and the world risks a deep economic recession if the two largest economies engage in an all-out trade battle. Geo-strategic containment of some kind further darkens the outlook for both China and the world. A "cold war" between China and the U.S. would mark a drastic break from the global environment of the past four decades that allowed China to focus solely on economic development. One can only hope that a "clash of the titans" will not drag the world into a self-destructive downward spiral. Chart 6Trumponomics Should Also ##br##Help Chinese Exports Chart 7Globalization Dividends ##br## Have Already Diminished In short, it is too early to evaluate the impact of America's new trade policy on China's growth outlook. We suspect the near-term impact should be limited, as it is unlikely that trade tensions will immediately erupt once Trump takes office. Nonetheless, the situation needs to be monitored closely going forward. Policy: Fiscal Takes The Helm We expect the Chinese authorities will further downplay the significance of the annual GDP growth target as a binding policy constraint. Growth recovery and improvement in labor market conditions reduce the need for further pump-priming, but the overall policy stance will stay accommodative to safeguard against potentially negative shocks from abroad. On the monetary policy front, the case for further interest rate cuts has diminished (Chart 8). The People's Bank of China (PBoC) recently reiterated that its monetary stance will stay decisively "neutral." In our view, this means the PBoC will continue to fine-tune interbank liquidity, but any symbolic policy move in either direction can be ruled out, unless the economic situation takes a sudden turn. In contrast, fiscal policy will be more stimulative. The annual budget deficit will likely be further increased in the March session of the People's Congress. Moreover, some high-profile investment plans have been released in recent weeks, meaning policy-led investment spending will remain elevated going forward. The country aims to invest RMB 2 trillion, or US$290 billion, in tourism between 2016 and 2020. This would translate into annual growth of more than 14% in direct investment in the industry. China's National Energy Administration (NEA) plans to invest RMB 2.5 trillion (US$360 billion) to develop the nation's energy sector over the next five years, with a focus on renewable resources. Installed renewable power capacity including wind, hydro, solar and nuclear is expected to contribute to about half of new electricity generation in five years, which will boost growth and reduce pollution. The government continues to promote private-public partnerships (PPPs) to build infrastructure. The published PPP proposals so far amount to a whopping RMB 12.5 trillion, with a heavy concentration on the transportation network and urban development (Chart 9). Chart 8Expect No Change In Policy Interest Rate Chart 9Fiscal Takes The Helm It is worth noting that recent growth improvement has been accompanied by a notable slowdown in fiscal spending, leaving room for reacceleration going forward (Chart 10). In short, fiscal spending and policy-led investment will remain the key tools for the Chinese government to stabilize the economy. Chart 10Fiscal Spending Is Set To Reaccelerate Chart 11Weak RMB Or Strong Dollar? The RMB: Which Way Will The Wind Blow? Since the New Year, offshore RMB (CNH) liquidity has tightened dramatically, which has led to a massive surge in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate (HIBOR) of the RMB and a sharp rebound in the CNH/USD cross rate. This is widely viewed as a successful short squeeze engineered by the PBoC to punish speculators. It is certainly true that the authorities "allowed" offshore RMB liquidity to dry up, but the sharp spike in the HIBOR rate also closely resembles a classic emerging market currency crisis: speculative attacks on the exchange rate forces the monetary authorities to dramatically jack up interest rates to maintain exchange rate stability - a textbook example of the "Impossible Trinity" thesis at work. In China's case, however, the offshore HIBOR rate bears no relevance on the funding cost of the Chinese corporate sector. As such, the PBoC couldn't care less about periodic tightening in CNH liquidity, as it has no consequence on the domestic economy. This bodes poorly for the internationalization of the RMB, but is a low-cost tool for the PBoC to maintain control over the exchange rate. Two observations can be made from this episode: It is unlikely that the PBoC will completely give up control over the RMB exchange rate, especially in this politically charged year. Sharp depreciation in the RMB/USD may be viewed as a sign of systemic financial risk and economic weakness, a taboo ahead of the Party Congress later this year. Since the New Year, the Chinese authorities have further tightened capital account controls to restrict capital outflows - a reflection of the PBoC's determination to maintain exchange rate stability. There is now an almost universal consensus that the U.S. dollar will strengthen further this year, and that the RMB will decline. It is of course foolish to blindly bet against consensus, but it also means shorting the CNH/USD has already become a very crowded trade. The sharp rebound of the CNH/USD a few days ago is a classic example of a market stampede where investors rush to a narrow exit when conditions change. All this has made the risk-return profile of shorting the RMB against the dollar unfavorable, as the PBoC, with its formidable resources, could unexpectedly hit back at any time. Indeed, the performance of the CNH/USD cross rate has closely tracked the broad U.S. dollar index over the past two years, a situation unlikely to change going forward (Chart 11). The bottom line is that the dollar trend will continue to dictate the USD/RMB cross rate in the near term. The PBoC will continue to intervene heavily to prevent excessive currency weakness. For investors, shorting the CNH/USD is not much different from a direct bet on the dollar index. What To Do With Chinese Stocks? Chart 12Chinese Shares Valuation Perspective Chinese stocks will likely range-bound in the near term. The downside is limited by accommodative policy, stable/improving growth and depressed valuation, especially for H shares (Chart 12). The upside is capped by the ongoing macro concerns and brewing tension with the incoming U.S. administration. Chinese shares may also be vulnerable if the more frothy global bourses correct. Therefore, aggressive directional bet is not warranted in the near term. From a big picture point of view, however, we remain convinced that market concerns on China's macro conditions are overdone, and Chinese equities have been unduly punished. Investors with longer-term horizons should hold H shares. Strategically we favor Chinese equities over their global peers. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture," dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. dollar will likely overshoot. This is negative for EM. China by and large has a choice between two potential roadmaps: (1) short-term pain / long-term gain and (2) growth stagnation with mini-cycles around it. Regardless of which scenario transpires - so far the second scenario has been in effect - the medium-term outlook is downbeat. Given we are already advanced in this mini-cycle, the risk-reward for China plays in financial markets is negative. Feature Chart I-1Equity Investors Are ##br##Bullish With Minimum Hedges The U.S. dollar is overbought, but the primary trend remains up. A confluence of cyclical and structural economic forces, along with geopolitical and political risks, argue for further upside in the greenback. As the dollar grinds higher, emerging markets (EM) will suffer. EM stocks, currencies, and credit markets will not only underperform their developed market (DM) peers, but also relapse in absolute terms in the months ahead. Additional U.S. dollar strength and ongoing complacency in the U.S. equity market (Chart I-1) means that the 6-12 month outlook for global equity markets is poor. While momentum can carry DM markets higher in the very near term, EM share prices have already topped out, and the path of the least resistance is down. Dollar appreciation will be brought on by both global/EM and U.S. dynamics. Global Factors Supporting The U.S. Dollar The following global factors support the greenback's strength: Global demand for U.S. dollars is rising faster than the supply of U.S. dollars. We computed two measures of U.S. dollar liquidity. Measure 1 is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for foreign official and international accounts. Measure 2 is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreign residents (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Chart I-2AU.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 2) Chart I-2BU.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 1) Notably, the U.S. monetary base and the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by foreign official and international accounts are contracting, while the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreigners has stalled (Chart I-3). The monetary base shrinkage manifests the rise in reverse repos by the Fed, i.e., the Fed is siphoning in the banks' excess reserves (Chart I-3, bottom panel). The weakness in foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities is largely due to the selling of U.S. securities by EM central banks to provide U.S. dollars in order to meet strong dollar demand locally. China is the largest contributor to the surge in U.S. dollar demand as the depletion of its international reserves has been enormous. In short, the drop in U.S. dollar liquidity does not mean that U.S. dollar supply is shrinking. Instead, it implies that the demand for U.S. dollars is accelerating relative to its supply. When the pace of demand growth outpaces that of supply, the price of that commodity, good/service, or asset, rises. This will be the case for the greenback - it will appreciate further. Importantly, the RMB will remain under downward pressure, which will drag down other Asian currencies. China's unaccounted net capital outflows - measured by the balance of payment's net errors and omissions - have swelled to a record level of US$ 205 billion, or 2% of GDP (Chart I-4). Furthermore, the PBoC has been conducting full-out "reverse" sterilization of its U.S. dollar sales. By selling U.S. dollars to defend the RMB, the PBoC initially shrunk local currency liquidity. To preclude onshore interbank interest rates from spiking, the mainland monetary authorities have simultaneously re-injected RMB into the system via outright lending to banks and open-market operations (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Chart I-4China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows Chart I-5The PBoC: By doing so, they have kept interest rates low, but the supply of high-powered money has been restored. It is reasonable to expect such RMB liquidity injections to continue. This, in turn, will allow commercial banks to continue creating money/credit/deposits out of thin air. As such, the mushrooming supply of yuan will weigh on the currency's value. We discussed these issues in detail in our November 23, 2016 Special Report, titled China: Money Creation Redux and RMB.1 U.S. dollar borrowing costs are rising: Not only have U.S. bond yields spiked but the LIBOR rate has also continued its unrelenting uptrend, especially when compared to the EURIBOR (Chart I-6). Higher borrowing costs and expectations for further U.S. dollar strength will make non-American debtors with U.S. dollar liabilities reluctant to keep their short dollar exposure. They will try to either repay U.S. dollar debt or hedge it. This will ultimately increase the demand for U.S. dollars in the months ahead. Importantly, EM countries (outside of China) have US$ 5 trillion of foreign currency debt outstanding. Thus, higher U.S. borrowing costs will raise the demand for U.S. dollars as debtors rush to repay or hedge their U.S. dollar liabilities. We published an extensive review of EM foreign currency debt on January 4 in our Weekly Report titled EM: Overview of External Debt.2 This report provides information about various categories of borrowers (government, nonfinancial companies and financials), types of debt (loans versus bonds) and debt maturity (short- versus long-term) for each individual developing economy. The report also ranks countries according to their foreign debt burdens and short-term funding pressures. This report can be accessed by clicking on the link on page 19. The yield differential between EM local bonds and U.S. Treasurys has narrowed (Chart I-7), as U.S. bond yields have risen more than duration-adjusted EM domestic bond yields. Such a compression in the spread has reduced the attractiveness of EM local bonds. As U.S. bond yields resume their ascent, odds are that inflows into EM local bonds will diminish, and EM bonds will sell off. Chart I-8 illustrates that the J.P. Morgan EMLI EM currency total return index (including carry) has failed to break above an important technical resistance. When such a technical profile transpires, it is often followed by a major breakdown. Chart I-6Rising LIBOR Will Hurt Debtors ##br##With U.S. Dollar Liabilities Chart I-7The EM-U.S. Bond Yield ##br##Gap Has Narrowed Chart I-8EM Currency Return With ##br##Carry: More Downside Trade protectionism is bound to rise. The proposed U.S. Border-Adjusted Corporate Tax and any potential U.S. import tariffs will lead many exporter countries to devalue their currencies substantially to offset the loss in exporter revenues in local- currency terms. For example, Chart I-9 shows that U.S. import prices from China have been deflating in U.S. dollar terms but have risen a lot in RMB terms. The latter is what matters to producers. Hence, China and many other exporters to the U.S. will seek to devalue their currencies further to offset import tariffs and the resulting drop in US. dollar revenues from their sales in America. Finally, the outlook for foreign capital inflows (both FDI and equity flows) into EM remains very poor. EM growth is weak and will remain so. The growth acceleration in advanced economies will not help EM economies much for reasons we discussed at length in our December 14, 2016 Weekly Report.3 Remarkably, the worsening trend in relative manufacturing PMIs between EM and DM suggests EM growth and share prices will continue to underperform DM (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Deflation In U.S. Dollars, Rising In RMB Terms Chart I-10EM Will Continue Underperforming DM Bottom Line: The current confluence of global economic forces and rising trade protectionism in the U.S. will propel the U.S. dollar higher. Domestic Underpinnings Of The U.S. Dollar Rising U.S. interest rate expectations will extend the U.S. dollar rally: The U.S. labor market is tight, and wage growth is accelerating (Chart I-11). This is what the Federal Reserve has been waiting for years, and the central bank will now gradually but steadily ramp up its hawkishness. This will push up U.S. interest rate expectations and prop up the dollar. The exchange rate appreciation will cool off the manufacturing sector at a time when the rest of the economy will be robust. In brief, a strong dollar will be needed to avoid overheating in the U.S. economy. While an overshoot in the dollar will certainly have a deflationary impact on the U.S. economy, especially its manufacturing sector, the negative impact will be somewhat offset because of potential trade protectionist measures introduced by the U.S. authorities. Remarkably, U.S. interest rates are still too low. In particular, 10-year TIPS yields are a mere 0.5%, and long-term bond yields are low relative to wage growth (Chart I-12). Chart I-11U.S. Labor Market Is Tight Chart I-12U.S. Bond Yields Are Low U.S. credit growth is strong and the real estate market is vibrant. There is no reason for U.S. interest rates to stay at emergency low levels that have prevailed since the Lehman crisis. Notably, potential fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration warrants higher interest rates to avoid boom-bust cycles. The Fed will tighten policy sooner rather than later, as policymakers know that policy works with time lags and they will not wait for the economic impact of fiscal spending to works its way through the economy. We believe the 50 basis points hikes over the next 12 months currently priced into the U.S. fixed income market are too low, and interest rate expectations will climb by about 50 basis points in the months ahead. Finally, the U.S. dollar has not yet overshot. It is only modestly above its fair value, according to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. Typically, bull and bear markets do not end at fair value; financial markets tend to over- and under-shoot. We believe the U.S. dollar is primed to overshoot before this current bull run peters out. Bottom Line: Robust U.S. growth and tight labor market conditions put the U.S. in a unique global position to tolerate a stronger currency, for a while. We continue recommending short positions in a basket of the following EM currencies: KRW, IDR, MYR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, CLP and COP. We are also short the RMB via 12-month NDFs. China: Growth Revival And Hard Choices Ahead China's growth has revived, spurred by another round of credit and fiscal stimulus. However, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains that the latest improvement in growth will prove unsustainable and vulnerabilities abound. In particular: Despite improving economic data, the Chinese equity indexes have fared extremely poorly. China's MSCI Investable index was essentially flat during 2016, and domestic A-shares were down 20% in the U.S. dollar terms. This compares with 9.5%, 5.7% and 8.5% gains in the S&P 500, global, and EM share prices in U.S. dollar terms, respectively, over the course of 2016. The relative performance of the Chinese MSCI Investable index to the global stock index has rolled over after failing to break above its technical resistance (Chart I-13, top panel). The same is true for share prices in absolute terms (Chart I-13, bottom panel). These chart profiles hint that Chinese stocks have failed to enter a bull market, and downside is material. How do we explain the divergence between weak Chinese share prices and the rally in commodities prices and commodities stocks globally? Chart I-14 demonstrates that apart from the 2014-'15 bubble run in Chinese equities, the latter's relative performance versus global stocks has been a good forward-looking indicator for industrial metals prices. Chart I-13Chinese Stocks Have ##br##Failed To Break Out Chart I-14Underperformance Of Chinese ##br##Stocks Bodes Ill For Commodities Based on this chart and our qualitative analysis, our bias is to argue that the poor performance of Chinese share prices signals lingering downside risks in Chinese growth, and an associated drop in commodities prices and commodities related equities. Besides, the rally in both oil and metals can largely be explained by investor buying rather than by the real economy demand exceeding supply. Chart I-15 shows that net long positions of non-commercial traders (investors) in oil and copper are overextended. In addition, OECD oil product inventories continue their unrelenting uptrend, suggesting that supply is still exceeding consumption (Chart I-16). Following property market restrictions, China's home purchases have dived (Chart I-17). This will depress construction activity, which will weigh on demand for industrial goods/equipment and commodities over course of 2017. Chart I-15Traders Are Very Long Oil And Copper Chart I-16Global Oil Inventories Continue Rising Chart I-17China: Home Sales Have Plummeted Onshore bond yields, including corporate bond yields, have spiked, and the PBoC has allowed the repo rate for non-bank financial organizations to rise. This will, at a minimum, dampen non-bank (shadow) credit growth. Given that non-bank credit (entrusted loan, trusted loan, bank acceptance bill and net corporate bond issuance) accounts for 30% of total outstanding claims on companies and households, a deceleration in non-bank (shadow) credit will have a non-trivial impact on growth. Finally, there are considerable geopolitical and political risks in and around China. Many investors have become sanguine about China-related political risks, assuming the authorities will guarantee growth remains robust going into the fall 2017 Party Congress, which will decide on the leadership transition. However, a drop in perceived China-linked risks could be a sign of the calm before the storm. First off, the Chinese government might strive for economic stability ahead of this fall's Party Congress, but political volatility ahead of that time cannot be ruled out. It is an open secret that President Xi Jinping's aggressive consolidation of power and "non-collegial" decision-making has created opposition within the Communist party. The opposition cannot wait past the Party Congress when President Xi further strengthens his grip on power. The opposition, if it is able, will likely attempt to strike preemptively in order to prevent a further consolidation of power by President Xi. While it is impossible to know details or forecast the dynamics of the Communist Party's internal discourse, investors should not be complacent. Second, China will retaliate in some form against U.S. trade protectionist measures. It is difficult to know how this trade standoff between the U.S. and China will unfold, but our sense is that risks are underpriced in global financial markets. U.S.-China trade disputes could evolve into broader geopolitical tensions in Asia. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has written about geopolitical risks in Asia at great length.4 In short, political and geopolitical risks abound in and around China. Remarkably, in recent years financial markets have been more preoccupied by political rather than economic developments. Examples include Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa. In these countries, financial markets have been much more sensitive to political changes than economic fundamentals. This may be the case in China too. Growth could stay firm for a while, but the markets will sell off based on heightened political and geopolitical volatility and tensions. Apart from the above-mentioned downside risks, China's growth model is facing two major ways forward from a big-picture perspective: 1. Short-Term Pain / Long-Term Gain: If the authorities were to allow market forces to prevail, the state should withdraw meaningfully from the credit allocation process. In that case, credit markets will bring discipline to both debtors and creditors - in effect, an emerging perception of potential losses rather government-led bailouts will make creditors less willing to lend, and debtors less willing to borrow and expand. The result will be a considerable dampening in credit origination. In this scenario, it is very likely that credit growth slows from 12% currently to the level of potential nominal GDP growth of 7-8% or lower (Chart I-18), leading to a classic credit-driven economic downtrend (Chart I-19). In that case, cyclical growth will undershoot. Chart I-18China: Credit Is Outpacing GDP ##br##Growth By Wide Margin Capitalist-Style Credit-Driven Downtrend However, potential GDP growth (the red line in Chart I-19) - which has been falling in recent years - will stabilize and probably improve. The reason being that by allowing market forces to prevail in credit allocation and corporate restructuring/reorganization, China will ultimately improve its capital allocation and productivity. In brief, potential GDP growth - which equals productivity growth plus labor force growth - will stop falling and, in fact, could improve as productivity growth ameliorates. 2. No Short-Term Pain But Long-Term Stagnation: It is essential to differentiate cyclical growth drivers from structural ones. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, structural growth will tumble and China will embark on a path of economic stagnation. As we have argued in past reports,5 banks in any country can originate unlimited amounts of credit/money/deposits if and when the central bank accommodates them, and shareholders and regulators do not object. China has been following this model over the past several years. Yet, this model does not bring about lasting prosperity. On the contrary, it leads to economic stagnation. China would be no different in this scenario, though the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart I-20. Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation A rising role of state and government officials in capital allocation and business decision-making guarantees suboptimal capital allocation, resulting in poor efficiency and declining productivity growth. Since China's labor force growth is projected to be flat-to-negative (Chart I-21), the sole source of potential GDP growth going forward will be productivity growth. If the authorities do not allow market forces to play a larger role in resource allocation, including credit, the former will contract. The bullish camp on China argues that the authorities have a firm grip and control over the economy, and that they will never allow it to slow by injecting an unlimited amount of credit and fiscal stimulus. While this may be true, policymakers can do that, it is not a reason to be bullish. Quite the opposite: it is a reason to be structurally bearish on Chinese growth. Unrelenting credit and fiscal stimulus, and a resurging role of government in resource allocation, corporate restructuring, and increasingly in business decision-making, means the economy is moving back toward its socialist bend. In socialist economies, productivity growth is weak or sometimes negative. China's success over the past 30 years was based on a move towards private enterprise, entrepreneurism, and transition toward a more market-based model, and not on government credit injections. As China refuses to give greater say to market forces, and state officials and bureaucrats gets even more involved in credit and resource allocation to prevent genuine deleveraging and bankruptcies, economic efficiency and productivity will suffer. If we assume China's productivity is now about 6% (which is already a very high number) (Chart I-22), and if the country embarks down this path, odds are that productivity growth might drop by 100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1%. Given that labor force growth will be zero, if not contracting, in five years' time, potential GDP will drop to 1% or so, as shown in Chart I-20 on page 14. Hence, this path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. Chart I-21China: Labor Force Is Projected To Contract Chart I-22Socialist Put Will Depress Productivity Growth The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-recovery cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably the first mini-cycle. How can investors invest in this scenario? The mini-cycles depicted in Chart I-20 on page 14 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. Besides, financial market swings for China-related plays will differ from the economy's growth mini-cycles because markets can be driven by factors other than growth like politics, geopolitics, credit events, and other global variables such as the U.S. dollar and bond yields. In short, this analysis explains why we have been and remain bearish on China-related financial markets despite the stimulus that has been injected about a year ago. Investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Without that, investors cannot make money. Bottom Line: China by and large has two potential roadmaps going forward: (1) Short-term pain / long-term gain and (2) growth stagnation with mini-cycles around it. Regardless of which scenario transpires - so far, the second scenario has been in effect - the medium-term outlook is negative. Given that we are already advanced in the mini-cycle, the risk-reward for China plays in financial markets is negative. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, link available on page 19. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "EM: Overview Of External Debt," dated January 4, 2017, link available on page 19. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Key EM Issues Going Into 2017," dated December 14, 2016, link available on page 19. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, links available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Will inflation return in Europe & Japan? Can Trumponomics successfully boost U.S. economic growth? Will global market volatility remain this low? Can China avert a crisis and still be the engine of global growth? Feature With a New Year now upon us, fixed income investors are trying to determine what the next move is for global bond yields after the rapid rise at the end of 2016. While much has been made of the impact of the 2016 U.S. election result on the global bond rout, many other important factors will drive fixed income markets this year (Chart of the Week). In our first Weekly Report of the New Year, we present our list of the most important questions for global bond markets in 2017. Chart 1The Big Questions For 2017 Chart 2Taper Tantrum 2.0? Will Inflation Return In Europe & Japan? Extremely low inflation in the Euro Area and Japan over the past few years has forced both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) to pursue exceptionally accommodative monetary policies like negative interest rates and large scale quantitative easing (QE) programs - the latter acting to depress bond term premia among the major developed markets. Much of this decline in headline inflation in both regions was due to the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices and the previous strength in both the euro and yen (Chart 2), but core inflation and wage growth have also been subdued. If headline inflation were to move higher in either Europe or Japan, it could call into question the central banks' commitment to continue hyper-easy monetary stimulus programs. This could raise the threat of another "taper tantrum" in developed bond markets later in 2017. The recovery in global energy prices in 2016, combined with significant currency depreciations related to ECB/BoJ QE, have boosted the annual growth in the local currency price of oil to 72% in the Euro Area and 63% in Japan. Already, headline inflation measures have begun to move higher in response and, judging by past relationships, a move up to 2% headline inflation in both regions by year-end is possible. In Chart 3 & Chart 4, we present simulations for headline inflation in both the Euro Area and Japan assuming the only changes come from movements in oil prices, the euro and the yen. We show two scenarios where the Brent oil price rises to $65/bbl (the high end of the range expected by our commodity strategists in 2017) and $75/bbl (an extreme scenario). In both simulations, the euro and yen continue to weaken versus the U.S. dollar until mid-2017 before recovering to near current levels by year-end. Chart 3Euro Area Inflation Simulation Chart 4Japan Inflation Simulation Our simulations show that headline inflation in both the Euro Area and Japan could rise to at least the 2% level, and perhaps even higher, if oil prices continue to climb and both the yen and Euro weaken towards 125 and parity versus the U.S. dollar, respectively. Given our views on the likely path of interest rates in the U.S. - higher, as the Fed continues hiking rates - the U.S. dollar is likely to strengthen more in 2017. The oil price moves incorporated in our simulations are somewhat more bullish than our base case expectation, but not extraordinarily so. If there are any upside surprises to global growth this year, oil prices could show surprising strength given the production cutbacks occurring in many of the major oil exporting nations. Higher inflation would be welcome by both the ECB and BoJ, especially if it were accompanied by a rise in inflation expectations. Both central banks have acknowledged the role played by low realized inflation in recent years in depressing expected inflation, but the latter could move up surprisingly fast if the markets believe that either central bank will be slow to respond to the rise in realized inflation. That seems like more of a risk in Japan, where the BoJ is aiming for an overshoot of its 2% inflation target and is promising to keep the Japanese government bond (JGB) curve at current levels until that point is reached. The ECB would be much more likely to make the decision to begin tapering their bond purchases if Euro Area inflation approaches 2%. We see this as the biggest potential threat to global bond markets in 2017 - even more than the expected Fed rate hikes, which are already largely priced into the U.S. yield curve. The ECB was able to successfully kick the tapering can down the road last month by choosing to extend its QE program to the end of 2017, but a decision to defer tapering again will be much harder to make if Euro Area inflation is closer to 2%. If the ECB were to announce a taper later in 2017, this would be very damaging for the long ends of yield curves in the developed markets as bond term premia would begin to normalize - perhaps very rapidly. There is more room for adjustment for term premia in core Euro Area government bonds relative to U.S. Treasuries. An ECB taper announcement, or even just expectations of it, would mark the peak in the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds which is now at the highest levels in a quarter century. Given the busy upcoming election calendar in the Euro Area, the ECB will not want to even mention the word "taper" until later in the year. Until then, owning inflation protection in Europe, and Japan as well, is the best way to position for upside surprises in inflation in those regions. Bottom Line: Rising inflation in the Euro Area and Japan in 2017 will prompt a rethink of the hyper-easy monetary policies of both the ECB and BoJ, but only the former is likely to consider a taper of its bond purchase program this year. That decision would push global bond yields higher via wider term premia and cause Euro Area government bond markets to underperform U.S. Treasuries, but not until later in the year. Can Trumponomics Successfully Boost U.S. Economic Growth? After a long and divisive U.S. election campaign, the curtain is about to officially be raised on the Trump era on January 20. In anticipation of a more pro-growth agenda from the new president, investors have already bid up the valuations of assets sensitive to U.S. economic growth, like equities and corporate bonds, while also driving up both U.S. Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar. Chart 5Time To Spruce Up U.S. Infrastructure Markets are now discounting a fairly rosy scenario for a solid "Trump bump" to U.S. economic growth in 2017. This is to be expected, given that the president-elect won the White House on a platform full of promises to, among other things, boost government infrastructure spending, cut corporate taxes, tear down excess regulations on U.S. companies and adopt a more protectionist U.S. trade policy. In terms of a direct impact to U.S. GDP growth, there are three obvious places where the economic plan of Candidate Trump could turn into stronger growth this year for President Trump: government fixed investment, net exports and private capital expenditure. Trump's infrastructure plans have received much of the attention from those bullish on U.S. growth in 2017; unsurprising given the proposed size of the proposals ($550 billion). This stimulus would appear to be a source of low-hanging fruit to boost U.S. economic growth, as years of underinvestment has left America with an aging government infrastructure in need of an upgrade (Chart 5). Yet the boost to growth from government investment spending has historically not been large, adding between 0.25% and 0.5%, at most, over the past 40 years (bottom panel). Trump's proposed figure of $550 billion would fit right in with that experience, as it would represent 0.3% of the current $18.6 trillion U.S. economy. That assumes that all the proposed infrastructure spending occurs in a single year. Given the usual long lead times for big government infrastructure projects, and the discussions between the White House and the U.S. Congress over the scope and funding of any major government spending initiative, it is highly unlikely that the direct effect of more infrastructure spending will provide much of a boost to U.S. growth in 2017. That impact is more likely to be seen in 2018. A boost to growth from trade is also possible given Trump's fiery protectionist election rhetoric and his decision to nominate China hawks for major cabinet positions. It is unclear if Trump is willing to risk entering a trade war with China (or even Mexico) by raising import tariffs soon after taking office. It is even more uncertain if this will provide much of an immediate lift to U.S. net exports, if tariffs merely raise the cost of imports without any material substitution to domestically produced goods and services. Even if it did, trade has rarely contributed positively to real U.S. GDP growth outside of recessions since 1960. That leaves private fixed investment as the biggest potential source of new growth in the U.S. in 2017. Trump is proposing a cut in the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, while the Republican plan already set out by House Speaker Paul Ryan is calling for a cut to 25%. Both sides also are in favor of a lower "repatriation tax" on corporate profits held abroad, at a rate of 10-15%. So with all parts of the U.S. government in agreement, a move to cut corporate taxes appears to be a near certainty. In the past, efforts to initiate comprehensive tax reform have been not been done quickly in Washington. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, however, believe that a deal between the White House and Congress could happen in the first half of 2017. The details of the other major policy initiatives that Trump wants done early in his first term - repealing and replacing Obamacare, and the infrastructure spending program - will be much harder to iron out than a tax cut on which both Trump and the Republican Congress agree. Doing the tax reform first will be the easier choice for a new president.1 Cutting corporate taxes seems like a move that should help boost U.S. private investment spending, as it would raise the after-tax return on capital. However, investment spending has already been underperforming relative to after-tax cash flows since the 2008 Financial Crisis, and the effective tax rate paid by the U.S. corporate sector is already much lower than the 35% marginal tax rate (Chart 6). Something else besides tax levels has been weighing on U.S. corporate sentiment with regards to capital spending intentions. It may be that the burden of excess government regulations, which has soared during the years of the Obama administration (bottom panel), has dampened animal spirits in the U.S. corporate sector. On that front, Trump's proposals to slash regulations - none bigger than repealing Obamacare - could help boost business confidence and fuel an upturn in capital spending. Chart 6A Regulatory Burden, Not A Tax Burden Chart 7Making Corporate America Happy Again Some rebound in capex was likely to occur, Trump or no Trump, given the recent improvement in U.S. corporate profits (Chart 7, top panel). This is especially true in the Energy sector which generated the biggest drag on U.S. corporate investment spending after the collapse in oil prices in 2014/15. Since the election, however, there has been a noticeable improvement in confidence within the "C-suite" for American companies. The Duke University/CFO Magazine measure of optimism on the U.S. economy hit the highest level in over a decade (middle panel), while the Conference Board index of CEO optimism soared to the highest level in three years, at the end of 2016. Executive confidence at those levels would be consistent with a pace of capital spending that could add up to 1 full percentage point to U.S. real GDP growth, based on past relationships - (bottom panel). For both of these surveys, executives cited a more positive outlook on future growth after the U.S. election as a major reason for the increase in optimism. In sum, the biggest potential lift to U.S. economic growth in 2017 from Trumponomics will come from business investment and not government spending or exports, and likely by enough to boost overall U.S. GDP growth to an above-trend pace that will prompt the Fed to deliver at least 2-3 rate hikes by year-end. Bottom Line: A major boost to U.S. economic growth from government investment spending and net exports is unlikely in 2017. A pickup in corporate investment, however, seems far more likely given the boost to longer-term business confidence seen after the U.S. elections, coming at a time of improving global economic growth. Will Market Volatility Stay This Low? Given all the uncertainties over the latter half of 2016, from Brexit to Trump to Italy, it is surprising how low market volatility has been. Measures of implied volatility like the VIX index for U.S. equities have remained incredibly subdued, while even the uptick in MOVE index has been relatively modest considering the year-end carnage in the Treasury market (Chart 8). The fact that global risk assets can remain so relatively well-behaved, even after a surprising U.S election result and a Fed rate hike that has boosted the U.S. dollar, is a sign that the "Fed Policy Loop" - where a more hawkish U.S. monetary stance causes an unwanted surge in the U.S. dollar and a selloff in equity and credit markets - has been broken. As we discussed in our 2017 Outlook report, the Fed Policy Loop framework would not apply in an environment where non-U.S. economic growth was improving, as is the currently the case.2 This may be the most obvious explanation for why market volatilities are low, with developed market equities hitting cyclical highs and corporate credit spreads staying at cyclical lows. In other words, volatility is low because growth is accelerating and global central banks (most notably, the Fed) are not slamming on the brakes. Chart 8The Death Of The Fed Policy Loop? Chart 9U.S. Dollar Strength Will Persist In 2017 The strength of the U.S. dollar has been a function of the widening real interest rate differential between the U.S. and the rest of the world (Chart 9), which is likely to continue this year as the Fed delivers a few more rate hikes while U.S. inflation grinds slowly higher. We do not expect the Fed to be forced to shift to a more aggressive pace of tightening than currently implied by the FOMC forecasts. On the margin, this will help keep market volatility at subdued levels. A predictable Fed slowly tightening into an improving economy is not overly problematic for financial markets. That logic would be turned upside down if non-U.S. growth were to begin to slow sharply (not our base case) or if there were some non-U.S. source of uncertainty that could make markets jittery. Last year, political surprises ended up being the biggest shock for financial markets. Given the busy upcoming election schedule in Europe (Table 1), there is concern that a similar story could play out in 2017. Table 1Europe In 2017 Will Be A Headline Risk The shock of Brexit and Trump have investors asking "where will the next populist uprising be?" France seems like the most obvious possibility, with the well-known right-wing (and anti-EU) populist Marine Le Pen running in this year's presidential election. French government debt has already priced in some modestly higher risk premium in recent months (Chart 10). Even in the bastion of stability, Germany, the rise of anti-immigration parties has some forecasting a difficult re-election campaign for Chancellor Angela Merkel later in the year. Our geopolitical strategists have long argued that there is not enough support for populist, anti-EU, anti-immigration parties in either Germany, France or the Netherlands (who also have an election this year) to win an election.3 The recent polling data strongly supports that view, with Le Pen's popularity on the decline for the past three years and with Merkel's popularity holding steady over the past year (Chart 11) - even as horrific terror incidents committed by "foreigners" have occurred on both French and German soil. Chart 10Not Worried About European Populism... Chart 11...For Good Reasons BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic, believes that Italy remains the greatest political risk in Europe in 2017, with elections possible as early as the spring. With the Senate reforms defeated in the December referendum, the country needs to re-write its already complicated electoral laws. This will likely take time, pushing the potential election date to late spring or early summer. If an early election is not called, a new vote must be held by the expiry of the government's mandate in May 2018. Chart 12Italy Is The Biggest Political Risk In Europ Chart 13A Managed Renminbi Depreciation Given the lower support for the euro in Italy than the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 12), and given the strong showing in the polls for the anti-establishment, anti-EU Five Star Movement led by Beppe Grillo, an early Italian election could be the biggest potential political shock for markets in 2017. This likely will not be enough to cause a major flare-up of global market volatility, but it does suggest that investors should remain underweight Italian government debt. Bottom Line: Improving global growth will continue to support low market volatility during 2017, even with the Fed remaining in a tightening cycle. European political risk should not be a Brexit/Trump-type source of concern for investors outside of Italy. Can China Avert A Crisis And Still Be The Engine Of Global Growth? This is a question that we may be asking every year for the next decade, given China's high debt levels and decelerating potential economic growth. Periodic episodes of uncertainty over Chinese currency policy are always a threat to trigger capital outflows, as has occurred over the past year and half (Chart 13). The Chinese authorities have chosen to allow currency depreciation versus the U.S. dollar to help manage the pace of that outflow, particularly during the past year when interest rate differentials have moved in a more dollar-positive direction. With over US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves at the government's disposal, the odds remain low that a true economic crisis can unfold in China. Additional renminbi weakness versus the U.S. dollar is likely in 2017, but the recent actions to sharply raise offshore renminbi interest rates is an indication that Chinese authorities will not tolerate a rapidly weakening currency. The incoming Trump administration is obviously an unforecastable wild card here, and China could respond to a new trade war with the U.S. by allowing a more rapid pace of currency weakness versus the dollar. Having said that - if China-U.S. relations don't boil over, then the underlying story for China will be one of improving economic growth in 2017. The underlying growth indicators in our "China Checklist" unveiled late last year (Table 2) continue to improve (Chart 14), and we continue to see China as being a positive contributor to the global economic cycle in 2017 (Donald Trump and his band of China hawks notwithstanding). This is important, as the global upturn seen in 2016 began in China early in the year. This fed through into many other countries either directly via exports to China or indirectly through an improvement in the pricing power for commodity exporters that benefitted from faster Chinese demand. Table 2The GFIS China Checklist Chart 14Chinese Growth Still Improving Bottom Line: China will likely remain a positive driver of the global economic upturn in 2017, with the biggest risk coming from increased tensions with the incoming Trump administration, not accelerating domestic capital outflows. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency", dated November 20th 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "How To Think About Global Bond Investing In 2017", dated December 20th 2016, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook 2017, "5 Themes For 2017", dated December 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns