China

Special Report

Feature At no time in recent history have China's foreign reserves been under such tight scrutiny by global investors as they are now. The country's multi-trillion-dollar official reserve assets, long viewed by both Chinese officials and the global investment community as an unproductive use of resources, have suddenly became a lifeline for China's exchange rate stability. The latest numbers released last week show China's official reserves currently stand at US$3.05 trillion, a massive drawdown from the US$3.99 trillion all-time peak reached in 2014. Over the years, we have been running a series of Special Reports tracking the composition of China's foreign asset holdings.1 This year's update has become all the more relevant. The monthly headline figures on China's official reserves have been eagerly anticipated for clues of domestic capital outflows and the RMB outlook. Meanwhile, as the largest foreign holder of American government paper, changes in China's official reserves are also being scrutinized to assess any impact on U.S. interest rates. Moreover, Chinese outward direct investment (ODI), which had already accelerated strongly in the past few years, has skyrocketed this year - partially driven by expectations of further RMB depreciation. The Chinese authorities have recently tightened scrutiny on large overseas investments by domestic firms, which will likely lead to a notable slowdown in Chinese ODI in the near term.2 This week we take a closer look at the U.S. Treasury International Capital (TIC) system data and various other sources to check the evolution of China's official reserves and foreign assets. There are some important caveats. First, Chinese holdings of U.S. assets reported by the TIC are not entirely held by the People's Bank of China in its official reserves. Some assets, particularly corporate bonds and equities, may be held by Chinese institutional investors. Meanwhile, it is well known that in recent years China has been using offshore custodians in some European countries, the usual suspects being Belgium, Luxembourg and the U.K., which disguises the true situation of the country's official reserve holdings. Finally, China's large conglomerates owned by the central government also hold vast amounts of foreign assets, or "shadow reserves" that could be utilized to support the RMB if needed. Recently these state-owned giants were reportedly required by the government to repatriate some of their foreign cash sitting idle overseas to counter capital outflows. All of this suggests the resources available to the government are larger than the official reserve figures. With these caveats, this week's update reveals some important developments in the past year: Chinese foreign reserves have dropped by around US$400 billion since the end of 2015 to US$3.05 trillion, a level last seen in 2005 when the RMB was de-pegged from the dollar followed by a multi-year ascendance (Chart 1). China still holds the largest amount of foreign reserves in the world, but its global share has dropped to about 40%, down from a peak of over 50% in 2014. TIC data show Chinese holdings of U.S. assets declined by a mere US$100 billion in the past year, leading to a sharp increase in U.S. assets as a share of the country's total foreign reserves (Table 1). This could be attributable to mark-to-market "paper losses" of Chinese holdings in non-dollar denominated foreign assets, due to the broad strength of the greenback. It is also possible that China may have intentionally increased its allocations to U.S. assets due to heightened risks in other countries, particularly in Europe. Chinese holdings of Japanese government bonds also increased significantly this past year. Table 1Chinese Foreign Exchange Reserves Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have dropped by about US$100 billion in recent months, but holdings of some other countries suspected as China's overseas custodians have continued to rise (Chart 2). This could mean that Chinese holdings of U.S. assets could be larger than reflected in the TIC data. Chinese outward direct investments have continued to power ahead. Previously Chinese investments were heavily concentrated in commodities sectors and resource-rich countries. This year the U.S. has turned out to be the clear winner in attracting Chinese capital. Moreover, recent investment deals have been concentrated in consumer related sectors such as tourism, entertainment and technology industries. Chart 1Chinese Foreign Reserves##br## Have Continued To Decline Chart 2U.S. Treasurys: How Much ##br##Does China Really Hold? Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, Senior Analyst qingyun@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Demystifying China's Foreign Assets", dated September 30, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “How Will China Manage The Impossible Trinity”, dated December 8, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com China's official data shows that the country's total holdings of international assets have stayed flat at around US$6.2 trillion since 2014, including foreign exchange reserves, direct investment, overseas lending and holdings of bonds and equities. Official reserves have declined in recent years, but other holdings have jumped sharply. Reserves assets still account for over half of total foreign assets, but their share has continued to drop. In contrast, outward direct investment and overseas loans have gained significantly both in value terms and as a share of the country's total foreign assets. Chart 3 Chart 4 Despite the sharp decline, international investment positions by Chinese nationals, public and private combined, are still much more heavily concentrated in official reserve assets compared with other major economies. In other major creditor countries, outward direct investments and portfolio investments account for much larger shares than reserve assets. Official reserves in the U.S. are negligible. Chinese official reserves give the PBoC resources to maintain exchange rate stability, but they also lower the expected returns of the country's foreign assets. Encouraging domestic entities to acquire overseas assets directly has been a long-run policy. More recently, however, the authorities have been alarmed by the pace of Chinese nationals' overseas investment and have been taking restrictive measures. Chart 5 Our calculations shows that Chinese total holdings of U.S. assets reached US$1.74 trillion at the end of September 2016, including Treasurys, government agency bonds, corporate bonds, stocks and non-Treasury short-term custody liabilities of U.S. banks to Chinese official institutions, based on the TIC data (Table 1, on page 2). Treasurys still account for the majority of the country's total holdings of U.S. assets, while bonds and stocks are relatively insignificant. China's holdings of U.S. assets as a share of total reserves declined between the global financial crisis and 2014, since when the trend has reversed. The share of U.S. asset holdings currently accounts for 55% of Chinese official reserves, compared with a peak of over 70% in the early 2000s and a trough of 46% in 2014. This could also be attributable to the sharp appreciation of the U.S. dollar against other majors. The U.S. dollar carries a 42% weight in the SDR (Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund), and it accounts for about 60% of total foreign reserves managed by global central banks. These could be two relevant benchmarks to gauge China's desired level of holdings of U.S. dollar-denominated assets in its official reserves. Chart 6 Chart 7 In terms of duration, the major part of Chinese holdings of U.S. assets is long-term (with maturity more than one year), mainly in the form of government and agency bonds, corporate bonds and stocks. Chinese holdings of short-term U.S. assets were minimal in recent years but picked up notably in the past few months, while longer term assets declined. During the global financial crisis in 2008/09, China massively increased its holdings of short-term U.S. assets, amid a global drive of "flight to liquidity" at the height of the crisis. Chart 8 Chart 9 In terms of risk classification, the majority of Chinese holdings of U.S. assets are risk-free assets, including Treasurys and government agency bonds. China's holdings of these assets have plateaued in recent years. As a share of China's total reserves, U.S. risk-free assets currently account for about 45%, down from about 65% in 2003. Meanwhile, its accumulation of U.S. risky assets, including stocks and corporate bonds, has increased sharply in the past year. Chart 10 Chart 11 China currently holds US$1.16 trillion of Treasurys, which account for over 80% of total Chinese holdings of U.S. risk-free assets, or 37% of total Chinese foreign reserves. Notably, Treasurys as a share of Chinese foreign reserves have been relatively stable, ranging between 30% and 40% over the past decade. This may be the comfort zone for the Chinese authorities' asset allocation to the U.S. government paper. China's holdings of U.S. government agency bonds have picked up in the past year, but are still significantly lower than at its peak prior to the U.S. subprime debacle. Its share in Chinese foreign reserves has declined to 8% from a peak of close to 30% in 2008. Chart 12 Chart 13 Almost the entire Chinese holding of Treasurys is parked in long-term paper (with duration of more than one year). China's possession of short-term Treasurys has been negligible in recent years, but picked up notably of late. It is possible that the Chinese central bank may be increasing cash holdings to deal with capital outflows. Chart 14 Chart 15 Chinese holdings of risky U.S. assets - corporate bonds and equities - account for over 10% of China's total foreign reserves, up sharply since 2008 after China established its sovereign wealth fund. China's holdings of risky assets are predominately equities, currently standing at about USD 325 billion, little changed in recent years. Its possessions of corporate bonds are very low. Chart 16 Chart 17 China remains the largest foreign creditor to the U.S. government. Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys account for about 11% of total outstanding U.S. government bonds, or around 20% of total foreign holdings of U.S. Treasurys, according to our calculation. About 55% of outstanding U.S. Treasurys are held by foreigners. China is also one of the largest foreign holders of U.S. of agency bonds. While its holdings only accounts for 3% of total outstanding agency bonds, they account for around 25% of the total held by foreigners. About 12% of agency and GSE-backed securities are currently held by foreigners. Chart 18 Chart 19 Chinese outward direct investments have continued to march higher in the past year, reaching yet another record high in 2015, and will likely set a new record in 2016. Total overseas direct investments amount to USD 1.4 trillion, equivalent to about half of China's official reserves. China's overseas investments have been heavily concentrated in resources-rich regions and industries. Cumulatively, the energy sector alone accounts for almost half of China's total overseas investments, followed by transportation infrastructure and base metals, which clearly underscores China's demand for commodities. China's outbound investment was originally led by state-owned enterprises. More recently, private Chinese enterprises have become more active in overseas investments and acquisitions. Chart 20 Chart 21 Chart 22 Corporate China's interest in global resource space has waned in the past year. Total investment in energy space has plateaued in recent years. There has been a dramatic increase in investment in some consumer-related sectors, particularly in tourism, entertainment and technology. These investment deals are mainly driven by private enterprises, and also reflect the changing dynamics of the Chinese economy. The U.S. received by far the largest share of Chinese investment in 2016. Total U.S.-bound Chinese investment in the first half of the year already dramatically outpaced the total amount of 2015. Chinese investments in resource rich countries, such as Australia, Canada and Brazil have been much less robust. Chinese net purchase of Japanese government bonds (JGBs) increased sharply this year. In the eight months of 2016 China's net purchases of JGBs reached $86.6 billion, more than tripling the amount during the same period last year. Chinese cumulative net purchases of JGBs since 2014 reached JPY 14.5 trillion, or USD 140 billion. This amounts to 2% of total outstanding JGBs and 4% of Chinese official reserves. Chart 23 Chart 24 Chart 25 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Multipolarity will peak in 2017 - geopolitical risks are spiking; Globalization is giving way to zero-sum mercantilism; U.S.-China relations are the chief risk to global stability; Turkey is the most likely state to get in a shooting war; Position for an inflation comeback; Go long defense, USD/EUR, and U.S. small caps vs. large caps. Feature Before the world grew mad, the Somme was a placid stream of Picardy, flowing gently through a broad and winding valley northwards to the English Channel. It watered a country of simple beauty. A. D. Gristwood, British soldier, later novelist. The twentieth century did not begin on January 1, 1900. Not as far as geopolitics is concerned. It began 100 years ago, on July 1, 1916. That day, 35,000 soldiers of the British Empire, Germany, and France died fighting over a couple of miles of territory in a single day. The 1916 Anglo-French offensive, also known as the Battle of the Somme, ultimately cost the three great European powers over a million and a half men in total casualties, of which 310,862 were killed in action over the four months of fighting. British historian A. J. P. Taylor put it aptly: idealism perished on the Somme. How did that happen? Nineteenth-century geopolitical, economic, and social institutions - carefully nurtured by a century of British hegemony - broke on the banks of the Somme in waves of human slaughter. What does this have to do with asset allocation? Calendars are human constructs devised to keep track of time. But an epoch is a period with a distinctive set of norms, institutions, and rules that order human activity. This "order of things" matters to investors because we take it for granted. It is a set of "Newtonian Laws" we assume will not change, allowing us to extrapolate the historical record into future returns.1 Since inception, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued that the standard assumptions about our epoch no longer apply.2 Social orders are not linear, they are complex systems. And we are at the end of an epoch, one that defined the twentieth century by globalization, the spread of democracy, and American hegemony. Because the system is not linear, its break will cause non-linear outcomes. Since joining BCA's Editorial Team in 2011, we have argued that twentieth-century institutions are undergoing regime shifts. Our most critical themes have been: The rise of global multipolarity;3 The end of Sino-American symbiosis;4 The apex of globalization;5 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics;6 The passing of the emerging markets' "Goldilocks" era.7 Our view is that the world now stands at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The transition is not going to be pretty. Investors must stop talking themselves out of left-tail events by referring to twentieth-century institutions. Yes, the U.S. and China really could go to war in the next five years. No, their trade relationship will not prevent it. Was the slaughter at the Somme prevented by the U.K.-German economic relationship? In fact, our own strategy service may no longer make sense in the new epoch. "Geopolitics" is not some add-on to investor's asset-allocation process. It is as much a part of that process as are valuations, momentum, bottom-up analysis, and macroeconomics. To modify the infamous Milton Friedman quip, "We are all geopolitical strategists now." Five Decade Themes: We begin this Strategic Outlook by updating our old decade themes and introducing a few new ones. These will inform our strategic views over the next half-decade. Below, we also explain how they will impact investors in 2017. From Multipolarity To ... Making America Great Again Our central theme of global multipolarity will reach its dangerous apex in 2017. Multipolarity is the idea that the world has two or more "poles" of power - great nations - that pursue their interests independently. It heightens the risk of conflict. Since we identified this trend in 2012, the number of global conflicts has risen from 10 to 21, confirming our expectations (Chart 1). Political science theory is clear: a world without geopolitical leadership produces hegemonic instability. America's "hard power," declining in relative terms, created a vacuum that was filled by regional powers looking to pursue their own spheres of influence. Chart 1Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity The investment implications of a multipolar world? The higher frequency of geopolitical crises has provided a tailwind to safe-haven assets such as U.S. Treasurys.8 Ironically, the relative decline of U.S. power is positive for U.S. assets.9 Although its geopolitical power has been in relative decline since 1990, the U.S. bond market has become more, not less, appealing over the same timeframe (Chart 2) Counterintuitively, it was American hegemony - i.e. global unipolarity after the Soviet collapse - that made the rise of China and other emerging markets possible. This created the conditions for globalization to flourish and for investors to leave the shores of developed markets in search of yield. It is the stated objective of President-elect Donald Trump, and a trend initiated under President Barack Obama, to reduce the United States' hegemonic responsibilities. As the U.S. withdraws, it leaves regional instability and geopolitical disequilibria in its wake, enhancing the value-proposition of holding on to low-beta American assets. We are now coming to the critical moment in this process, with neo-isolationist Trump doubling down on President Obama's aloof foreign policy. In 2017, therefore, multipolarity will reach its apex, leading several regional powers - from China to Turkey - to overextend themselves as they challenge the status quo. Chaos will ensue. (See below for more!) The inward shift in American policy will sow the seeds for the eventual reversal of multipolarity. America has always profited from geopolitical chaos. It benefits from being surrounded by two massive oceans, Canada, and the Sonora-Chihuahuan deserts. Following both the First and Second World Wars, the U.S.'s relative geopolitical power skyrocketed (Chart 3). Chart 2America Is A Safe-Haven,##br## Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline Chart 3America Is Chaos-Proof Over the next 12-24 months, we expect the chief investment implications of multipolarity - volatility, tailwind to safe-haven assets, emerging-market underperformance, and de-globalization - to continue to bear fruit. However, as the U.S. comes to terms with multipolarity and withdraws support for critical twentieth-century institutions, it will create conditions that will ultimately reverse its relative decline and lead to a more unipolar tendency (or possibly bipolar, with China). Therefore, Donald Trump's curious mix of isolationism, anti-trade rhetoric, and domestic populism may, in the end, Make America Great Again. But not for the reasons he has promised-- not because the U.S. will outperform the rest of the world in an absolute sense. Rather, America will become great again in a relative sense, as the rest of the world drifts towards a much scarier, darker place without American hegemony. Bottom Line: For long-term investors, the apex of multipolarity means that investing in China and broader EM is generally a mistake. Europe and Japan make sense in the interim due to overstated political risks, relatively easy monetary policy, and valuations, but even there risks will mount due to their high-beta qualities. The U.S. will own the twenty-first century. From Globalization To ... Mercantilism "The industrial glory of England is departing, and England does not know it. There are spasmodic outcries against foreign competition, but the impression they leave is fleeting and vague ... German manufacturers ... are undeniably superiour to those produced by British houses. It is very dangerous for men to ignore facts that they may the better vaunt their theories ... This is poor patriotism." Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (1896) The seventy years of British hegemony that followed the 1815 Treaty of Paris ending the Napoleonic Wars were marked by an unprecedented level of global stability. Britain's cajoled enemies and budding rivals swallowed their wounded pride and geopolitical appetites and took advantage of the peace to focus inwards, industrialize, and eventually catch up to the U.K.'s economy. Britain, by providing expensive global public goods - security of sea lanes, off-shore balancing,10 a reserve currency, and financial capital - resolved the global collective-action dilemma and ushered in an era of dramatic economic globalization. Sound familiar? It should. As Chart 4 shows, we are at the conclusion of a similar period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. There are other forces at work, such as pernicious wage deflation that has soured the West's middle class on free trade and immigration. But the main threat to globalization is at heart geopolitical. The breakdown of twentieth-century institutions, norms, and rules will encourage regional powers to set up their own spheres of influence and to see the global economy as a zero-sum game instead of a cooperative one.11 Chart 4Multipolarity And De-Globalization Go Hand-In-Hand At the heart of this geopolitical process is the end of Sino-American symbiosis. We posited in February that Charts 5 and 6 are geopolitically unsustainable.12 China cannot keep capturing an ever-increasing global market share for exports while exporting deflation; particularly now that its exports are rising in complexity and encroaching on the markets of developed economies (Chart 7). China's economic policy might have been acceptable in an era of robust global growth and American geopolitical confidence, but we live in a world that is, for the time being, devoid of both. Chart 5China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed... Chart 6And Now China ##br##Is Exporting Deflation China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart 8). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Exports make up only 19% of China's GDP and 12% of U.S. GDP. The two leading economies are far less leveraged to globalization than the conventional wisdom would have it. Chart 7China's Steady Climb Up ##br##The Value Ladder Continues Chart 8Sino-American ##br##Symbiosis Is Over Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth, moving the economy up the value chain. Or they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers, as they have been doing - to defend their domestic market from competition.13 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West and protectionism is already on the march (Chart 9). Chart 9Protectionism On The March The problem with this likely choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into the international economic order (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle-class, which makes China potentially the world's second-largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism - particularly with regard to Chinese imports. Mercantilism was a long-dominant economic theory, in Europe and elsewhere, that perceived global trade to be a zero-sum game and economic policy to be an extension of the geopolitical "Great Game" between major powers. As such, net export growth was the only way to prosperity and spheres of influence were jealously guarded via trade barriers and gunboat diplomacy. What should investors do if mercantilism is back? In a recent joint report with the BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, we argued that investors should pursue three broad strategies: Buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps) across equity markets as the former are almost universally domestically focused; Favor closed economies levered on domestic consumption, both within DM and EM universes; Stay long global defense stocks; mercantilism will lead to more geopolitical risk (Chart 10). Chart 10Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Investors should also expect a more inflationary environment over the next decade. De-globalization will mean marginally less trade, less migration, and less free movement of capital across borders. These are all inflationary. Bottom Line: Mercantilism is back. Sino-American tensions and peak multipolarity will impair coordination. It will harden the zero-sum game that erodes globalization and deepens geopolitical tensions between the world's two largest economies.14 One way to play this theme is to go long domestic sectors and domestically-oriented economies relative to export sectors and globally-exposed economies. The real risk of mercantilism is that it is bedfellows with nationalism and jingoism. We began this section with a quote from an 1896 pamphlet titled "Made in Germany." In it, British writer E.E. Williams argued that the U.K. should abandon free trade policies due to industrial competition from Germany. Twenty years later, 350,000 men died in the inferno of the Somme. From Legal To ... Charismatic Authority Legal authority, the bedrock of modern democracy, is a critical pillar of civilization that investors take for granted. The concept was defined in 1922 by German sociologist Max Weber. Weber's seminal essay, "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule," argues that legal-rational authority flows from the institutions and laws that define it, not the individuals holding the office.15 This form of authority is investor-friendly because it reduces uncertainty. Investors can predict the behavior of policymakers and business leaders by learning the laws that govern their behavior. Developed markets are almost universally made up of countries with such norms of "good governance." Investors can largely ignore day-to-day politics in these systems, other than the occasional policy shift or regulatory push that affects sector performance. Weber's original essay outlined three forms of authority, however. The other two were "traditional" and "charismatic."16 Today we are witnessing the revival of charismatic authority, which is derived from the extraordinary characteristics of an individual. From Russia and the U.S. to Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines, and soon perhaps Italy, politicians are winning elections on the back of their messianic qualities. The reason for the decline of legal-rational authority is threefold: Elites that manage governing institutions have been discredited by the 2008 Great Recession and subsequent low-growth recovery. Discontent with governing institutions is widespread in the developed world (Chart 11). Elite corruption is on the rise. Francis Fukuyama, perhaps America's greatest political theorist, argues that American political institutions have devolved into a "system of legalized gift exchange, in which politicians respond to organized interest groups that are collectively unrepresentative of the public as a whole."17 Political gridlock across developed and emerging markets has forced legal-rational policymakers to perform like charismatic ones. European policymakers have broken laws throughout the euro-area crisis, with the intention of keeping the currency union alive. President Obama has issued numerous executive orders due to congressional gridlock. While the numbers of executive orders have declined under Obama, their economic significance has increased (Chart 12). Each time these policymakers reached around established rules and institutions in the name of contingencies and crises, they opened the door wider for future charismatic leaders to eschew the institutions entirely. Chart 11As Institutional Trust Declines, ##br##Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders Chart 12Obama ##br##The Regulator Furthermore, a generational shift is underway. Millennials do not understand the value of legal-rational institutions and are beginning to doubt the benefits of democracy itself (Chart 13). The trend appears to be the most pronounced in the U.S. and U.K., perhaps because neither experienced the disastrous effects of populism and extremism of the 1930s. In fact, millennials in China appear to view democracy as more essential to the "good life" than their Anglo-Saxon peers. Chart 13Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Charismatic leaders can certainly outperform expectations. Donald Trump may end up being FDR. The problem for investors is that it is much more difficult to predict the behavior of a charismatic authority than a legal-rational one.18 For example, President-elect Trump has said that he will intervene in the U.S. economy throughout his four-year term, as he did with Carrier in Indiana. Whether these deals are good or bad, in a normative sense, is irrelevant. The point is that bottom-up investment analysis becomes useless when analysts must consider Trump's tweets, as well as company fundamentals, in their earnings projections! We suspect that the revival of charismatic leadership - and the danger that it might succeed in upcoming European elections - at least partly explains the record high levels of global policy uncertainty (Chart 14). Markets do not seem to have priced in the danger fully yet. Global bond spreads are particularely muted despite the high levels of uncertainty. This is unsustainable. Chart 14Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Bottom Line: The twenty-first century is witnessing the return of charismatic authority and erosion of legal-rational authority. This should be synonymous with uncertainty and market volatility over the next decade. In 2017, expect a rise in EuroStoxx volatility. From Laissez-Faire To ... Dirigisme The two economic pillars of the late twentieth century have been globalization and laissez-faire capitalism, or neo-liberalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the communist challenge, anointing the U.S.-led "Washington Consensus" as the global "law of the land." The tenets of this epoch are free trade, fiscal discipline, low tax burden, and withdrawal of the state from the free market. Not all countries approached the new "order of things" with equal zeal, but most of them at least rhetorically committed themselves to asymptotically approaching the American ideal. Chart 15Debt Replaced Wages##br## In Laissez-Faire Economies The 2008 Great Recession put an end to the bull market in neo-liberal ideology. The main culprit has been the low-growth recovery, but that is not the full story. Tepid growth would have been digested without a political crisis had it not followed decades of stagnating wages. With no wage growth, households in the most laissez-faire economies of the West gorged themselves on debt (Chart 15) to keep up with rising cost of housing, education, healthcare, and childcare -- all staples of a middle-class lifestyle. As such, the low-growth context after 2008 has combined with a deflationary environment to produce the most pernicious of economic conditions: debt-deflation, which Irving Fisher warned of in 1933.19 It is unsurprising that globalization became the target of middle-class angst in this context. Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history: it exerted a strong deflationary force on wages (Chart 16). While it certainly lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in developing nations, globalization undermined those low-income and middle-class workers in the developed world whose jobs were most easily exported. World Bank economist Branko Milanovic's infamous "elephant trunk" shows the stagnation of real incomes since 1988 for the 75-95 percentile of the global income distribution - essentially the West's middle class (Chart 17).20 It is this section of the elephant trunk that increasingly supports populism and anti-globalization policies, while eschewing laissez faire liberalism. In our April report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," we posited that the pivot away from laissez-faire capitalism would be most pronounced in the economies of its greatest adherents, the U.S. and U.K. We warned that Brexit and the candidacy of Donald Trump should be taken seriously, while the populist movements in Europe would surprise to the downside. Why the gap between Europe and the U.S. and U.K.? Because Europe's cumbersome, expensive, inefficient, and onerous social-welfare state finally came through when it mattered: it mitigated the pernicious effects of globalization and redistributed enough of the gains to temper populist angst. Chart 16Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Chart 17Globalization: No Friend To DM Middle Class This view was prescient in 2016. The U.K. voted to leave the EU, Trump triumphed, while European populists stumbled in both the Spanish and Austrian elections. The Anglo-Saxon median voter has essentially moved to the left of the economic spectrum (Diagram 1).21 The Median Voter Theorem holds that policymakers will follow the shift to the left in order to capture as many voters as possible under the proverbial curve. In other words, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not political price-makers but price-takers. Diagram 1The Median Voter Is Moving To The Left In The U.S. And U.K. How does laissez-faire capitalism end? In socialism or communism? No, the institutions that underpin capitalism in the West - private property, rule of law, representative government, and enforcement of contracts - remain strong. Instead, we expect to see more dirigisme, a form of capitalism where the state adopts a "directing" rather than merely regulatory role. In the U.S., Donald Trump unabashedly campaigned on dirigisme. We do not expand on the investment implications of American dirigisme in this report (we encourage clients to read our post-election treatment of Trump's domestic politics).22 But investors can clearly see the writing on the wall: a late-cycle fiscal stimulus will be positive for economic growth in the short term, but most likely more positive for inflation in the long term. Donald Trump's policies therefore are a risk to bonds, positive for equities (in the near term), and potentially negative for both in the long term if stagflation results from late-cycle stimulus. What about Europe? Is it not already quite dirigiste? It is! But in Europe, we see a marginal change towards the right, not the left. In Spain, the supply-side reforms of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy will remain in place, as he won a second term this year. In France, right-wing reformer - and self-professed "Thatcherite" - François Fillon is likely to emerge victorious in the April-May presidential election. And in Germany, the status-quo Grand Coalition will likely prevail. Only in Italy are there risks, but even there we expect financial markets to force the country - kicking and screaming - down the path of reforms. Bottom Line: In 2017, the market will be shocked to find itself face-to-face with a marginally more laissez-faire Europe and a marginally more dirigiste America and Britain. Investors should overweight European assets in a global portfolio given valuations, relative monetary policy (which will remain accommodative in Europe), a weak euro, and economic fundamentals (Chart 18), and upcoming political surprises. For clients with low tolerance of risk and volatility, a better entry point may exist following the French presidential elections in the spring. From Bias To ... Conspiracies As with the printing press, the radio, film, and television before it, the Internet has created a super-cyclical boom in the supply and dissemination of information. The result of the sudden surge is that quality and accountability are declining. The mainstream media has dubbed this the "fake news" phenomenon, no doubt to differentiate the conspiracy theories coursing through Facebook and Twitter from the "real news" of CNN and MSNBC. The reality is that mainstream media has fallen far short of its own vaunted journalistic standards (Chart 19). Chart 18Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Chart 19 We are not interested in this debate, nor are we buying the media narrative that "fake news" delivered Trump the presidency. Instead, we are focused on how geopolitical and political information is disseminated to voters, investors, and ultimately priced by the market. We fear that markets will struggle to price information correctly due to three factors: Low barriers to entry: The Internet makes publishing easy. Information entrepreneurs - i.e. hack writers - and non-traditional publications ("rags") are proliferating. The result is greater output but a decrease in quality control. For example, Facebook is now the second most trusted source of news for Americans (Chart 20). Cost-cutting: The boom in supply has squeezed the media industry's finances. Newspapers have died in droves; news websites and social-media giants have mushroomed (Chart 21). News companies are pulling back on things like investigative reporting, editorial oversight, and foreign correspondent desks. Foreign meddling: In this context, governments have gained a new advantage because they can bring superior financial resources and command-and-control to an industry that is chaotic and cash-strapped. Russian news outlets like RT and Sputnik have mastered this game - attracting "clicks" around the world from users who are not aware they are reading Russian propaganda. China has also raised its media profile through Western-accessible propaganda like the Global Times, but more importantly it has grown more aggressive at monitoring, censoring, and manipulating foreign and domestic media. Chart 20Facebook Is The New Cronkite? Chart 21The Internet Has Killed Journalism The above points would be disruptive enough alone. But we know that technology is not the root cause of today's disruptions. Income inequality, the plight of the middle class, elite corruption, unchecked migration, and misguided foreign policy have combined to create a toxic mix of distrust and angst. In the West, the decline of the middle class has produced a lack of socio-political consensus that is fueling demand for media of a kind that traditional outlets can no longer satisfy. Media producers are scrambling to meet this demand while struggling with intense competition from all the new entrants and new platforms. What is missing is investment in downstream refining and processing to convert the oversupply of crude information into valuable product for voters and investors.23 Otherwise, the public loses access to "transparent" or baseline information. Obviously the baseline was never perfect. Both the Vietnam and Iraq wars began as gross impositions on the public's credulity: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But there was a shared reference point across society. The difference today, as we see it, is that mass opinion will swing even more wildly during a crisis as a result of the poor quality of information that spreads online and mobilizes social networks more rapidly than ever before. We could have "flash mobs" in the voting booth - or on the steps of the Supreme Court - just like "flash crashes" in financial markets, i.e. mass movements borne of passing misconceptions rather than persistent misrule. Election results are more likely to strain the limits of the margin of error, while anti-establishment candidates are more likely to remain viable despite dubious platforms. What does this mean for investors? Fundamental analysis of a country's political and geopolitical risk is now an essential tool in the investor toolkit. If investors rely on the media, and the market prices what the media reports, then the same investors will continue to get blindsided by misleading probabilities, as with Brexit and Trump (Chart 22). While we did not predict these final outcomes, we consistently advised clients, for months in advance, that the market probabilities were too low and serious hedging was necessary. Those who heeded our advice cheered their returns, even as some lamented the electoral returns. Chart 22Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Bottom Line: Keep reading BCA's Geopolitical Strategy! Final Thoughts On The Next Decade The nineteenth century ended in the human carnage that was the Battle of the Somme. The First World War ushered in social, economic, political, geopolitical, demographic, and technological changes that drove the evolution of twentieth-century institutions, rules, and norms. It created the "order of things" that we all take for granted today. The coming decade will be the dawn of the new geopolitical century. We can begin to discern the ordering of this new epoch. It will see peak multipolarity lead to global conflict and disequilibrium, with globalization and laissez-faire economic consensus giving way to mercantilism and dirigisme. Investors will see the benevolent deflationary impulse of globalization evolve into state intervention in the domestic economy and the return of inflation. Globally oriented economies and sectors will underperform domestic ones. Developed markets will continue to outperform emerging markets, particularly as populism spreads to developing economies that fail to meet expectations of their rising middle classes. Over the next ten years, these changes will leave the U.S. as the most powerful country in the world. China and wider EM will struggle to adapt to a less globalized world, while Europe and Japan will focus inward. The U.S. is essentially a low-beta Great Power: its economy, markets, demographics, natural resources, and security are the least exposed to the vagaries of the rest of the world. As such, when the rest of the world descends into chaos, the U.S. will hide behind its Oceans, and Canada, and the deserts of Mexico, and flourish. Five Themes For 2017: Our decade themes inform our view of cyclical geopolitical events and crises, such as elections and geopolitical tensions. As such, they form our "net assessment" of the world and provide a prism through which we refract geopolitical events. Below we address five geopolitical themes that we expect to drive the news flow, and thus the markets, in 2017. Some themes are Red Herrings (overstated risks) and thus present investment opportunities, others are Black Swans (understated risks) and are therefore genuine risks. Europe In 2017: A Trophy Red Herring? Europe's electoral calendar is ominously packed (Table 1). Four of the euro area's five largest economies are likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. Table 1 Europe In 2017 Will Be A Headline Risk We expect market volatility to be elevated throughout the year due to the busy calendar. In this context, we advise readers to follow our colleague Dhaval Joshi at BCA's European Investment Strategy. Dhaval recommends that BCA clients combine every €1 of equity exposure with 40 cents of exposure to VIX term-structure, which means going long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. The logic is that the term structure will invert sharply if risks spike.24 While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As we have posited since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration.25 Crises driven by Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are not dealt with more effectively or easily by nation states acting on their own. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro (Chart 23) or the EU (Chart 24). In our July report called "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" we posited that the euro area will likely persevere over at least the next five years.26 Chart 23Support For The Euro Remains Stable Chart 24Few Europeans Want Out Of The EU Take the Spanish and Austrian elections in 2016. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite Austria's elevated level of Euroskepticism (Chart 24), its central role in the migration crisis, and the almost comically unenthusiastic campaign of the out-of-touch Van der Bellen. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. Next year, we expect more of the same in three crucial elections: The Netherlands: The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) will likely perform better than it did in the last election, perhaps even doubling its 15% result in 2012. However, it has no chance of forming a government, given that all the other parties contesting the election are centrist and opposed to its Euroskeptic agenda (Chart 25). Furthermore, support for the euro remains at a very high level in the country (Chart 26). This is a reality that the PVV will have to confront if it wants to rule the Netherlands. Chart 25No Government For Dutch Euroskeptics Chart 26The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair France: Our high conviction view is that Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), will be defeated in the second round of the presidential election.27 Despite three major terrorist attacks in the country, unchecked migration crisis, and tepid economic growth, Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013 (Chart 27). She continues to poll poorly against her most likely opponents in the second round, François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron (Chart 28). Investors who doubt the polls should consider the FN's poor performance in the December 2015 regional elections, a critical case study for Le Pen's viability in 2017.28 Chart 27Le Pen's Polling: ##br##Head And Shoulder Formation? Chart 28Le Pen Will Not Be##br## Next French President Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel's popularity is holding up (Chart 29), the migration crisis has abated (Chart 30), and there remains a lot of daylight between the German establishment and populist parties (Chart 31). The anti-establishment Alternative für Deutschland will enter parliament, but remain isolated. Chart 29Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Chart 30Migration Crisis Is Abating Chart 31There Is A Lot Of Daylight... The real risk in 2017 remains Italy. The country has failed to enact any structural reforms, being a laggard behind the reform poster-child Spain (Chart 32). Meanwhile, support for the euro remains in the high 50s, which is low compared to the euro-area average (Chart 33). Polls show that if elections were held today, the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory (Chart 34). However, it is not clear what electoral laws would apply to the contest. The reformed electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies remains under review by the Constitutional Court until at least February. This will make all the difference between further gridlock and a viable government. Chart 32Italy Is Europe's Chart 33Italy Lags Peers On Euro Support Chart 34Italy's Next Election Is Too Close To Call Investors should consider three factors when thinking about Italy in 2017: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum.29 The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential Itexit referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voter choices. Benefits of the EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as they allow the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions.30 Sans Europe, the Mezzogiorno (Southern Italy) is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether the rest of Italy's euro-area peers will allow the country to remain mired in its unsustainable status quo. We think the answer is yes. First, Italy is too big to fail given the size of its economy and sovereign debt market. Second, how unsustainable is the Italian status quo? OECD projections for Italy's debt-to-GDP ratio are not ominous. Chart 35 shows four scenarios, the most likely one charting Italy's debt-to-GDP rise from 133% today to about 150% by 2060. Italy's GDP growth would essentially approximate 0%, but its impressive budget discipline would ensure that its debt load would only rise marginally (Chart 36). Chart 35So What If Italy's Debt-To-GDP Ends Up At 170%? Chart 36Italy Has Learned To Live With Its Debt This may seem like a dire prospect for Italy, but it ensures that the ECB has to maintain its accommodative stance in Europe even as the Fed continues its tightening cycle, a boon for euro-area equities as a whole. In other words, Italy's predicament would be unsustainable if the country were on its own. Its "sick man" status would be terminal if left to its own devices. But as a patient in the euro-area hospital, it can survive. And what happens to the euro area beyond our five-year forecasting horizon? We are not sure. Defeat of anti-establishment forces in 2017 will give centrist policymakers another electoral cycle to resolve the currency union's built-in flaws. If the Germans do not budge on greater fiscal integration over the next half-decade, then the future of the currency union will become murkier. Bottom Line: Remain long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. We have held this position since September 14 and it has returned -0.84%. The advantage of this strategy is that it is a near-perfect hedge when risk assets sell off, but pays a low price for insurance. Investors with high risk tolerance who can stomach some volatility should take the plunge and overweight euro-area equities in a global equity portfolio. Solid global growth prospects, accommodative monetary policy, euro weakness, and valuations augur a solid year for euro-area equities. Politics will be a red herring as euro-area stocks climb the proverbial wall of worry in 2017. U.S.-Russia Détente: A Genuine Investment Opportunity Trump's election is good news for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. Putin sought to defend the Russian sphere of influence from outside powers (Ukraine and Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia). Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public. We view Ukraine and Syria through this prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.31 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the promotion of democracy in Russia's sphere, which Putin considers an attempt to undermine his rule. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.32 The U.S. lacks constraints in this theater. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia and does not stand directly in the way of any Russian reprisals, unlike Europe. That is why we think Trump and Putin will reset relations. Trump's team may be comfortable with Russia having a sphere of influence, unlike the Obama administration, which explicitly rejected this idea. The U.S. could even pledge not to expand NATO further, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from Poland and the Czech Republic. These are avowed NATO allies, and this occurred merely one year after Russian troops marched on Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs anyway. Chart 37Thaw In Russian-West##br## Cold War Is Bullish Europe Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in structural decline and attempting to hold onto a very large sphere of influence whose citizens are not entirely willing participants.33 Because Moscow must often use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it periodically revives tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, which we do not expect, then the cycle of tensions will continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through 2017, a rapprochement with Washington will ultimately thaw relations between Europe and Russia by the end of that year. Europe will benefit from resuming business as usual. It will face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East and cybersecurity. The ebbing of the Russian geopolitical risk premium will have a positive effect on Europe, given its close correlation with European risk assets since the crisis in Ukraine (Chart 37). Investors who want exposure to Russia may consider overweighing Russian equities to Malaysian. BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has initiated this position for a 55.6% gain since March 2016 and our EM strategists believe there is more room to run for this trade. We recommend that investors simply go long Russia relative to the broad basket of EM equities. The rally in oil prices, easing of the geopolitical risk premium, and hints of pro-market reforms from the Kremlin will buoy Russian equities further in 2017. Middle East: ISIS Defeat Is A Black Swan In February 2016, we made two bold predictions about the Middle East: Iran-Saudi tensions had peaked;34 The defeat of ISIS would entice Turkey to intervene militarily in both Iraq and Syria.35 The first prediction was based on a simple maxim: sustained geopolitical conflict requires resources and thus Saudi military expenditures are unsustainable when a barrel of oil costs less than $100. Saudi Arabia overtook Russia in 2015 as the globe's third-largest defense spender (Chart 38)! Chart 38Saudi Arabia: Lock And Load The mini-détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia concluded in 2016 with the announced OPEC production cut and freeze. While we continue to see the OPEC deal as more of a recognition of the status quo than an actual cut (because OPEC production has most likely reached its limits), nevertheless it is significant as it will slightly hasten the pace of oil-market rebalancing. On the margin, the OPEC deal is therefore bullish for oil prices. Our second prediction, that ISIS is more of a risk to the region in defeat than in glory, was highly controversial. However, it has since become consensus, with several Western intelligence agencies essentially making the same claim. But while our peers in the intelligence community have focused on the risk posed by returning militants to Europe and elsewhere, our focus remains on the Middle East. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in conflicts in Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The reason for this concern is that the defeat of the Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. We are particularly concerned about three potential dynamics: Direct intervention in Syria and Iraq: The Turkish military entered Syria in August, launching operation "Euphrates Shield." Turkey also reinforced a small military base in Bashiqa, Iraq, only 15 kilometers north of Mosul. Both operations were ostensibly undertaken against the Islamic State, but the real intention is to limit the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds. As Map 1 illustrates, Kurds have expanded their territorial control in both countries. Map 1Kurdish Gains In Syria & Iraq Conflict with Russia and Iran: President Recep Erdogan has stated that Turkey's objective in Syria is to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.36 Yet Russia and Iran are both involved militarily in the country - the latter with regular ground troops - to keep Assad in power. Russia and Turkey did manage to cool tensions recently. Yet the Turkish ground incursion into Syria increases the probability that tensions will re-emerge. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Erdogan has cast himself as a defender of Sunni Arabs and has suggested that Turkey still has a territorial claim to northern Iraq. This stance would put Ankara in direct confrontation with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, allied with Iran. Turkey-NATO/EU tensions: Tensions have increased between Turkey and the EU over the migration deal they signed in March 2016. Turkey claims that the deal has stemmed the flow of migrants to Europe, which is dubious given that the flow abated well before the deal was struck. Since then, Turkey has threatened to open the spigot and let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe. This is likely a bluff as Turkey depends on European tourists, import demand, and FDI for hard currency (Chart 39). If Erdogan acted on his threat and unleashed Syrian refugees into Europe, the EU could abrogate the 1995 EU-Turkey customs union agreement and impose economic sanctions. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a "shooting war" that could impact global investors in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. The broader point is that the redrawing of the Middle East map is not yet complete. As the Islamic State is defeated, the Sunni population of Iraq and Syria will remain at risk of Shia domination. As such, countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia could be drawn into renewed proxy conflicts to prevent complete marginalization of the Sunni population. While tensions between Turkey, Russia, and Iran will not spill over into oil-producing regions of the Middle East, they may cloud Iraq's future. Since 2010, Iraq has increased oil production by 1.6 million barrels per day. This is about half of the U.S. shale production increase over the same time frame. As such, Iraq's production "surprise" has been a major contributor to the 2014-2015 oil-supply glut. However, Iraq needs a steady inflow of FDI in order to boost production further (Chart 40). Proxy warfare between Turkey, Russia, and Iran - all major conventional military powers - on its territory will go a long way to sour potential investors interested in Iraqi production. Chart 39Turkey Is Heavily Dependent On The EU Chart 40Iraq Is The Big, And Cheap, Hope This is a real problem for global oil supply. The International Energy Agency sees Iraq as a critical source of future global oil production. Chart 41 shows that Iraq is expected to contribute the second-largest increase in oil production by 2020. And given Iraq's low breakeven production cost, it may be the last piece of real estate - along with Iran - where the world can get a brand-new barrel of oil for under $13. In addition to the risk of expanding Turkish involvement in the region, investors will also have to deal with the headline risk of a hawkish U.S. administration pursuing diplomatic brinkmanship against Iran. We do not expect the Trump administration to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal due to several constraints. First, American allies will not go along with new sanctions. Second, Trump's focus is squarely on China. Third, the U.S. does not have alternatives to diplomacy, since bombing Iran would be an exceedingly complex operation that would bog down American forces in the Middle East. When we put all the risks together, a geopolitical risk premium will likely seep into oil markets in 2017. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy argues that the physical oil market is already balanced (Chart 42) and that the OPEC deal will help draw down bloated inventories in 2017. This means that global oil spare capacity will be very low next year, with essentially no margin of safety in case of a major supply loss. Given the political risks of major oil producers like Nigeria and Venezuela, this is a precarious situation for the oil markets. Chart 41Iraq Really Matters For Global Oil Production Chart 42Oil Supply Glut Is Gone In 2017 Bottom Line: Given our geopolitical view of risks in the Middle East, balanced oil markets, lack of global spare capacity, the OPEC production cut, and ongoing capex reductions, we recommend clients to follow BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view of expecting widening backwardation in the new year.37 U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars President-elect Trump has called into question the U.S.'s adherence to the "One China policy," which holds that "there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" and that the U.S. recognizes only the People's Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government. There is widespread alarm about Trump's willingness to use this policy, the very premise of U.S.-China relations since 1978, as a negotiating tool. And indeed, Sino-U.S. relations are very alarming, as we have warned our readers since 2012.38 Trump is a dramatic new agent reinforcing this trend. Trump's suggestion that the policy could be discarded - and his break with convention in speaking to the Taiwanese president - are very deliberate. Observe that in the same diplomatic document that establishes the One China policy, the United States and China also agreed that "neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region." Trump is initiating a change in U.S. policy by which the U.S. accuses China of seeking hegemony in Asia, a violation of the foundation of their relationship. The U.S. is not seeking unilaterally to cancel the One China policy, but asking China to give new and durable assurances that it does not seek hegemony and will play by international rules. Otherwise, the U.S. is saying, the entire relationship will have to be revisited and nothing (not even Taiwan) will be off limits. The assurances that China is expected to give relate not only to trade, but also, as Trump signaled, to the South China Sea and North Korea. Therefore we are entering a new era in U.S-China relations. China Is Toast Asia Pacific is a region of frozen conflicts. Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty. Nor did China and Taiwan. Nor did the Koreas. Why have these conflicts lain dormant over the past seventy years? Need we ask? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have seen their GDP per capita rise 14 times since 1950. China has seen its own rise 21 times (Chart 43). Since the wars in Vietnam over forty years ago, no manner of conflict, terrorism, or geopolitical crisis has fundamentally disrupted this manifestly beneficial status quo. As a result, Asia has been a region synonymous with economics - not geopolitics. It developed this reputation because its various large economies all followed Japan's path of dirigisme: export-oriented, state-backed, investment-led capitalism. This era of stability is over. The region has become the chief source of geopolitical risk and potential "Black Swan" events.39 The reason is deteriorating U.S.-China relations and the decline in China's integration with other economies. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were foundational: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 44).40 For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its aegis. Chart 43The Twentieth Century Was Kind To East Asia Chart 44Asia Sells, America Rules It is well known, however, that Japan's economic model led it smack into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s over its suppressed currency and giant trade surpluses. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result was ultimately financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away (Chart 45). Astute investors have always suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it denies the U.S. access to its vast consumer market. Today there are signs that the time for confrontation is upon us: Since the Great Recession, U.S. household debt and Chinese exports have declined as a share of GDP, falling harder in the latter than the former, in a sign of shattered symbiosis (see Chart 8 above). Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have begun to decline (Chart 46). China's exports to the U.S., both as a share of total exports and of GDP, have rolled over, and are at levels comparable to Japan's 1980s peaks (Chart 47). China is wading into high-tech and advanced industries, threatening the core advantages of the developed markets. The U.S. just elected a populist president whose platform included aggressive trade protectionism against China. Protectionist "Rust Belt" voters were pivotal to Trump's win and will remain so in future elections. China is apparently reneging on every major economic promise it has made in recent years: the RMB is depreciating, not appreciating, whatever the reason; China is closing, not opening, its capital account; it is reinforcing, not reforming, its state-owned companies; and it is shutting, not widening, access to its domestic market (Chart 48). Chart 45Japan's Crisis Followed Currency Spike Chart 46China Backing Away From U.S. Treasuries There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s-90s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. Japan and the U.S. had established a strategic hierarchy in World War II. That is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the United States to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the United States. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. Chart 47The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 48China Is De-Globalizing That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on longstanding American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. We see Sino-American rivalry as the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017: Trump will initiate a more assertive U.S. policy toward China;41 It will begin with symbolic or minor punitive actions - a "shot across the bow" like charging China with currency manipulation or imposing duties on specific goods.42 It will be critical to see whether Trump acts arbitrarily through executive power, or systematically through procedures laid out by Congress. The two countries will proceed to a series of high-level, bilateral negotiations through which the Trump administration will aim to get a "better deal" from the Xi administration on trade, investment, and other issues. The key to the negotiations will be whether the Trump team settles for technical concessions or instead demands progress on long-delayed structural issues that are more difficult and risky for China to undertake. Too much pressure on the latter could trigger a confrontation and broader economic instability. Chart 49China's Demographic Dividend Is Gone The coming year may see U.S.-China relations start with a bang and end with a whimper, as Trump's initial combativeness gives way to talks. But make no mistake: Sino-U.S. rivalry and distrust will worsen over the long run. That is because China faces a confluence of negative trends: The U.S. is turning against it. Geopolitical problems with its periphery are worsening. It is at high risk of a financial crisis due to excessive leverage. The middle class is a growing political constraint on the regime. Demographics are now a long-term headwind (Chart 49). The Chinese regime will be especially sensitive to these trends because the Xi administration will want stability in the lead up to the CCP's National Party Congress in the fall, which promises to see at least some factional trouble.43 It no longer appears as if the rotation of party leaders will leave Xi in the minority on the Politburo Standing Committee for 2017-22, as it did in 2012.44 More likely, he will solidify power within the highest decision-making body. This removes an impediment to his policy agenda in 2017-22, though any reforms will still take a back seat to stability, since leadership changes and policy debates will absorb a great deal of policymakers' attention at all levels for most of the year.45 Xi will also put in place his successors for 2022, putting a cap on rumors that he intends to eschew informal term limits. Failing this, market uncertainty over China's future will explode upward. The midterm party congress will thus reaffirm the fact that China's ruling party and regime are relatively unified and centralized, and hence that China has relatively strong political capabilities for dealing with crises. Evidence does not support the popular belief that China massively stimulates the economy prior to five-year party congresses (Chart 50), but we would expect all means to be employed to prevent a major downturn. Chart 50Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Five-Year Party Congresses What this means is that the real risks of the U.S.-China relationship in 2017 will emanate from China's periphery. Asia's Frozen Conflicts Are Thawing Today the Trump administration seems willing to allow China to carve a sphere of influence - but it is entirely unclear whether and where existing boundaries would be redrawn. Here are the key regional dynamics:46 The Koreas: The U.S. and Japan are increasingly concerned about North Korea's missile advances but will find their attempts to deal with the problem blocked by China and likely by the new government in South Korea.47 U.S. threats of sanctioning China over North Korea will increase market uncertainty, as will South Korea's political turmoil and (likely) souring relations with the U.S. Taiwan: Taiwan's ruling party has very few domestic political constraints and therefore could make a mistake, especially when emboldened by an audacious U.S. leadership.48 The same combination could convince China that it has to abandon the post-2000 policy of playing "nice" with Taiwan.49 China will employ discrete sanctions against Taiwan. Hong Kong: Mainland forces will bring down the hammer on the pro-independence movement. The election of a new chief executive will appear to reinforce the status quo but in reality Beijing will tighten its legal, political, and security grip. Large protests are likely; political uncertainty will remain high.50 Japan: Japan will effectively receive a waiver from Trump's protectionism and will benefit from U.S. stimulus efforts; it will continue reflating at home in order to generate enough popular support to pass constitutional revisions in 2018; and it will not shy away from regional confrontations, since these will enhance the need for the hawkish defense component of the same revisions. Vietnam: The above issues may provide Vietnam with a chance to improve its strategic position at China's expense, whether by courting U.S. market access or improving its position in the South China Sea. But the absence of an alliance with the U.S. leaves it highly exposed to Chinese reprisals if it pushes too far. Russia: Russia will become more important to the region because its relations with the U.S. are improving and it may forge a peace deal with Japan, giving it more leverage in energy negotiations with China.51 This may also reinforce the view in Beijing that the U.S. is circling the wagons around China. What these dynamics have in common is the emergence of U.S.-China proxy conflicts. China has long suspected that the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" was a Cold War "containment" strategy. The fear is well-grounded but the reality takes time to materialize, which is what we will see playing out in the coming years. The reason we say "proxy wars" is because several American allies are conspicuously warming up to China: Thailand, the Philippines, and soon South Korea. They are not abandoning the U.S. but keeping their options open. The other ASEAN states also stand to benefit as the U.S. seeks economic substitutes for China while the latter courts their allegiance.52 The problem is that as U.S.-China tensions rise, these small states run greater risks in playing both sides. Bottom Line: The overarching investment implications of U.S.-China proxy wars all derive from de-globalization. China was by far the biggest winner of globalization and will suffer accordingly (Chart 51). But it will not be the biggest loser, since it is politically unified, its economy is domestically driven, and it has room to maneuver on policy. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore are all chiefly at risk from de-globalization over the long run. Chart 51Globalization's Winners Will Be De-Globalization's Losers Japan is best situated to prosper in 2017. We have argued since well before the Bank of Japan's September monetary policy shift that unconventional reflation will continue, with geopolitics as the primary motivation for the country's "pedal to the metal" strategy.53 We will look to re-initiate our long Japanese equities position in early 2017. ASEAN countries offer an opportunity, though country-by-country fundamentals are essential. Brexit: The Three Kingdoms The striking thing about the Brexit vote's aftermath is that no recession followed the spike in uncertainty, no infighting debilitated the Tory party, and no reversal occurred in popular opinion. The authorities stimulated the economy, the people rallied around the flag (and ruling party), and the media's "Bregret" narrative flopped. That said, Brexit also hasn't happened yet.54 Formal negotiations with Europe begin in March, which means uncertainty will persist for much of the year as the U.K. and EU posture around their demands for a post-exit deal. However, improving growth prospects for Britain, Europe, and the U.S. all suggest that the negotiations are less likely to take place in an atmosphere of crisis. That does not mean that EU negotiators will be soft. With each successive electoral victory for the political establishment in 2017, the European negotiating position will harden. This will create a collision of Triumphant Tories and Triumphant Brussels. Still, the tide is not turning much further against the U.K. than was already the case, given how badly the U.K. needs a decent deal. Tightercontrol over the movement of people will be the core demand of Westminster, but it is not necessarily mutually exclusive with access to the common market. The major EU states have an incentive to compromise on immigration with the U.K. because they would benefit from tighter immigration controls that send highly qualified EU nationals away from the U.K. labor market and into their own. But the EU will exact a steep price for granting the U.K. the gist of what it wants on immigration and market access. This could be a hefty fee or - more troublingly for Britain - curbs on British financial-service access to euro markets. Though other EU states are not likely to exit, the European Council will not want to leave any doubt about the pain of doing so. The Tories may have to accept this outcome. Tory strength is now the Brexit voter base. That base is uncompromising on cutting immigration, and it is indifferent, or even hostile, to the City. So it stands to reason that Prime Minister Theresa May will sacrifice the U.K.'s financial sector in the coming negotiations. The bigger question is what happens to the U.K. economy in the medium and long term. First, it is unclear how the U.K. will revive productivity as lower labor-force growth and FDI, and higher inflation, take shape. Government "guidance" of the economy - dirigisme again - is clearly the Tory answer. But it remains to be seen how effectively it will be done. Second, what happens to the United Kingdom as a nation? Another Scottish independence referendum is likely after the contours of the exit deal take shape, especially as oil prices gin up Scottish courage to revisit the issue. The entire question of Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of which voted to stay in the EU) puts deeper constitutional and governmental restructuring on the horizon. Westminster is facing a situation where it drastically loses influence on the global stage as it not only exits the European "superstate" but also struggles to maintain a semblance of order among the "three kingdoms." Bottom Line: The two-year timeframe for exit negotiations ensures that posturing will ratchet up tensions and uncertainty throughout the year - invoking the abyss of a no-deal exit - but our optimistic outlook on the end-game (eventual "soft Brexit") suggests that investors should fade the various crisis points. That said, the pound is no longer a buy as it rises to around 1.30. Investment Views De-globalization, dirigisme, and the ascendancy of charismatic authority will all prove to be inflationary. On the margin, we expect less trade, less free movement of people, and more direct intervention in the economy. Given that these are all marginally more inflationary, it makes sense to expect the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," as our colleague Peter Berezin argued in July.55 That said, Peter does not expect the bond bull market to end in a crash - and neither do we. There are many macroeconomic factors that will continue to suppress global yields: the savings glut, search for yield, and economic secular stagnation. In addition, we expect peak multipolarity in 2017 and thus a rise in geopolitical conflict. This geopolitical context will keep the U.S. Treasury market well bid. However, clients may want to begin switching their safe-haven exposure to gold. In a recent research report on safe havens, we showed that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens in the past.56 Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge to equity corrections due to geopolitical and financial risks. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. As deflationary risks abate in the future, we suspect that gold will return to its safe-haven status. In addition to safe havens, U.S. and global defense stocks will be well bid due to global multipolarity. We recommend that clients go long S&P 500 aerospace and defense relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We are also sticking with our tactical trade of long U.S. defense / short U.S. aerospace. On the equity front, we have closed our post-election bullish trade of long S&P 500 / short gold position for an 11.53% gain in just 22 days of trading. We are also closing our long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 position - a play on de-globalization - for an 8.4% gain. Instead, we are initiating a strategic long U.S. small caps / short U.S. large caps, recommended jointly with our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy. We are keeping our EuroStoxx VIX term-structure hedge due to mounting political risk in Europe. However, we are looking for an opening into European stocks in early 2017. For now, we are maintaining our long USD/EUR - return 4.2% since July - and long USD/SEK - return 2.25% since November. The first is a strategic play on our view that the ECB has to remain accommodative due to political risks in the European periphery. The latter is a way to articulate de-globalization via currencies, given that Sweden is one of the most open economies in the world. We are converting it from a tactical to a strategic recommendation. Finally, we are keeping our RMB short in place - via 12-month NDF. We do not think that Beijing will "blink" and defend its currency more aggressively just because Donald Trump is in charge of America. China is a much more powerful country than in the past, and cannot allow RMB appreciation at America's bidding. Our trade has returned 7.14% since December 2015. With the dollar bull market expected to continue and RMB depreciating, the biggest loser will be emerging markets. We are therefore keeping our strategic long DM / short EM recommendation, which has returned 56.5% since November 2012. We are particularly fond of shorting Brazilian and Turkish equities and are keeping both trades in place. However, we are initiating a long Russian equities / short EM equities. As an oil producer, Russia will benefit from the OPEC deal and the ongoing risks to Iraqi stability. In addition, we expect that removing sanctions against Russia will be on table for 2017. Europe will likely extend the sanctions for another six months, but beyond that the unity of the European position will be in question. And the United States is looking at a different approach. We wish our clients all the best in health, family, and investing in 2017. Thank you for your confidence in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy. Marko Papic Senior Vice President Matt Gertken Associate Editor Jesse Anak Kurri Research Analyst 1 In Michel Foucault's famous The Order of Things (1966), he argues that each period of human history has its own "episteme," or set of ordering conditions that define that epoch's "truth" and discourse. The premise is comparable to Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigms," which we have referenced in previous Strategic Outlooks. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2012," dated January 27, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2014 - Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, and Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 A military-security strategy necessary for British self-defense that also preserved peace on the European continent by undermining potential aggressors. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trump And Trade," dated December 8, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see Max Weber, "The Three Types Of Legitimate Rule," Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1): 1-11 (1958). Translated by Hans Gerth. Originally published in German in the journal Preussische Jahrbücher 182, 1-2 (1922). 16 We do not concern ourselves with traditional authority here, but the obvious examples are Persian Gulf monarchies. 17 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). See also our review of this book, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see Irving Fisher, "The Debt-deflation Theory of Great Depressions," Econometrica 1(4) (1933): 337-357, available at fraser.stlouisfed.org. 20 Please see Milanovic, Branko, "Global Income Inequality by the Numbers: in History and Now," dated November 2012, Policy Research Working Paper 6250, World Bank, available at worldbank.org. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 In some way, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy was designed precisely to fill this role. It is difficult to see what would be the point of this service if our clients could get unbiased, investment-relevant, prescient, high-quality geopolitical news and analysis from the press. 24 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Roller Coaster," dated March 31, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Despite winning an extraordinary six of the 13 continental regions in France in the first round, FN ended up winning zero in the second round. This even though the election occurred after the November 13 terrorist attack that ought to have buoyed the anti-migration, law and order, anti-establishment FN. The regional election is an instructive case of how the French two-round electoral system enables the establishment to remain in power. 29 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy: Asking The Wrong Question," dated December 1, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Cold War Redux?" dated March 12, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 34 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Middle East: Saudi-Iranian Tensions Have Peaked," in Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 35 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 President Erdogan, speaking at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul in November 2016, said that Turkey "entered [Syria] to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror... We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice." 37 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 38 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. 39 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 40 In recent years, however, China's "official" defense budget statistics have understated its real spending, possibly by as much as half. 41 Please see "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 44 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 45 The National Financial Work Conference will be one key event to watch for an updated reform agenda. 46 Please see "East Asia: Tensions Simmer ... Will They Boil?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 47 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 48 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, and "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 49 The Trump administration has signaled a policy shift through Trump's phone conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The "One China policy" is the foundation of China-Taiwan relations, and U.S.-China relations depend on Washington's acceptance of it. The risk, then, is not so much an overt change to One China, a sure path to conflict, but the dynamic described above. 50 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hong Kong: From Politics To Political Economy," dated September 8, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 51 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 52 Please see "Thailand: Upgrade Stocks To Overweight And Go Long THB Versus KRW" in BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 53 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, and "Unleash The Kraken: Debt Monetization And Politics," dated September 26, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 54 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 55 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 56 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The Chinese authorities have progressively tightened capital account control regulations to staunch capital outflows, which will likely slow the drawdown of the country's official reserves in the near term. Rising yields in China are largely reflective rather than restrictive. Monetary easing through interest rate cuts has likely run its course, but it is highly unlikely that the PBoC will raise rates to protect the RMB. The Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program is yet another step towards China's capital account liberalization. In the near term it could give a boost to Hong Kong-listed shares due to the large valuation gap. The direct impact on the RMB is marginal. Feature The mighty U.S. dollar occupied the cover of this week's Economist magazine - it has also clearly occupied the top spot on our clients' 'worry lists'. We were in China last week talking to clients and conducting some "field research", and the yuan's depreciation was a key focal point of the discussions. Historically, Economist magazine cover stories have mostly turned out to be perfect contrarian signals, and it remains to be seen whether this one will be a blessing or curse for the greenback. What's more certain is that there is a clear consensus among Chinese investors on the one-way descent of the RMB against the dollar going forward, and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) is facing an uphill battle in containing domestic capital outflows. The latest program linking Chinese equities and the overseas market is the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program, which debuted early this week. This suggests the Chinese authorities are still committed to capital account deregulation. In the near term, however, capital control measures have been tightened progressively to preserves official reserves and maintain domestic liquidity. Full-Court Press Heightened concerns over the CNY/USD cross rate of late have ignored the fact that the RMB has remained one of the stronger currencies among a synchronized plunge against the seemingly unstoppable dollar. The trade-weighted RMB has picked up notably in recent weeks, even though it has depreciated against the greenback (Chart 1). Nonetheless, Chinese investors' perception of the currency matters greatly, as it could potentially create a self-fulfilling downward spiral between capital outflows and exchange rate depreciation. It is both naïve and highly risky to expect the RMB to settle down at a "market clearing" level against the dollar without a chaotic undershoot. The "Impossible Trinity" theory in international finance dictates that a country cannot simultaneously control its exchange rate with independent monetary policy and free flow of capital. Among these conditions, free flow of capital has been the least expensive sacrifice for the Chinese authorities.1 In basketball, full-court press refers to a defensive tactic in which members of a team cover their opponents throughout the court, and not just near their own basket. This is what the Chinese authorities appear to be doing in terms of their efforts at staunching capital outflows. Cracking down on underground money smugglers facilitating RMB conversions with other currencies, particularly in regions neighboring Hong Kong. Anecdotal evidence suggests a sharp slowdown in illegal money transfers. Tightening scrutiny on trade invoicing verifications to crack down on "fake" international trades. Chinese imports from Hong Kong, sky-high last year as Chinese local firms fabricated import businesses to move money offshore, have tumbled to a fraction of last year's peak level (Chart 2). Restricting Chinese nationals from purchasing insurance policies issued by Hong Kong insurance firms. The massive boom of Hong Kong insurance sales to mainland residents in recent years will likely see a significant setback (Chart 3). Chart 1The RMB's Depreciation In Perspective Chart 2Blocking Capital Leakage In Trade... Chart 3...Services... These restrictive measures have been either targeting illegal channels or activities that are of minor importance to the economy as a whole. More recently, the authorities have also begun tightening rules on direct overseas investment by Chinese firms. Projects over US$10 billion and investments in "non-core" businesses are being tightly scrutinized. As companies' overseas expansion efforts are largely strategic in nature and tend to be long term, policymakers are potentially sacrificing long-term economic interests for a near-term fix of capital leakage. This underscores the authorities' increasing anxiety over capital outflows. Chart 4 shows net FDI outflows have become a major source of China's capital outflows in recent quarters, while Chinese firms paying off foreign liabilities was previously the main reason.2 Moreover, there has been a rush to acquire foreign assets among large Chinese firms this year, which is probably partially motivated by avoiding exchange rate losses (Chart 5). Chinese overseas investment activity will likely slow down significantly in the near term. Chart 4...And Outward Direct Investment Chart 5Overseas M&A Under Scrutiny Yesterday's data release show Chinese official reserves dropped to USD 3.05 trillion in November, down USD 69 billion from October. On surface, this is a marked deterioration from previous months. Underneath, however, our calculation shows that the decline in the headline official reserve number is more than explained by the mark-to-market paper losses from both a strengthening dollar and rising interest rates in the U.S. in the past month. Non-dollar assets account for about half of Chinese official reserves, and the 5% surge in the U.S. dollar index last month alone should have led to about $75 billion paper losses in the dollar value of Chinese reserves. Meanwhile, Chinese holdings of U.S. treasuries and agency bonds amount to about USD 1.4 trillion, and the sharp spike in U.S. risk free rates last month should have shaved off at least USD 30 billion in value. Taken together, the mark-to-market losses of Chinese reserve holdings are should be substantially higher than the decline in reserves last month. This may suggest that China's all-out efforts to stabilize capital outflows have been effective and should further reduce the drawdown of the country's official reserves. P.S. Over the years, we have been running a series of Special Reports tracking the composition and evolvement of China's foreign reserves. This year's update will be published next week. Stay tuned. Chart 6Interest Rate Vs Exchange Rate Will Interest Rates Be The Next Shoe To Drop? Chinese interest rates have also begun to pick up in recent weeks, as the RMB has continued to depreciate against the dollar (Chart 6). The increase in interest rates so far has been much milder compared with mid-2015, when RMB/USD depreciation sparked widespread financial volatility. Some have attributed China's higher interest rates to a weakening currency - as a sign that the country's monetary policy independence has been undermined. Recently, a senior PBoC official hinted that the central bank can raise interest rates if necessary to counter the downward pressure of the RMB, which further reinforces this view. Raising interest rates has been a typical policy response, especially among emerging countries look to defend their exchange rates, but it has rarely been proven successful. Hiking rates at a time of currency weakness further weakens domestic growth, which can in turn reinforce additional downward pressure on the exchange rate. The PBoC could certainly raise its benchmark rate, but we doubt the central bank is at all considering this option. In our view, the recent rise in Chinese interest rates may be attributable to both domestic and global factors: Globally, the synchronized selloff of bonds in major countries may have also pushed up Chinese interest rates. Chinese 10-year government bond yields have increased by 45 basis points since their August lows, not extraordinary considering the 102-basis-point selloff in U.S. Treasurys (Chart 7). Domestically, stronger growth numbers reported of late are providing additional evidence of growth improvement, which may have led to an adjustment in Chinese interest rate expectations (Chart 8). The latest PMI numbers point to further acceleration in both manufacturing and service industries, while the growth "surprise index" has been gradually improving and the yield curve has been steepening. Chart 7Higher Chinese Yields Reflect Global Factors... Chart 8... And Growth Improvement In short, we view rising yields in China as largely reflective rather than restrictive. As such, the PBoC is unlikely to rush in to push yields down just yet. In terms of monetary policy, we maintain the view that China's monetary easing through interest rate cuts has likely run its course, at least in the near term. Nonetheless, raising interest rates to protect the RMB would be a major policy mistake that would further undermine the exchange rate. Chart 9Cheaper Hong Kong Valuation Attracts ##br##Chinese Domestic Capital The Shenzhen-Hong Kong Connect Compared with the Shanghai-Hong Kong program that started over two years ago, the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program that debuted early this week has been received with much less enthusiasm from investors on both sides. The muted response in the marketplace likely reflects generally depressed sentiment within both Chinese and Hong Kong bourses. Given the large gap between Chinese domestic A shares and Hong Kong-listed stocks and well-entrenched expectorations of further RMB weakness, Chinese investors' purchases of Hong Kong-listed shares, or southbound purchases, will likely continue to increase (Chart 9). The establishment of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program is also another step in liberalizing China's capital account controls. While in the near term this contradicts the authorities' recent efforts to block capital outflows, the new stock connect channel is subject to daily quotas, and capital movement is under close scrutiny. Meanwhile, capital flows through the stock exchanges are tiny compared with economic activity. In the past two years, Chinese domestic investors' cumulative "southbound" net purchases of Hong Kong-listed stocks only amounted to RMB 200 billion, or US$30 billion, a fraction of the country's capital movement and foreign reserve holdings. As far as investors are concerned, a major difference between the two Chinese domestic exchanges is their sectoral composition. The Shanghai Stock Exchange is heavily concentrated in the financial sector and state-controlled enterprises (Table 1). The Shenzhen Stock Exchange, on the other hand, is more tech-heavy with larger representation of private firms, and therefore has been more dynamic, which is also reflected in its stock prices. The Shenzhen stock index has outperformed that of Shanghai massively in recent years (Chart 10). In this vein, opening Shenzhen stocks directly gives overseas investors another option to tap into some of China's fastest growing sectors. This could also increase the odds that MSCI Inc. may include Chinese domestic stocks in its widely followed EM and global indices in its next review. Table 1Sectoral Components Of Shanghai And ##br##Shenzhen Exchanges Chart 10Shenzhen Market's Secular Outperformance##br## Against Shanghai The bottom line is that the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program is yet another step towards China's capital account liberalization, allowing freer access between Chinese and overseas investors to each other's financial assets. In the near term it could give a boost to Hong Kong-listed shares due to the large valuation gap. The direct impact on the RMB is marginal. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Mapping China's Capital Outflows: A Balance Of Payment Perspective", dated February 3, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Trump's foreign policy proposals will exacerbate geopolitical risks. Sino-American relations are the chief risk - they will determine global stability. A Russian reset will benefit Europe, especially outside the Russian periphery. Trump will retain the gist of the Iran nuclear deal. Turkey and North Korea are wildcards. Feature Chart 1Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Financial markets rallied sharply after the election of Donald Trump and the resulting prospect of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater fiscal thrust (Chart 1). But is the euphoria justified in light of Trump's unorthodox views on U.S. foreign policy and trade? Is Trump's "normalization" amid the transition to the White House a reliable indicator that the geopolitical status quo will largely be preserved? We believe Trump's election marks a substantial increase in geopolitical risk that is being understated by markets.1 This is not because of his personality, though that is not particularly reassuring, but rather because of his policy proposals. If acted on, Trump's geopolitical agenda would exacerbate global trends that are already underway: Waning U.S. Dominance: American power, relative to other nations, has been declining in recent years as a result of the emergence of new economic and military powers like China and India (Chart 2). If Trump allows himself to be sucked into another conflict despite his campaign promises - say, by overturning the nuclear deal with Iran - he could embroil the U.S. at a time when it is relatively weak. Multipolarity: America's relative decline has emboldened various other nations to pursue their interests independently, increasing global friction and creating a world with multiple "poles" of influence.2 If Trump keeps his word on reducing foreign commitments he will speed along this historically dangerous process. Lesser powers like Russia and Turkey will try to fill vacuums created by the U.S. with their own ambitions, with competition for spheres of influence potentially sparking conflict. Multipolarity has already increased the incidence of global conflicts (Chart 3). De-Globalization: The greatest risk of the incoming administration is protectionism. Trump ran on an overtly protectionist platform. Democratic-leaning economic patriots in the American "Rust Belt" handed him the victory (Chart 4), and he will enact policies to maintain these pivotal supporters in 2018 and 2020 elections. This will hasten the decline of trade globalization, which we signaled was peaking back in 2014.3 It does not help that multipolarity and collapse of globalization have tended to go hand in hand in the past. And historically speaking, big reversals in global trade do not end well (Chart 5). Chart 2U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense Chart 3Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 5Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars In what follows we assess what we think are likely to be the most important geopolitical effects of Trump's "America First" policies. We see Russia and Europe as the chief beneficiaries, and China and Iran as the chief risks. A tougher stance on China, in particular, will feed broader strategic distrust; the combination of internal and external pressures on China will ensure that the latter will not be as flexible as in the past. For the past five years, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that the deterioration in Sino-American cooperation is the greatest geopolitical risk for investors - and the world. Trump's election will accelerate this process. Trump And Eurasia Trump's election is clearly a boon for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. The purpose of Putin's assertiveness has been to defend the Russian sphere of influence (namely Ukraine and Belarus in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) from outside powers: the U.S. and NATO seemed eager to "move in for the kill" after Russia emerged from the ashes. Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public with "rally around the flag" operations. We view Ukraine and Syria through this analytical prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.4 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal with Russia if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the "democracy promotion" activities that Putin considers to be directly aimed at the Kremlin. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.5 That is because the U.S. lacks constraints. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia (Chart 6) and does not stand directly in the way of any retaliation, as Europe does. That is why we think Trump and Putin will manage to reset relations. The U.S. can step back and allow Russia to control its sphere of influence. Trump's team may be comfortable with the concept, unlike the Obama administration, whose Vice-President Joe Biden famously pronounced that America "will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence." We could even see the U.S. pledging not to expand NATO from this point onwards, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from avowed NATO allies Poland and Czech Republic merely one year after Russian troops invaded Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs. Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in a structural decline as a great power and is attempting to hold on to a very large sphere of influence whose denizens are not entirely willing participants.6 Because Moscow often must use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it renews tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, we would expect the cycle to continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure under Trump. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through the end of 2017, a rapprochement with Washington could ultimately thaw relations by the end of next year. Europe stands to benefit, being able to resume business as usual with Russia and face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East, like in Syria. The recent decline in refugee flows will be made permanent with Russia's cooperation. The losers will be states in the Russian periphery that will feel less secure about American, EU and NATO backing, particularly Ukraine, but also Turkey. Countries like Belarus, which enjoyed playing Moscow against the West in the past, will lose the ability to do so. Once the U.S. abandons plans to prop up pro-West regimes in the Russian sphere of influence, Europeans will drop their designs to do the same as well. Trump And The Middle East Trump's "America First" foreign policy promises to be Obama's "geopolitical deleveraging" on steroids. He is opposed to American adventurism and laser-focused on counter-terrorism and U.S. domestic security. He also wants to deregulate the U.S. energy sector aggressively to encourage even greater energy independence (Chart 7). The chief difference from Obama - and a major risk to global stability - is Iran, where Trump could overturn the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, potentially setting the two countries back onto the path of confrontation. Nevertheless, this deal never depended on Obama's preferences but was rooted in a strategic logic that still holds:7 Iraqi stability: The U.S. needed to withdraw troops from Iraq without creating a power vacuum that would open up a regional war or vast terrorist safe haven. With the advent of the Islamic State, this plan clearly failed. However, Iran did provide a Shia-led central government that has maintained security for investments and oil outflows (Chart 8). Iranian defenses: Bombing Iran is extremely difficult logistically, and the U.S. did not want to force the country into a corner where asymmetric warfare, like cutting off shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, seemed necessary. Despite growing American oil production, the U.S. will always care about the transit of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, as this impacts global oil prices.8 China's emergence: Strategic threats grew rapidly in Asia while the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has emerged as a more technologically advanced and assertive global power that threatens to establish hegemony in the region. The deal with Iran was therefore a crucial piece of President Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy. Chart 7U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent Chart 8U.S. Policy Boosts Iraqi And Iranian Oil None of the above will change with Obama's moving on. Nor will the other powers that participated in sanctioning Iran (Germany, France, the U.K., Russia, and China) be convinced to re-impose sanctions now, just as they gain access to Iranian resources and markets. It is also not clear why Trump would seek confrontation with Iran in light of his desire to improve relations with Russia and concentrate U.S. firepower on ISIS - both objectives make Iran the ideal and obvious partner. Trump will therefore begrudgingly agree to the détente with Iran, perhaps after tweaking some aspects of the deal to save face. Meanwhile, it will serve the hawks in both countries if they can go back to calling each other "Satan." Iran itself is comfortable with the current situation, so it does not have an incentive to reverse the deal. It controls almost half of Iraq (and specifically the portion of Iraq that produces oil), its ally Hezbollah is safe in Lebanon, its ally Bashar Assad will win in Syria (more so with Trump in charge!), and its allies in Yemen (Houthi rebels) are a status quo power secure in a mountain fortress in the north of the country. It is hard to see where Trump would dislodge Iranian influence if he sought to do so. The U.S. is a powerful country that could put a lot of resources into rolling back Iranian influence, but the logic for such a move simply does not exist. Trump will also maintain Obama's aloof policy toward Saudi Arabia, which keeps it constrained (Chart 9).9 The country is in some ways the stereotype of the "ungrateful ally" that Trump wants to downgrade. For instance, Trump supported the law allowing victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the kingdom (a law that Obama tried unsuccessfully to veto). He has blamed the Saudis for the rise of ISIS and the failure to take care of Syrian refugees. His primary focus is on preventing terrorists from striking the U.S., and to that end he wants to cooperate with Russia and stabilize the region's regimes. This entails the relative neglect of Sunni groups under Shia rule in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the few issues where the Saudis will welcome Trump - opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, support for Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and opposition to aggressive democracy promotion - are so far rhetorical, not concrete, commitments. Chart 9Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Will Trump get sucked into the region to intervene against ISIS? We do not think so. A bigger risk is Turkey.10 President Recep Erdogan may think that Trump will either be too complacent about Turkish interests in Syria, or that Trump is in fact a "kindred nationalist spirit" who will not prevent Turkey from pursuing its own sphere of influence in Syria and northern Iraq. Trump's foreign policy of "offshore balancing" would call for the U.S. to prevent Turkey from resurrecting any kind of regional empire, especially if it risks a war with Russia and Iran or comes at the cost of regional influence for American allies like the Kurds.11 Turkey will also be starkly at odds on Syria and ISIS. This means Turkey and the U.S. could see already tense relations get substantially worse in 2017. We would not be surprised to see President Trump threaten Erdogan with expulsion from NATO within his first term. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our view is that Trump rejects the consensus of the intelligence and defense establishment and pushes Iran too far, leading to conflict. We do not think this will happen, but his rhetoric on the nuclear deal has been consistently negative and he seems likely to favor "Middle East hands" for top cabinet positions. He could involve the country in new Middle East entanglements if he does not show discipline in adhering to his non-interventionist preferences - particularly if he overreacts to an attack. Nonetheless, we believe that America's policy of geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East will continue. Trump may have a mandate to be tough on terrorism from his voters, but he definitely does not have a free hand to commit military resources to the region. Trump And Asia Trump criticized China furiously during the campaign, declaring that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. However, there is a familiar pattern of China bashing in U.S. presidential elections that leads to no sharp changes in policy.12 Will Trump be different? Some would argue that relations may actually improve, given how bad they already are. First, Trump's chief concern is to fire up the U.S. economy's animal spirits, and that would support China's ailing economy as long as he does not couple his tax cuts and fiscal stimulus with aggressive protectionist measures (Chart 10). Proponents of this view would point out that Trump's tougher measures may be called off when he realizes that the Chinese current account surplus has fallen sharply in recent years (Chart 11), and that the PBoC is propping up the RMB, not suppressing it. Similarly, Trump's China-bashing trade advisor, the former steel executive Dan DiMicco, may not get much traction given that the U.S. has largely shifted to Brazilian steel imports (Chart 12). In short, the U.S. could take a somewhat tougher stance on specific trade spats without provoking a vicious spiral of discriminatory actions. The fact that the U.S. is more exposed than ever to trade with emerging markets only reinforces the idea that it does not want to spark a real trade war (Chart 13). Chart 10A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth Chart 11China's Economy Rebalancing Chart 12China Already Lost The Chart 13A Reason To Eschew Protectionism Second, the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" and attempts to undermine China's economic influence in the region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have aggravated China with little substantive gain. By contrast, Trump may emphasize American business access to China over Chinese citizens' freedoms - which could reduce the risk of conflict. He may not go beyond symbolic protectionist moves, like the currency manipulation charge, and meanwhile canceling the never-ratified TPP would be a net gain for China.13 In essence, Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, could prove both pragmatic and willing to inherit the traditional Republican stance of business-oriented positive engagement with China. This is a compelling argument and we take it seriously. But it is not our baseline case. Rather, we think Trump will eventually take concrete populist steps that will mark a departure from U.S. policy in recent memory. As mentioned, it was protectionist blue-collar voters in the Midwest who gave Trump the White House, and he will need to retain their loyalty in coming elections. Moreover, the secular flatlining of American wages and the growth of income inequality have moved the median U.S. voter to the left of the economic spectrum, as we have argued.14 Neo-liberal economic policy has fewer powerful proponents than in the recent past. Thus, in the long run, we expect the grand renegotiation with China to fall short of market hopes, and Sino-American tensions to resume their upward trajectory.15 Why are we so pessimistic? Three main reasons: The "Thucydides Trap": Sino-U.S. tensions are fundamentally driven not by trade disputes but by the U.S.'s fear of China's growing capability and ambition.16 Great conflicts in history have often occurred when a new economic and military power emerged and tried to alter the regional political arrangements set up by the dominant power. This was as true in late nineteenth-century Europe, with the rise of Germany vis-à-vis the U.K. and France (Chart 14), as it was in ancient Greece. The rise of Japan in the first half of the twentieth century had a similar effect in Asia (Chart 15). Trump could, of course, endorse Xi's idea of a "new type of great power relations," which is supposed to avoid this problem. But nobody knows what that would look like, and greater trade openness is the only conceivable foundation for it. Chart 15AThe Disruptive Rise Of Germany Chart 15BThe Disruptive Rise Of Japan China's economic imbalances: A caustic dose of trade remedies from the Trump administration will compound internal economic pressures in China resulting from rampant credit expansion, misallocation of capital, excessive money printing, and capital outflows (Chart 16).17 The combination of internal and external pressures is potentially fatal and China's leaders will fight it. Otherwise, they risk either the fate of the Soviets or of the Asian strongman regimes that succumbed to democracy after embracing capitalism fully. Instead, China will avoid rushing its structural reforms (it is, after all, currently closing its capital account), and protect its consumer market, which it hopes to be the growth engine going forward. This is not a strong basis for the "better deal" that Trump will demand. President Trump will want China to open up further to U.S. manufacturing, tech, and service exports. Economics and the security dilemma: China and the U.S. will not be able to prevent economic tensions from spilling over into broader strategic tensions. Compare the spike in trade tensions with Japan in the 1980s, when Japanese exports to the U.S. peaked and the U.S. strong-armed Japan into appreciating its currency (Chart 17). The U.S. had nurtured Japan and South Korea out of their post-war devastation by running large trade deficits and enabling them to focus on manufacturing exports while minimizing spending on defense. China joined this system in the 1980s and has largely resembled the formal U.S. allies (Chart 18). Given that China has largely followed Japan's path, it was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually lose patience and become more competitive with China. China has seized a greater share of the U.S. market than Japan had done at that time, and its exports are even more important to the U.S. as a share of GDP (Chart 19). Comparing the exchange rates then and now, the Trump administration will be able to argue that China's currency is overdue for appreciation (Chart 20). However, in the 1980s, the U.S. and Japan faced no risk of military conflict - their strategic hierarchy was entirely settled in 1945. The U.S. and China have no such understanding. There is no way of assuring China that U.S. economic pressure is not about strategic dominance. In fact, it is about that. So while China may be cajoled into promising faster reforms - given that its trade surplus with the U.S. is the only thing that stands between it and current account deficits (Chart 21) - nevertheless it will tend to dilute and postpone these reforms for the sake of its own security, putting Trump's resolve to the test. Chart 16Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Chart 17The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan Chart 18Asia Sells, America Rules Chart 19The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 20China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation Chart 21A Reason For China To Kowtow Trump's victory may also heighten Beijing's fears that it is being surrounded by the U.S. and its partners. That is because Trump will make the following developments more likely: Better Russian relations: From a bird's eye view, Trump's thaw with Putin could mark an inversion of Nixon's thaw with Mao. China is the only power today that can stand a comparison with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. at least needs to make sure the Sino-Russian relationship does not become too warm (Chart 22).18 Russo-Japanese peace treaty: The two sides are already working on a treaty, never signed after World War II. Aside from their historic territorial dispute, the U.S. has been the main impediment by demanding Japan help penalize Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Yet negotiations have advanced regardless, and Japanese air force scrambles against Russia have fallen while those against China have continued to spike (Chart 23). The best chance for a deal since the 1950s is now, with Abe and Putin both solidly in power until 2018. This would reduce Russian dependency on China for energy markets and capital investment, and free up Japan's security establishment to focus on China and North Korea. American allies are not defecting: The United States armed forces are deeply embedded in the Asia Pacific region and setbacks to the "pivot" policy should not be mistaken for setbacks to U.S. power in the absolute.19 U.S. allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and (soon) South Korea are in the headlines for seeking to warm up ties with China, but there is no hard evidence that they will turn away from the U.S. security umbrella. Rather, the pivot reassured them of U.S. commitment, giving them the flexibility to focus on boosting their economies, which means sending emissaries to Beijing. The problem is that Beijing knows this and will therefore still suspect that a "containment" strategy is underfoot over time. Better Indian relations: The Bush administration made considerable progress in improving ties with India. Trump also seems India-friendly, which would be supported by better ties with Russia and Iran. India could therefore become a greater obstacle to China's influence in South and Southeast Asia. Chart 22Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Chart 23Japan's Strategic Predicament From the above, we can draw three main conclusions: The U.S. role in the Pacific will determine global geopolitical stability under the Trump administration. The primary question is whether China is willing and able to accede to enough of Trump's demands to ensure that the U.S. and China have at least "one more fling," a further extension to the post-1979 trade relationship. It is possible that China is simply unable to do so and in the face of any concrete sanctions by Trump, will batten down the hatches, rally people around the flag, and shore up the state-led economy. There may be a tactical U.S.-China "improvement" over the next year - relative to the worst fears of trade war under Trump - but it will not be durable. The year 2017 will be the year of Trump's "honeymoon," while Xi Jinping will be focused on internal politics ahead of the Communist Party's crucial National Party Congress in the fall.20 Thus, after Trump gives China a "shot across the bow," like charging it with currency manipulation, the two sides will likely settle down at the negotiating table and send positive signals to the world about their time-tried ability to manage tensions. Financial markets will see through Trump's initially symbolic actions and begin to behave as if nothing has changed in U.S.-China relations. However, this calm will be deceiving, since economic and security tensions will eventually rise to the surface again, likely in a more disruptive way than ever before. China's periphery will be decisive, especially the Korean peninsula. The Koreas could become the locus of East Asia tensions for two reasons. First, North Korea's nuclear weaponization has reached a level that is truly alarming to the U.S. and Japan.21 New sanctions, if enforced, have real teeth because they target commodity exports (Chart 24). The problem is that China is unlikely to enforce them and South Korean politics are likely to turn more China-friendly and more pacific toward the North with the impending change of ruling parties. This will leave the U.S. and Japan with legitimate security grievances but less of an ability to change the outcome through non-military means. That is an arrangement ripe for confrontation. Separately, China's worsening relations with Taiwan, Vietnam's resistance to China's power-grab in the South China Sea, and conflicts between India and Pakistan will be key barometers of regional stability vis-à-vis China. Chart 24Will China Cut Imports From Here? The risk to this view, again, is that a Middle East crisis could distract the Trump administration. This would mark an excellent opportunity for China to build on its growing regional sway, and it would delay our baseline view that the Asia Pacific is now the chief source of geopolitical risk in the world. Investment Conclusions There is no geopolitical risk premium associated with Sino-American tensions. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the industry are at a loss when we ask how one should hedge tensions in the region. This is a major risk for investors as the market will have to price emerging tensions quickly. Broadly speaking, Sino-American tensions will reinforce the ongoing de-globalization. If the top two global economies are at geopolitical loggerheads, they are more likely to see their geopolitical tensions spill over to the economic sphere. Unwinding globalization implies that inflation will make a comeback, as the reduction in flows of goods, services, capital, and people gradually increases supply constraints. This is primarily bad for bonds, which have enjoyed a bull market for the past three decades that we see reversing.22 At the same time, these trends suggest that investors should favor consumer-oriented sectors and countries relative to their export-reliant counterparts, and small-to-medium sized businesses over externally-exposed multinationals. BCA Geopolitical Strategy's long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 trade is up 7.4% since inceptionon November 9. Finally, these trends, combined with the associated geopolitical risks of various powers struggling for elbow room, warrant a continuation of the Geopolitical Strategy theme of favoring Developed Markets over Emerging Markets, which has made a 45.5% return since inception in November 2012. The centrality of China risk only reinforces this view. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see our initial discussion of Trump's foreign policy, "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and, more recently, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "In Focus - Cold War Redux?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "It's A Long Way Down From The 'Wall Of Worry,'" dated March 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," dated April 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Turkey: Strategy After The Attempted Coup," dated July 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see John J. Meirsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016, available at www.foreignaffairs.com. 12 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 One of his foreign policy advisors, former CIA head James Woolsey, has floated the idea that the U.S. could turn positive about Chinese initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt One Road program to link Eurasian economies. Please see Woolsey, "Under Donald Trump, the US will accept China's rise - as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo," South China Morning Post, dated November 10, 2016, available at www.scmp.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 17 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Dear Client, This issue of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy features our 2017 Outlook for Bulks and Base Metals. The evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced. That said, the potential for price spikes - e.g., copper, where spare capacity is shrinking - and for monetary and fiscal policy errors to spill into these markets keeps downside price risk elevated. Next week, we will publish our 2017 Outlook for Energy Markets, with special attention to the oil market. As expected, OPEC and Russia agreed to cut production. As we went to press, WTI and Brent crude oil prices were up ~ 8.5% on the news. We will take profits today on our Long February 2017 Brent $50/bbl Calls vs. Short February 2017 $55/bbl Calls, which was up 73.6% basis Wednesday's close when we went to press. We remain long August 2017 WTI vs. Short November 2017 WTI futures in anticipation of a backwardated forward curve in 2017H2; as of Wednesday's close, this position returned 76.39% since November 3, when we recommended the exposure. Our 2017 Precious Metals and Agricultural outlooks will be published in the following weeks. We will finish with an outlook for commodities as an asset class in 2017 at year-end. We trust you will find these reports informative and useful for your investing and year-ahead planning. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President The monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. While we expect "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, when new leadership roles will be announced, we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Our out-of-consensus bullish call was proven correct with a 43% rally in iron ore prices within the past eight weeks.1 Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector should eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. We remain neutral copper going into 2017, expecting Chinese reflationary stimulus to continue along with a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in that country. This will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. Manufacturing will play a larger role on the demand side next year, while a stronger USD could limit price appreciation. We still believe nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. We are bullish nickel prices, both tactically and strategically, as we expect a supply deficit to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. For the global aluminum market, we remain tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. We have three investment strategies, including long iron ore/short steel futures, long nickel/short zinc futures, and buying aluminum on weaknesses. Feature Iron Ore & Steel: Limited Upside In 2017 A Quick Recap Back in early October, we wrote an in-depth report on global iron ore and steel markets in which we made an out-of-consensus tactically bullish call on iron ore, expecting the price to reach the April high of $68.70/MT in 2016Q4. Our prediction was realized, with iron ore prices surging 43% to a two-year high of $79.81/MT on November 11 (Chart 1, panel 1). Although the steel market has been much stronger than the assessment driving our tactically neutral stance indicated earlier in the quarter, our call that iron ore would outperform steel in the near term was correct: Steel prices rose 21% during the same period of time - only half of the iron ore price rally (Chart 1, panel 1). Over the past two months, the rally occurred in both futures and spot markets, and in the markets globally (Chart 1, panels 2 and 3). Chart 1Iron Ore: Downgrade To Tactically Neutral Chart 2Steel: Remain Tactically Neutral The 2017 Outlook First, we downgrade our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral, as China likely will import less iron ore in 2017Q1 (Chart 2, panel 1). China has imposed stricter environmental regulations on its domestic metals industry since 2014 to control pollution. The government currently is sending environmental inspection teams to major steel-producing provinces to check how well the steel producers are complying with state environment rules. Many steel-producing factories were closed this year, due to environmental violations. This will constrain growth in Chinese steel output in the near term (Chart 2, panel 2). Between 2011 - 15, the state-owned Xinhua news agency states Chinese steel capacity has been reduced by 90 million MT; authorities want to cut as much as 150 million MT by 2020, including 45 million MT this year.2 Chinese steel production generally falls in January and February as workers are celebrating the Chinese Spring Festival - the most important festival for the Chinese. Iron ore inventories at major Chinese ports are still high (Chart 2, panel 3). Given iron ore prices have already rallied more than 100% since last December and steel demand outlook remains uncertain next year, most steel producers likely will choose to push off purchases into 2017Q2 or later. While China may slow its iron ore purchases next year, global iron ore supply is set to increase in 2017 as many projects will come on stream. The world's biggest iron ore project, Vale's S11D, which has a capacity of 90 million metric tons (mmt) per year, is expected to ship its first ore in January 2017. Moreover, with iron ore prices above $70/MT, global top iron ore companies with low production costs can be expected to sell as much as they can to maximize their profit, given their all-in production costs for high-quality iron ore (62% Fe) typically are between $30 and $35/MT.3 That said, we are not bearish on iron ore prices in the near term. We prefer to be neutral. Iron ore prices will have pullbacks, but the downside may be also limited in 2017H1. Chinese domestic iron ore production is still in a deep contraction (Chart 2, panel 4). Plus, most steel producing companies prefer high-quality ore from overseas over the domestic low-quality ore. In addition, almost all steel companies in China are profitable at present, which means Chinese steel production will rise after the Spring Festival holidays. All of these factors will support iron ore prices. Chart 3Iron Ore & Steel: Strategically Bearish Second, we retain our tactically neutral view on steel. Chinese steel demand was lifted by China's expansionary monetary and fiscal policies this year - which we have dubbed China's "reflationary" policy - which included reductions in its central bank's policy rate and reserve requirement ratio, and implementation of additional infrastructure projects (Chart 3). This was the driving force for the sharp steel price rally this year. The big question is how sustainable Chinese steel demand growth will be? This will be highly dependent on the Chinese government's decisions and actions. More than a third of steel demand is accounted for by the property market, of which some 70% is residential property.4 Mortgages accounted for approximately 71% of all new loans in August of this year, down from 90% in July, according to Reuters.5 This loan growth powered the iron ore and steel markets this past 12 - 18 months and China's credit-to-GDP ratio to extremely high levels. The OECD recently observed, "The high pace of debt accumulation was sustained despite weaker domestic demand growth. This raises concerns about the underlying quality of new credit, disorderly corporate defaults and the possible extent to which it has been used to support financial asset prices. Residential property prices in some of the largest cities have risen by over 30% year-on-year, although price growth in smaller cities has been much more modest. The price gains have been partly driven by loose monetary policy and ample credit availability as well as reduced land supply."6 Based on our calculations, Chinese steel demand started showing positive yoy growth in July and, so far, had posted four consecutive months of positive yoy growth from July to October. In September and October, the growth was accelerated to 8.3% and 6.6%, respectively, a clear improvement from the 0.8% yoy growth registered in July. The growth may last another three to six months but could peak sooner, if there are no new stimulus plans announced by the government. In addition to the housing sector, China's auto industry also saw significant demand growth. As China cut the sale taxes on small passenger vehicles from 10% to 5% this year, Chinese car sales jumped 13.6% yoy for the first 10 months of 2016, a significant improvement from a 5.7% yoy contraction in the same period of last year. If the government lets the tax cut expire at year-end, Chinese auto production may decline in 2017, which will weaken Chinese steel demand. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting production next year, which likely will limit the upside for steel prices. That said, current steel inventories in China are still low. According to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), steel inventories at large and medium steel enterprises fell 9% from mid-September to late October. This probably will limit the downside for steel prices. Third, we retain a strategic bearish view on both iron ore and steel. If there is no additional reflationary stimulus deployed in 2017, we expect Chinese steel demand to weaken. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting their production. Let these two factors run nine to 12 months, and we believe they will be sufficient to knock down both steel and iron ore prices. Our research last year concluded the Chinese property sector is structurally down-trending.7 Given that the property market is the biggest end user of steel in China, accounting for about 35% of total steel demand, we are strategically bearish on steel and iron ore prices. How To Make Money In The Iron Ore & Steel Market? Chart 4Take Profit On Long ##br##Iron Ore/ShortSteel Rebar Trade We went long May/17 iron ore futures in Dalian Futures Exchange in China and short May/17 steel rebar futures in Shanghai Futures Exchange on October 6 (Chart 4). Both contracts are denominated in RMB. The relative trade gives us a return of 18.1% in two months. We are taking profits with this publication, but we may re-initiate this pair trade on pullbacks. Risks If China deploys additional fiscal and monetary stimulus next year, similar in scope to this year's stimulus, we will re-evaluate our view accordingly. If global iron ore production is less than the market expects we could see further rallies in iron ore prices. Should this occur, we will re-examine our market call, as well. Copper: Market Is Balanced; Little Flex On Supply Side The reflationary stimulus that powered China's property markets - and drove demand for iron ore and steel higher - also propelled copper prices to dizzying heights in 2016H2. We do not expect this juggernaut to continue, and instead expect copper to trade sideways next year as global supply and demand stay relatively balanced (Chart 5). China accounts for roughly half of global refined copper demand (Chart 6). Manufacturing activity has the greatest impact on prices: A 1% increase in China's PMI translates to a 1.8% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 7). Chart 5Copper Market Is In Balance Chart 6World Copper Markets Are Balanced Chart 7China Demand Will Remain Key For Copper China's property market accounts for about a third of global copper demand in used in construction, according to the CME Group, which trades copper on its COMEX exchange. A 1% increase floor-space started in China leads to a 0.3% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 8). The surge in demand from the housing market lifted China's copper demand over the past 12 - 18 months, as credit creation in the form of home-mortgage loans expanded at a rapid clip (Chart 9). We expect the Chinese government to continue to try to rein in a booming property market, which has seen mortgage-loan growth of 90% p.a. recently. If the government is successful, this will limit price gains for copper next year. If not, the bubble will continue to expand in large tier-1 and -2 cities in China, making the copper rally's fundamental support tenous to say the least. Chart 8China PMIs and USD TWI Drive LME Prices Chart 9Mortgage Growth Likely Slows in 2017 This drives our expectation that the real economic activity in China - chiefly manufacturing - will be the dominant fundamental on the demand side for copper next year. On the supply side, we expect 2.65% yoy growth in refined copper production, just slightly above the International Copper Study Group's 2% estimate. Company and press reports cite a reduced mine capacity additions, lower ore content in mined output, and labor unrest as reasons supply side growth is slowing. Our balances reflect a convergence of supply and demand for next year, and also highlight the reduced flexibility in the system to respond to unplanned outages. For this reason, the global copper market could be prone to upside price risk in the event of a major unplanned production outage. Watch Out For USD Strength Copper, like all of the base metals, is sensitive to the path taken by the USD. We continue to expect the Fed to lift rates next month and a couple of times next year. This most likely will lift the USD 10% or so over the next 12 months. This would be bearish for base metals, particularly copper, since 92% of global demand for the red metal occurs outside the U.S. Our modeling indicates a 1% increase in the broad USD trade-weighted index leads to a 3.5% decrease in LME copper prices. A stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex-U.S. EM demand would suffer, which would slow the principal source of growth for base metals. Metals producers' ex-U.S. with little or no exposure to USD debt-service obligations would see local-currency operating costs fall. At the margin, this will lead to increased supply. These effects would combine to push commodity prices lower, producing a deflationary blowback to the U.S. Nickel & Zinc: Going Different Ways In 2017? Zinc has outperformed nickel significantly for the past six years. This year alone, zinc prices have shot up over 90% since January, almost doubling the 50% rally in nickel prices for the same period of time (Chart 10, panel 1). The nickel/zinc price ratio has declined to its lowest level since 1998 (Chart 10, panel 2). Will nickel continue underperforming zinc into 2017? Or will the trend reverse next year? We believe the latter has a higher probability. Tactically, we are bullish nickel and neutral zinc. Strategically, we are bullish nickel and bearish zinc.8 Zinc's bull story has been well-known for the past several years, and nickel's oversupplied bear story also has been commented on in the news. However, both markets' fundamentals are changing. Based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data, for the first nine months of this year, the supply deficit in the global nickel market was at its highest level since 1996. Meanwhile, the global zinc market was already in balance (Chart 10, panels 3 and 4). Chart 10Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 Chart 11Nickel Has More Positive Fundamentals Than Zinc Both nickel and zinc markets are experiencing ore shortages (Chart 11, panels 1 and 2). For the nickel market, the ore shortage was mainly due to the Indonesian ore export ban, and Philippines' suspension of nickel miners for violating that country's environmental laws. For the zinc market, the ore shortage arose because of several big mines' depletion, years of underinvestment, and mine suspensions due to low prices late last year. The nickel ore shortage will become acute as the Indonesian ban remains in place and the Philippines' government becomes stricter on domestic mining operations. However, for zinc, most of the output loss occurred last year, and actually may be restored to the market in the near future. Zinc prices reached $2,811/MT last year as the market was adjusting to lost supply - the highest level since March 2008. In terms of demand, nickel exhibits much stronger demand growth versus zinc (Chart 11, panels 3 and 4). In addition, China's auto sales tax-cut policy will expire at year-end, which may cause Chinese auto production to fall in 2017. This will affect zinc much more than nickel, as less galvanized steel will be needed next year if Chinese car production falls. Investment Strategies We sold Dec/17 zinc at $2,400/MT on November 3, and the trade was stopped out at $2,500/MT with a 4% loss (Chart 12, panel 1). Zinc prices jumped 11.5% in four trading days in late November, which we believe was mainly driven by speculative buying. Nonetheless, in the near term, global zinc supply is still on the tight side, and zinc inventories are low (Chart 12, panel 2). Zinc prices could rally more in the near term. We were looking to go Long Dec/17 LME nickel vs. Short Dec/17 LME zinc if the ratio drops to 4.3 since mid-November (Chart 13, panel 1). We also suggested that if the order gets filled, put a stop-loss for the ratio at 4.15. Chart 12Zinc: Stay Tactically Neutral Chart 13Risks To Long Nickel/Short Zinc On November 25, the order was filled at the closing price ratio of 4.17. But unfortunately the ratio declined to 4.08 on the next trading day (November 28), based on the closing price ratio, which triggered our predefined stop-loss level with a 2.2% loss. The ratio was trading at 4.17 again as of November 29. As the market is so volatile, we recommend initiating this relative trade if it drops below 4.05 to compensate the risk. If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a 5% stop-loss level for the relative trade. After all, nickel prices could still have pullbacks, as global nickel inventories still are elevated (Chart 13, panel 2). Risks Our strategically bearish view on zinc will be wrong if global zinc ore supply does not increase as much as we expect, or global zinc demand still has robust growth in 2017. Our strategically bullish view on nickel will be wrong if Indonesian refined nickel output increases quickly, resulting in a smaller supply deficit than the market expects. However, due to power shortages, poor infrastructure and funding problems, development on many of the smelters and stainless steel plants once envisioned for the nickel market have been delayed. We believe these problems will continue to be headwinds for Indonesian nickel output growth, and will continue to restrict supply growth going forward. Aluminum: Cautiously Bullish In 2017 Chart 14Aluminum: Remain Tactically Bullish ##br## And Strategically Neutral Sharp supply cuts combined with tight inventories have pushed aluminum prices higher this year. Prices in China have rallied more than 50% so far this year, which was more than double the 20% rise in the global aluminum market (Chart 14, panel 1). This probably indicates a tighter Chinese domestic market than the global (ex-China) market. Looking forward, we remain tactically bullish on LME aluminum prices and neutral on SHFE aluminum prices.9 The supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Global aluminum production has declined faster than demand so far this year. Based on the WBMS data, global aluminum output was still in a deep contraction in September (Chart 14, panel 2). Even though China's operating capacity has been rising every month so far this year, Chinese total aluminum output for the first 10 months was still 1.1% less than the same period last year. In addition, considering the possible output loss due to the Spring Festival in late January, we believe it will take another three to six months for China to meet its own domestic demand and inventory restocking. Extremely tight domestic inventories should limit the downside of SHFE aluminum prices (Chart 14, panel 3) as the market adjusts on the supply side. We think there is more upside for LME aluminum prices, as the supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Currently, Chinese aluminum prices are about 18% higher than the LME prices (both are in USD terms), which will likely limit the supply coming from China's exports to the rest of world. Strategically, we are neutral LME aluminum prices and bearish on SHFE aluminum prices. Currently, about 85% of the China's aluminum operating capacity is making money. With new low-cost capacity and more idled capacity coming back on line, profitable Chinese smelters will continue boosting their aluminum production to maximize profits. This, over a longer term like nine months to one year, should eventually spill over to the global market. Investment strategy Chart 15Still Look To Buy Aluminum We recommended buying the Mar/17 LME aluminum contract (Chart 15) if it falls to $1,640/MT (current: $1,721/MT). We expect the contract price to rise to $1,900/MT over the next three to five months. If our order is filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss. Risks Prices at both the SHFE and LME may come under intense pressure if aluminum producers in China increases their output quickly, even at a small loss, in order to create jobs and revenue for local governments. If global aluminum demand falters in 2017 while supply is rising, we will revisit our strategically neutral view on LME aluminum prices. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report for iron ore and steel "Global Iron Ore And Steel Markets: Is The Rally Over?," dated October 6, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. In this report, we are using Metal Bulletin iron ore price delivered to Qingdao port in China as our iron ore reference price. 2 Please see "N. China city cuts 32 mln tonnes of steel capacity" published October 30, 2016, by Xinhua's online service, xinhuanet.com. 3 Please see "CHART: The breakeven iron ore prices for major miners in 2016," published June 7, 2016, by Business Insider Australia. 4 Please see "China Resources Quarterly, Southern spring ~ Northern autumn 2016," published by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and Westpac, particularly this discussion on p. 4, "The real estate sector." 5 Please see "China August new loans well above expectations on mortgage boom," published by Reuters September 14, 2016. 6 Please see the OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2016 Issue 2, Chapter 1, entitled "General Assessment of the Macroeconomic Situation," p. 44, under the sub-head "Rapid debt accumulation risks instability in EMEs." The IMF also expressed concern over rising debt levels supporting the real-estate boom in China, particularly in the larger cities, noting, "Credit and financial sector leverage continue to rise faster than GDP, and state-owned enterprises in sectors with excess capacity and real estate continue to absorb a major share of credit flow. The deviation of credit growth from its long-term trend, the so-called credit overhang--a key cross-country indicator of potential crisis--is estimated somewhere in the range of 22-27 percent of GDP..., which is very high by international comparison." Please see the IMF's Global Financial Stability Report for October 2016, "Fostering Stability in a Low-Growth, Low-Rate Era," p. 35, under the sub-heading "China: Growing Credit and Complexities." 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015 and "China Property Market Q&As," dated July 2, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Production Cut, Trump Election Will Stoke Inflation Expectations," dated November 17, 2016 and "The Lithium Battery Supply Chain: Efficient Exposure To Electric-Vehicle Market," dated October 27, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Market Saturation Likely In Asia, If KSA - Russia Fail To Curb Oil Production," dated November 10, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights Despite the static headline GDP figures, most of our indicators suggest Chinese growth momentum has improved since the second quarter, particularly in the industrial sector. A dollar overshoot, domestic housing policy tightening and potential policy mistakes by the Chinese authorities need to be monitored for potential growth disappointments. The rally in commodity prices reflects improving Chinese demand, but it has ignored the surging dollar. Chinese H shares are a safer play on Chinese reflation and growth improvement. Feature Our recent conversations with clients suggest that global investors' concerns over China have slightly abated, as various economic numbers have shown improvement. Nonetheless, investors remain highly sceptical about China's macro situation, raising questions ranging from "traditional" distrust of China's economic data to the latest worries of a "trade war" with the U.S. under President Donald Trump. We dedicate this week's report to addressing some common issues that we have been discussing with clients of late. What Is The Actual GDP Growth In China? In Recent Quarters, It Seems To Be Holding In A "Too-Good-To-Be-True" Tight Range? Chinese real GDP growth has been 6.7% for the past three consecutive quarters, right in the middle of the government's official target of 6.5-7%. This seemingly incredible stability has stoked long-held suspicions among investors about the reliability of Chinese economic data. While we do not claim to have the ultimate insider story on official Chinese statistics, and it is certainly possible that the macro numbers are "smoothed out" to hide otherwise greater volatility in economic reality, it is also possible that stable headline numbers overshadow bigger underlying fluctuations among different sectors (Chart 1). Chart 1Greater Volatility Underneath ##br##Stable GDP For example, while real GDP growth has stayed at 6.7% since Q1 this year, there has been some fluctuations in both the industrial and service sectors. Within the service sector, the financial industry has had a major downturn, with nominal growth falling from 10.9% in Q1 to 8.2% in the last quarter, partly due to last year's base effect of the stock market boom-bust. The real estate sector, on the other hand, has been on the mend, with growth strengthening from 14% in Q1 to 16.3%. Regardless, the exact GDP growth figures rarely matter from an investor's perspective. What is more important is the growth trajectory and policy implications. On this front, most of our indicators suggest growth momentum has improved since the second quarter of the year, particularly in the industrial sector. A strong recovery in manufacturing-sensitive indicators such as railway freight, heavy machine sales and electricity consumption (Chart 2). Continued acceleration in profit growth, in both the overall industrial sector and among listed firms.1 Further improvement in pricing power and producer prices. Producer price deflation that lasted for over four years ended in September, compared with 5.3% deflation in January. Looking forward, we expect the economy to continue to improve, even though some of the high-flying variables may begin to moderate. On the policy front, the authorities will likely enter a wait-and-see mode, especially on interest rates. Our model signals that the central bank's interest rate cuts have likely come to an end, unless the economy relapses again (Chart 3). This is also reflected in the pickup in interest rates in the bond market. We will further explore China's growth outlook, policy orientation and investment implications for the New Year in the first week of 2017. Chart 2Broad Improvement In##br## Industrial Indicators Chart 3No More Rate Cuts, ##br##For Now There Appears To Be Growing Acceptance In The Market That China Will Not Suffer A Hard Landing. What Are You Monitoring To Gauge The Growth Risk? We have not been in the "hard landing" camp, and have been anticipating a "rocky bottoming" process in Chinese growth for the year.2 Despite enormous financial volatility in January associated with the domestic stock market and the RMB, growth has largely played out as we anticipated. We expect the economy to remain resilient, but are watching some pressure points that could lead to disappointments. The first is the RMB, which has been depreciating notably against the dollar in recent weeks, as the dollar uptrend has resumed with vigour. In our view, a strong dollar is one of the key risks, as it not only generates downward pressure on the CNY/USD cross rate, on which the market tends to focus closely, but also halts the "stealth" depreciation of the RMB in trade-weighted terms, which reduces the reflationary benefits of a weaker exchange rate on the Chinese economy (Chart 4). In other words, a weak CNY/USD and a strong trade-weighted RMB is a poor combination for both financial markets and the macro economy.3 So far, the CNY/USD decline appears orderly, and we doubt the greenback will massively overshoot against all major currencies within a short period without causing growth difficulties in the U.S. However, the situation should be closely monitored and continuously assessed. The second is housing policy tightening, which the authorities have re-imposed since October to check rapid gains in home prices. So far, the tightening measures have not led to a significant slowdown in home sales in major cities: Daily home sales in the major cities that we track have broken out to new record highs (Chart 5). However, new housing supply has already been very weak, which together with robust sales could lead to even lower housing inventory and a further spike in home prices. We maintain guarded optimism on China's housing construction, as we discussed in detail in our previous report.4 The risk is that unyielding home price gains will force the Chinese authorities to up the ante on tightening, which could lead to a sudden deterioration in housing activity. In this vein, price moderation should be good news from policymakers' perspectives, as well as for the overall economy. Chart 4The RMB: Weak Or Strong? Chart 5Monitor Housing Activity Finally, as we have argued repeatedly, China's growth difficulties in recent years have had a lot to do with the excessively tight policy environment post the global financial crisis - a policy mistake that compounded deflationary pressures in the economy, which had already been suffering from weak external demand. Despite budding improvement in the economy, China's overall macro environment remains highly challenging, and policy mistakes that undermine aggregate demand will prove extremely costly. In this vein, any broader attempt to tighten policies, hasten administrative enforcement to de-lever or prematurely withdraw fiscal support on infrastructure construction will prove counterproductive. A more recent risk is how China deals with the potential protectionist threat from the U.S. under President Donald Trump.5 Our view is that China should avoid escalating trade tensions with tic-for-tac retaliations that could further complicate the growth outlook. As far as the markets are concerned, Chinese equities appear to have begun to price in a lower "China risk premium." Forward P/E ratios for both A shares and H shares have been rising since early this year, likely a reflection of investors' easing anxiety on China's macro conditions (Chart 6). Nonetheless, Chinese stocks' forward P/E ratios remain well below other major markets and the global average, and the risk premium in Chinese equities is still substantially higher than historical norms. Beyond near-term volatility, we expect the risk premium in Chinese stocks to continue to revert to the mean, leading to multiples expansion and further price gains. At minimum, Chinese equities should outpace global and EM benchmarks. There Has Been A Massive Rally In Some Industrial Commodity Prices In China. Is This Driven By Speculative Frenzy? How Much Does The Commodities Rally Reflect Chinese Demand? Industrial commodity prices have rebounded sharply in both the Chinese domestic spot markets and various derivatives exchanges. For some products, prices have gone parabolic, and there is little doubt that these extreme moves cannot be fully explained by fundamental factors (Chart 7). Nonetheless, it is also well known that commodities in general are subject to volatile price fluctuations, as they are extremely sensitive to marginal shifts in the supply-demand balance due to very low price elasticity among both producers and end users. Therefore, it is impossible, and rather meaningless, to precisely detangle speculative forces and fundamental factors. Chart 6Risk Premium Will Continue ##br##To Mean Revert Chart 7No Clear Evidence Of Commodity ##br## Speculative Frenzy That said, from a macro perspective, a few observations are in order: There does not appear to be a particularly high level of over-trading and speculative activity involved this time around compared with historical norms. Futures transactions this year have been hovering at close to record low levels, despite sharp prices gains in numerous products. Even if prices decline sharply, the impact on the financial system should be negligible because of very low investor participation. Broad-based improvement in numerous industry-sensitive indicators shown in Chart 2 on page 2 suggest the gains in commodity prices are at least partially attributable to improving demand rather than purely driven by speculative frenzy. In fact, improving Chinese demand is also reflected in a firmer global shipping rate. The Baltic Dry Index has almost quadrupled since its February lows, which hardly has anything to do with Chinese retail speculators (Chart 8, top panel). Massive price gains in some commodities such as steel and coal have been partially driven by the Chinese authorities' attempts early this year to "de-capacity" the two sectors, with aggressive efforts to cut idle capacity and reduce domestic production. The self-imposed restrictions together with improving demand have led to sharp price gains and a significant rebound in imports of related products (Chart 8, bottom panel). This confirms our view that the overcapacity issue in the Chinese industrial sector has been overestimated.6 Moreover, regulators' control on domestic supply has been relaxed, which will likely lead to rising domestic production in due course - this bodes well for Chinese domestic business activity, but poorly for the prices of related products. Historically, commodity prices have been positively correlated with China's growth trajectory, and negatively correlated with the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 9). Currently, the commodities rally clearly reflects regained strength in Chinese industrial activity, but has ignored the recent strength of the greenback, leading to a glaring divergence that has been very rare in recent history. Chart 8More Signs Of ##br## Improving Demand Chart 9Macro Drivers And Commodity Prices: ##br##Mind The Gap It remains to be seen how such a divergence will eventually converge. Our hunch is that the dollar will likely continue to rally in the near term, which means commodity prices could converge to the downside. Our commodities team has upgraded base metals from underweight earlier this year on China's reflation efforts, and is currently neutral on the asset class. What is more certain, however, is that China's reflation efforts and growth improvement should also lift Chinese H shares, but the price gains of H shares so far have been much more muted. Earlier this year we recommended going long Chinese H shares against the CRB index, which so far has been flat. We are still comfortable holding this position. The bottom line is that we do not advocate chasing the current rally in base metals. Chinese H shares are a safer play on Chinese reflation and growth improvement. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty", dated November 10, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "2016: A Choppy Bottoming", dated January 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010", dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?", dated November 24, 2016; and "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture", dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Myth Of Chinese Overcapacity", dated October 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The pace of globalization is slowing, reflecting the culmination of a decades-long process of integrating China and other emerging economies into the international trading system. Most commentators overstate the benefits of globalization, while glossing over the increasingly large distributional effects. A modest retreat from globalization would not irrevocably harm global growth, but a full-fledged trade war certainly would. Investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures from a Trump administration. Tactically underweight global equities. U.S. large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H-1B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan. EM stocks could also come under pressure. Treasurys are oversold, but the structural trend for bond yields remains to the upside. The trade-weighted dollar could rally another 5% from current levels. And Take Your Damn Trump Hat With You If there is one sure way to get thrown out of a Davos party, it is by telling the assembled guests that globalization is not all that it is cracked up to be. After all, don't all cultured people know that globalization has made the world vastly richer? Well, maybe it has, but the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as most people might imagine. Twenty years ago, the consensus among economists and policymakers was that international capital mobility should be strongly encouraged. Poor countries had a myriad of profitable investment opportunities, but lacked the savings to finance them, so the argument went. The solution, they were told, was to borrow from wealthier countries, which had a surfeit of savings. In the early 1990s, everything seemed to be going to plan. Emerging markets were running large current account deficits, using the proceeds from capital inflows to finance all sorts of investment projects. And then the Peso Crisis struck. And then the Asian Crisis. And just as quickly as the money came in, it came straight out. The result was mass defaults and depressed economies. Since then, most emerging economies have been trying to maintain current account surpluses - exactly the opposite of what theory would predict. Not to worry, the experts reassured us. What happened in emerging markets could not happen to developed economies with their strong institutions and sophisticated methods for allocating capital. The global financial crisis and later, the European sovereign debt crisis, put these claims to shame. Faced with this reality, the IMF published an official report in 2012 acknowledging that "rapid capital inflow surges or disruptive outflows can create policy challenges." It concluded that "there is ... no presumption that full liberalization is an appropriate goal for all countries at all times."1 This was a stunning about-face for an institution that, among other things, had sharply criticized Malaysia for imposing capital controls in 1998. Diminishing Returns To Globalization In contrast to capital account liberalization, the case for free trade in goods and services stands on sturdier ground. That said, proponents of free trade tend to overstate the benefits. As Paul Krugman has noted, the widely-used Eaton-Kortum model suggests that only about 5% of the increase in global GDP since 1990 can be attributed to higher trade flows.2 Moreover, it appears that the benefits to middle class workers in advanced economies from globalization have fallen over time. This is partly because trade liberalization, like most aspects of economic life, is subject to diminishing returns. Chart 1 shows that each succeeding round of trade liberalization has resulted in ever-smaller declines in average tariff rates. With tariffs on most tradeable goods now close to zero in the U.S. and most other advanced economies, there is less scope to liberalize trade further. As a result, proposed trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have focused on harmonizing business regulations and expanding patent and copyright protections. To call these deals "free trade agreements" is a stretch. Chart 1Tariffs Have Little Room To Decline Further Granted, many "invisible" barriers continue to stymie trade. John Helliwell has documented that a typical firm in Toronto generates roughly ten times as much sales from customers in Vancouver as it does from a similarly-sized, equidistant city in the U.S. such as Seattle.3 As it turns out, differences in legal systems and labor market institutions across countries, as well as differing social networks, can be as important an obstacle to trade flows as tariffs and quotas. But think about what this implies: If globalization were the key to economic development, then Canada, as a small economy situated next to a much larger neighbour, could prosper by dismantling these massive invisible trade barriers. However, we know that this proposition cannot be true: Canada is already a very rich economy, so any further trade liberalization would only boost incomes at the margin. What's Behind The Trade Slowdown? The analysis above helps put the much-discussed slowdown in global trade into context (Chart 2). As the IMF concluded in its most recent World Economic Outlook, while much of the deceleration in trade growth is attributable to cyclical factors, structural considerations also loom large.4 In particular, the boost to global trade over the past few decades stemming from the collapse of communism, the progressive elimination of most trade barriers, and the decision by most developing economies to abandon import-substitution policies appears to have run its course (Chart 3). In addition, the regional disaggregation of the global supply chain is slowing. These days, motor vehicle parts are shipped across national borders many times over before the final product rolls off the assembly line. The manufacturing process can only be broken down so much before diminishing returns set in. Chart 2Global Trade ##br##Growth Is Slowing Chart 3The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Productivity gains in the global shipping industry are also moderating. As Marc Levinson argued in his book "The Box," the widespread adoption of containerization in the 1970s completely revolutionized the logistics and transportation industry. As a consequence, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are long gone. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them into waiting trucks or trains. To the extent that there are still technological advances on the horizon - think self-driving trucks - these are likely to reduce intranational transport costs more than international costs. This could result in even slower trade growth by encouraging onshoring. Trade And Income Distribution Chart 4China's Rise Came Partly At ##br##The Expense Of U.S. Rust Belt Workers As every first-year economics student learns, David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage predicts that real wages will rise when countries specialize in the production of goods that they can manufacture relatively well. Students who stick around (and manage to stay awake) for second-year economics might learn about the Heckscher-Ohlin model. This model qualifies Ricardo's findings. Yes, free trade raises average real wages, but there can be large distributional effects. In particular, low-skilled workers could actually suffer a decline in real wages when rich countries increase trade with poorer countries. As trade ties between advanced and developing countries have grown, these distributional issues have become more important. David Autor has documented that increasing Chinese imports have had a sizable negative effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. (Chart 4).5 It is thus not surprising that voters in Rust Belt states were especially receptive to Donald Trump's protectionist rhetoric. A Tale Of Two Globalizations: China Versus Mexico Most economists agree that trade liberalization has disproportionately benefited developing economies. Nevertheless, there too the benefits are often overstated. China, of course, is frequently cited as an example of a country that has prospered by integrating itself into the global economy. But what about Mexico? It also made a massive push to liberalize trade starting in the mid-1980s, which culminated in NAFTA in 1994. As a consequence, the ratio of Mexican exports-to-GDP rose from 13% in 1994 to 35% at present. Yet, as Chart 5 shows, GDP-per-hour worked has actually declined relative to the U.S. over this period. One key reason why China benefited more from globalization than Mexico is that China had a much better educated workforce. This allowed it to quickly absorb technological know-how from the rest of the world, setting the stage for the spectacular growth of its own domestic industries. Sadly, when it comes to human capital, China is more the exception than the rule across developing economies (Chart 6). Chart 5Trade Liberalization Has Not ##br##Improved Mexico's Relative Productivity Chart 6Educational Achievement ##br##In Emerging Economies: China Stands Out Noble... And Not So Noble Lies To be clear, the discussion above should not be interpreted as arguing that globalization is bad for growth. Trade openness does matter for economic development. However, other things, such as the level of human capital and the quality of domestic economic institutions, matter even more. How can one reconcile this view with the near-apocalyptic terms in which many commentators discuss the anti-globalization sentiment sweeping across many developed economies? Let me suggest two explanations: one noble, one less so. The noble explanation goes beyond economics. Proponents of trade liberalization often argue that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was a leading cause of the Great Depression. On purely economic grounds, this argument makes little sense. Exports accounted for less than 6% of U.S. GDP in 1929. While trade volumes did fall rapidly between 1929 and 1932, this was mainly the result of the economic slump, rather than the cause of it. In fact, trade volumes actually fell more in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 7). Yet, from a political perspective, the importance of Smoot-Hawley is hard to deny. At a time when Nazi Germany was on the rise, the U.S. and its allies were squabbling over trade issues. As such, the main problem with Smooth-Hawley was not that it pushed the U.S. into a Depression, but that it sabotaged diplomatic coordination at a time when it was most needed. One suspects that something similar underlies much of the angst over Trump's trade policies. The Global Trade Alert, currently the most comprehensive database for all types of trade-related measures imposed since the global financial crisis, shows an increase in protectionist measures over the last few years (Chart 8). The risk is that this trend will accelerate after Donald Trump is sworn in as President. Chart 7Global Trade Fell More ##br##During The Great Recession Chart 8Protectionist Measures ##br##Are On The Rise Considering that globalization ran into diminishing returns some time ago, a modest unwinding of globalization would probably not have the calamitous impact that many fear. However, just like a plane that fails to fly sufficiently fast will fall to the ground, a "modest unwind" may prove difficult to achieve in practice. Globalization, in other words, may be approaching stall speed. And given the large number of issues that require global cooperation - terrorism, migration, climate change - that is a risk which requires attention. Money Talks If that were all to the story, it would be easy to forgive those who overstate the economic benefits from globalization in order to preserve the political ones. One suspects, however, that there may also be a self-serving motive at work. The integration of millions of workers from China and other developing economies into the global labor market has put downward pressure on wages, boosting profit margins in the process. Not surprisingly, CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other titans of industry have benefited greatly from this development. Chart 9 shows that most of the increase in income equality since 1980 has occurred not at the 99th percentile, but at the 99.99th percentile and higher. It would be naïve to think that the colossal gains that some have enjoyed from globalization would not color what they say on the subject. Chart 9The (Really) Rich Got Richer Investment Conclusions U.S. equities have been in rally mode since the election. Many aspects of Trump's agenda are good for stocks - corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and fiscal stimulus, just to name a few. These factors make us somewhat constructive on equities over a long-term horizon. Chart 10Tech Stocks Are Heavily ##br##Exposed To Globalism Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Trump's anti-globalization rhetoric represents a direct threat to corporate earnings. While some of Trump's protectionist proposals will undoubtedly be watered down, investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures. Unlike on most issues where he has flip-flopped repeatedly, Trump has consistently espoused a mercantilist view on trade since the 1980s. He is also the sort of person that strives to reward his supporters while disparaging those who slight him. Rust Belt voters awarded Trump the presidency. Their loyalty will not be forgotten. This means the stock market's honeymoon with Donald Trump may not last much longer. We remain tactically cautious global equities and are expressing that view by shorting the NASDAQ 100 futures. Globally-exposed large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H1-B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan (Chart 10). Emerging market equities are also likely to feel the heat from rising protectionist sentiment in developed economies. A stronger dollar will only add to EM woes by putting downward pressure on commodity prices and making it more expensive for EM borrowers to service dollar-denominated loans. As we discussed in "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar" and "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Will Win, And The Dollar Will Rally," the three key elements of Trump's policy agenda - fiscal stimulus, tighter immigration controls, and higher tariffs - are all inflationary, and hence are likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more than it otherwise would.6 Higher U.S. rates, in turn, will keep the greenback well bid. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to strengthen another 5% from current levels. The flipside of a stronger dollar is increasing monetary policy divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world. U.S. bond yields have risen significantly since the election. Tactically, we would not be adding to short duration positions at current levels. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over. As we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook,7 weak potential GDP growth is eroding excess capacity around the world, which is bad news for bonds. Population aging could also shift from being bullish to bearish for bonds, as more people retire and begin to draw down their savings. Meanwhile, central banks are looking for ever more creative ways to boost inflation, while the populist wave is forcing governments to abandon austerity measures. Lastly, and most relevant to this week's discussion, globalization - an inherently deflationary force - is in retreat. This, too, suggests that the longer-term risks to inflation are to the upside. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "The Liberalization And Management Of Capital Flows: An Institutional View," IMF Executive Summary, November 14, 2012. 2 Paul Krugman, "The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)," The New York Times, October 1, 2013. 3 John F. Helliwell and Lawrence L. Schembri, "Borders, Common Currencies, Trade And Welfare: What Can We Learn From The Evidence?" Bank of Canada Review, Spring 2005. 4 Please see "Global Trade: What's behind the Slowdown?" in "Subdued Demand: Symptoms and Remedies," IMF World Economic Outlook (October 2016). 5 David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson, "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects Of Import Competition In The United States," The American Economic Review, Vol. 103, No. 6, (2013): pp. 2121-2168. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar," dated June 3, 2016, and Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Feature Happy Thanksgiving to all our U.S. clients. We wish you the best the holiday has to offer, as you share blessings with friends and family. In this holiday-shortened week, we are publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy (NRG) service. We succinctly examine the pros and cons of the debate over whether OPEC will or will not agree to and uphold a *real* production cut, as it has promised, at its much-anticipated meeting on November 30. Disagreement on the likely outcome of the meeting runs high. In late September, OPEC announced an agreement in principle to cut oil production at the formal November meeting to a level of 32.5-33.0 MMb/d. This would represent a 500,000-750,000 b/d reduction from August production levels, and an 830,000-1,330,000 b/d reduction from the IEA's latest OPEC production estimate for October of 33.83 MMb/d. In addition, non-OPEC behemoth Russia has signaled a potential willingness to contribute its own production freeze or cut to the agreement in an effort to support higher oil prices. Chart 1With A 1 MMb/d Cut, ##br##Draws Would Be Greater There are compelling arguments to be made both supporting the likelihood of a production cut as well as for being skeptical that such an agreement will be reached and adhered to. Even within BCA, there is disagreement. This service, the Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES), which sets the BCA house view on oil prices, pegs the odds at greater than 50% that there will be a meaningful cut of 1 MMb/d+, anchored by large cut pledges from OPEC's leader, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and Russia. The NRG team, dissents; they think it is more likely that no deal is reached, and if a deal is announced, it will not be adhered to. Regardless of whether there is an announced agreement to cut production or not, both CES and NRG expect KSA's production to decline by 400,000-500,000 b/d between August and December according to KSA's normal seasonal management of production levels; we would not include this expected seasonal reduction in the calculation of a *real* cut. In our analysis on Chart 1, we include a *real* cut of 1MMB/d below the normal seasonality of KSA's production, which lasts for six months. In H2 2017, we assume the cut is dissolved and the market also receives an extra 200,000 b/d of price-incentivized production from the U.S. shales. How To Bet On A Cut, The Out-Of-Consensus Call Chart 2Without A Cut,##br## Inventories Still Will Be Drawn In 2017 CES's view for a cut (established November 3) was significantly out-of-consensus until recent chatter from OPEC increased the perception that an agreement could be reached. Still, there remains significant doubt a freeze or cut can be accomplished. Without a cut, NRG and CES share a constructive outlook for oil markets heading towards steepening deficits during 2017 (Chart 2). Note: BCA's estimates show a tighter oil market than the EIA's estimates: Our Q3 2016 production estimates are lower than the EIA's by ~300,000 b/d due to differences in our assessments in Brazilian, Russian and Chinese production; our Q3 2016 consumption estimate is higher than the EIA due to our higher assessment of U.S. summer-time demand (the EIA has consistently underestimated U.S. demand over the past few years). A production cut coupled with a natural tightening in the market brought about by the price-induced supply destruction over the past 18 months would make 2017 inventory draws even greater, lifting oil prices higher, and providing even greater upward support to our favorite investment recommendations (Chart 1). Below we outline the investment recommendations that would benefit from an OPEC cut, spanning individual equities, ETFs, and commodity calls: Direct Commodity Investment: CES recommends two pair trades on oil contracts and call options. Long February 2017 $50/bbl Brent Calls vs. short February 2017 $55/bbl Brent Calls to play the spike in oil prices that would come from a successful OPEC cut, which was recommended November 3 and was up 50.41% as of Tuesday's close. Long August 2017 WTI contract vs. short November 2017 WTI contract to play an expected flattening of the forward curve, which also was recommended November 3 and it up 48.61% as of Tuesday's close. Oil Producers: NRG recommends overweight-rated Permian oil producers EOG, PXD, FANG and PE, which will be leaders in expanding production into an improving oil price market. Service Companies: NRG recommends overweight-rated completion-oriented services companies HAL, SLB and SLCA, which will benefit most from increased U.S. shale spending. Equity-Backed ETFs: NRG recommends overweight-rated ETFs XLE, FRAK, and OIH as vehicles that provide more diversified investment exposure to higher oil prices and oilfield service activity than individual equities. Oil-Backed ETF. Tactically buying the U.S. Oil Fund ETF (USO) would provide good direct exposure to a quick oil price surge. However, USO should not be held as a longer-term investment because the inherent cost of continually rolling contracts consistently erodes USO's value versus the equity-backed ETFs XLE and OIH. This longer-term underperformance informs NRG's underweight rating on USO. Risks To Our Views: Oil and natural gas prices that differ materially from our forecasts, possibly due to slower-than-expected global economic growth and/or greater than expected supply growth. Poor operational execution and/or changes to regulatory restrictions could negatively impact the financial and stock performance of our recommendations. A week ahead of the OPEC meeting, in the wake of recently recovering production in Libya and Nigeria, and amid campaigning by Iran and Iraq to be excluded from participation in the cuts, it is impossible to know for certain how the complicated politics of OPEC and Russia will play out. Below we outline the competing objectives and risks that will be in play. Case Against A Cut Undeniably, a cut in production, particularly a coordinated cut where several countries share the burden of restricting production, would raise oil prices and enhance 2017 oil export revenues for all OPEC producers. However, that near-term benefit for pricing and revenue has been obvious for the past two years, and yet neither KSA nor Russia has been willing to cut production, feeling the potential to lose longer-term market share outweighed the immediate revenue benefits of a cut. The hazard of a price-increasing production cut, is that the higher oil price would essentially subsidize non-OPEC competitors with higher cash flows, and would simultaneously bolster the confidence of capital markets that OPEC will support prices at a floor of $50, reducing the risk of future investments. These two effects would jointly encourage increased capital investment into establishing new production, especially by the fast-acting U.S. shale producers, whose rampant investment and production growth from 2010-2015 was, by far, the leading contributor to the 2015-2016 oversupply of oil. Encouraging a resurgence of drilling and production would certainly lead to faster production growth from the U.S. shales in 2017-2018, allowing those producers to grow market share under the umbrella of OPEC's production sacrifices that created the higher prices. OPEC has just endured a lot of economic pain through the oil price decline. The economic purpose of this pain was to starve global producers of operational cash flow and dissuade the inflow of new capital, thus choking off the reinvestment required to continue to grow oil production. By and large, this goal has been achieved, with U.S. shale producers slashing capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cutting capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. As a result, after the substantial surge in global oil production in 2014-2015 that created the current over-supply, the capital starvation caused by low oil prices will result in essentially no global production growth in either 2017 or 2018, allowing for demand growth to erode the oversupply of production during 2016, and to eat into the overstocked inventories of crude during 2017-2018. KSA has created fear and uncertainty throughout global producers and capital markets by steadfastly refusing to use its production-management powers to support a floor under oil prices. We are skeptical that KSA will ultimately agree to reverse this strategy, by now establishing a price floor. Such a reversal would undermine the profound market-share message KSA has delivered to competitors (at the cost of great financial pain), and weaken its perceived resolve to allow oil prices to be set by the market. As such, the NRG team believes KSA will not agree to cut production beyond the already-expected seasonal reduction in production, and that this position will scuttle September's tacit agreement to cut production at the official meeting next week. Such a scenario would be fairly similar to how KSA undermined the production-freeze discussions in Doha in April, by insisting other OPEC members - Iran, in particular - share in the production limitations in order to engender KSA's support; a condition that other members were unwilling to accept. The Case For A Cut The case to expect a cut agreement acknowledges that such a cut would subsidize competitors and diminish the impression of KSA's resolve and/or ability to out-last competitors through an oil price down-cycle. The case for a cut concludes that the benefits of higher 2017 oil prices simply outweigh these market share and reputational costs. The benefits that OPEC and Russia would receive are: Critical Need For Higher Revenue. If KSA and Russia each cut 2017 production by 500,000 below current expectations, and oil prices jumped $10/bbl as a result, KSA's 2017 oil export revenues would increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's would increase by almost $8.25 billion. If the financial pain endured by these countries is substantially greater than NRG has estimated, this near-term revenue lift could be more critical than we appreciate, overwhelming the reputational and longer-term market-share losses resulting from the reversal of policy. Borrowing capacity for each country also would increase, as a result of higher revenues. With both states seeking to tap international debt and equity markets, this increased revenue would increase their borrowing capacity. Higher Value For Asset Sales. KSA is preparing to IPO Saudi Aramco. Bolstering the spirits of capital markets with higher oil prices would be expected to increase the proceeds received from this equity sale, increase the market value of the company, reduce debt-service costs, and improve access to debt markets, which KSA and Saudi Aramco are both likely to tap more frequently in the future as the country tries to diversify the economy away from oil. Similarly, two weeks ago, Russia signed a decree to sell a 19.5% stake in Rosneft by the end of 2016. An immediate oil price strengthening and messaging that KSA and Russia would support a pricing floor would inflate the value of this sale, given the high correlation between Brent crude oil prices and Rosneft's equity price. Production Stability Not As Strong As It Seems. Russia's production levels in 2016 have been surprisingly strong, exceeding our expectations. The collapse of the Russian Ruble has allowed for continued internal investment despite the substantial reduction to dollar-denominated oil revenues. Still, it is likely that Russian producers are pulling very hard on their fields, over-producing the optimal level in an effort to scratch out higher revenues. Such over-production is not sustainable ad infinitum, and Russia may know that its fields need a rest in 2017 anyhow, so a 4-5% production cut is ultimately not much of a sacrifice. Make Room For Libya & Nigeria. Both Libya and Nigeria are trying to overcome substantial civil obstacles to allow production to increase back towards oilfield capabilities. If these problems were solved, we estimate Libya could increase production by 400,000-600,000 b/d while Nigeria could add 200,000-300,000 b/d. If KSA, OPEC, and Russia believe these countries will be able to re-establish shut-in production, they may conclude a production cut is necessary to make room for the growth, and to keep prices from collapsing. Entrenching U.S. Shale As The Marginal Barrel: If KSA and Russia can agree to a 1 MMb/d cut, U.S. shale-oil producers would be the first to take advantage of expected higher prices, given the fast-response nature of this production. This actually would work to the advantage of KSA and Russia and other low-cost producers in and outside OPEC, by firmly entrenching U.S. shale oil as the marginal barrel for the world market. On the global cost curve, shale sits in the middle some $30 to $40/bbl above KSA and Russia, which means that, as long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these mega-producers earn economic rents on their production. In order to retain those rents, KSA and Russia will have to find a way to keep shale on the margin - i.e., regulate their production so that prices do not rise too quickly and encourage more expensive output to come on line. For KSA and Russia, it is better to climb the shale cost curve than to encourage the next tranche of production - such as Canadian oil sands - to come on to the market too quickly, or to further incentivize electric vehicles and conservation with run-away price increases, with too-sharp a production cut. Allowing prices to trade through a $65 - $75/bbl range or higher would no doubt produce a short-term revenue jump for cash-strapped producers - particularly those OPEC members outside the GCC. But it also would make most of the U.S. shales economic to develop, and incentivize other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is developed (e.g., oil sands and deepwater). This ultimately would crash prices over the longer term, making it difficult for the industry to attract capital. This is not an ideal outcome for KSA's planned IPO of Aramco, or Russia's sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, or their investors. Global Reinvestment Needs To Be Re-Stimulated. Stimulating non-OPEC reinvestment with higher oil prices and increased price-floor confidence may actually be needed in the not-too-distant future. IOCs have barely started to show the negative production ramifications of their 40% cuts to capex; cuts which will grow deeper in 2018. We expect these production declines to show up increasingly over the next four years, and there is not much the IOCs can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time that spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. With such huge cuts to future expenditures, and enormous amounts of debt incurred by the IOCs to pay for the completion of legacy mega-projects that will need to be repaid ($130B in debt added in the past two years), OPEC could see a looming shortage of oil developing later this decade if IOC-sponsored offshore production falls into steep declines, as we think is likely. To orchestrate a softer landing, to prevent oil prices from spiking too high due to a shortage of production, to head-off an acceleration in the pursuit of alternative fuels and/or the recessionary impact of an oil price spike, KSA may actually want to accelerate the re-start of global investment. Bottom Line: There are strongly credible and well-reasoned arguments that support the expectations for a successful establishment of a production cut from OPEC and Russia, as well as to doubt that such an agreement will be achieved (and adhered to) amid the political and economic competition between OPEC members and against non-OPEC producers. A successful agreement to cut production in excess of 1 MMb/d, as CES believes is likely, would be the more out-of-consensus call, with substantially bullish implications for oil prices and for our oil-levered investment strategy and stock recommendations. Even without a production cut, the NRG service remains strongly constructive on the investment strengths of high-quality Permian oil producers and the completion-oriented service companies that will benefit from increased U.S. shale spending. If a production cut is achieved, our investment cases become even stronger, as the U.S. shale producers and service companies would be the greatest beneficiaries of an upward step-change in oil prices. Matt Conlan, Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Dairy: Moderate Upside In 2017H1 Dairy prices may have another 5%-10% upside over next three to six months, based on tightening supply in the global dairy market. China will become more important in the global dairy market. The country's dairy imports will continue heading north. Downside risks include elevated global dairy product inventory, a supply boost from major exporters, and a continuing strengthening dollar. We have been cautiously bullish on global dairy market since last October.1 Since then, the Global Dairy Trade (GDT) All-Products Price Index, which is widely used as a benchmark price for the market, has rallied over 50% in the past seven months off its November - March lows (Chart 3, panel 1). Chart 3Dairy: Tactically Bullish Now the question is: will the rally continue? A review of what had happened in 2015 and so far this year may be a good start of our analysis. A Terrible 2015 The GDT index tumbled to the lowest level on record in early August 2015. A sharply drop in Chinese dairy imports; the Russian import ban on dairy products; robust supply growth across major dairy producing countries; and the EU's decision to scrap its production quotas created a perfect storm for the global dairy market last year - resulting in an extremely oversupplied market, stock builds and depressed dairy prices (Chart 3, panels 2, 3 and 4). An Improving 2016 Fundamentals have improved since April, as major dairy exporting countries responded to low dairy prices, while Chinese dairy imports revived. Fonterra, the world's biggest dairy exporter, and Murray Goulburn, Australian's biggest dairy company, both announced retrospective price cuts in April to dairy farmers in New Zealand and Australia, which hit both countries' dairy industries hard. Many farmers exited the dairy business, given their production costs were well above farm-gate milk prices. As a result, dairy farmers In New Zealand have cut the national dairy cow herd size by 3.3% yoy in 2015 and then a further 1.5% in 2016, based on USDA data. In Australia, dairy farmers have sent more cows into slaughterhouse as well. According to Dairy Australia, in the past 12 months to August 2016, 109,102 head were sold, an increase of 33% on the previous year. New Zealand and Australia are the world's largest and the fourth largest dairy exporters, respectively. In June, one month before the start of the new season (July 2016 to June 2017), farm-gate milk prices set by major dairy processors in Australia were still much lower than most dairy farmers' production costs, further damaging the country's dairy production outlook for the 2016/17 season. In July, August and September, Australian milk production fell sharply for three consecutive months, with a yoy contraction of 10.3%, 9.3%, and 10.2%, respectively. In July, the European Commission funded a €150 million program to pay farmers to cut their milk production. At the same time, the region also intervened with a stock purchase program and a private-storage aid scheme to help remove excess supply from the market. The EU region is the world's second biggest exporter. Its production increase due to the removal of its quota system was one main reason for last year's price drop. The recent supportive policy has worked well - the region's milk volumes decreased in September for the third consecutive month. In the meantime, Chinese dairy imports have rebounded 9.7% yoy for the first nine months of this year, a significant improvement from last year's 44.4% contraction over the same period. China is the world biggest dairy importer, accounting for 51% of global fluid milk imports, and 40% of dry, whole-milk powder imports (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 4China Needs More Dairy Imports In comparison, the number of Chinese cow herds only accounts for 6% of global total cows for milk production, which is clearly far from meeting its domestic demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Early this year the country loosened up the "one-child" policy, and now allows "two-kids" in a family, starting this year. This will increase the country's baby formula's demand. The country's dairy product intake per capita is still far below Asian peers like Japan and Korea. Growing family wealth and increasing demand for healthy dairy food will continue boosting the dairy consumption in China. Due to the limited pasture land in the country for raising cows, we expect China's dairy imports will continue heading north. What about the price outlook in the remainder of 2016 and 2017? Most of the positive factors aforementioned are still in place. In the near term, we do not see significant supply increase. Despite the 61% price rally in the GDT price index over the past seven months, most of the price increase still has not passed to farm-gate milk prices in major producing countries (except New Zealand). Hence, for the remainder of 2016 and 2017H1, we expect prices will be prone to the upside. Pullbacks are always possible. But overall we still expect another 5% to 10% upside over next three to six months for the GDT price index. Beyond 2017H1, the price outlook is less clear. If prices either go sideways or up, milk production in major producing countries should eventually recover. For now, we hold a neutral view for dairy prices in 2017H2. Downside Risks Chart 5Downside Risks First, global dairy stockpiles are much higher than previous years (Chart 5, panel 1). According to the European Commission, at the end of September, around 428 thousand metric tons (kt) of skimmed-milk powder (SMP) was in public intervention stocks, while another 73 kt SMP was in private storage. In addition, there also is about 90 kt butter and 19 kt cheese stored privately. As the EU still is aiming to cut milk production to boost dairy prices, we believe the odds of an unexpected release from storage in a fast and massive manner is low. The release will likely be gradual. Second, much of New Zealand's milk production is dependent on weather conditions, which have improved from mid-August. Moreover, Fonterra increased its farm-gate milk price to $6 per kgMS (kilogram milk solid) from $5.25 per kgMS last week, which was the third increase over the past four months. Since August, farm-gate milk price in New Zealand has already been up 41% and well above the country's production cost. A combination of both factors may boost the country's milk production more than the market expected. In this case, prices could decline in 2017H1. Third, if the U.S. dollar continues strengthening versus the RMB and other major exporters' currencies, this will tend to discourage purchases from China and encourage sales from New Zealand, the EU and Australia, which will be negative to dairy prices (Chart 5, panel 2). We will monitor these risks closely. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for softs section "Oil Markets Pricing In $20/Bbl Downside," dated October 1, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights The basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. Even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. Trade friction between the U.S. and China may increase with product-specific tariffs, but that a broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may be becoming less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. Over the long run, the "normal" negative correlation between the performance of exchange rate and that of the stock market should also emerge with regards to the RMB and Chinese stocks. Feature Financial markets will continue to grapple with what U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will bring to the global economy as we head into the final trading weeks of 2016. His signature policy proposals - fiscal stimulus, a more restrictive immigration policy, and trade protectionism - have already led to a significant repricing of risk asset, and will continue to unsettle investors. As far as China is concerned, the upshot is that more fiscal stimulus under President Trump will generate stronger American demand, which could spill over to China. The downside risk is undoubtedly protectionism, which will cast a long shadow on an economy that is still heavily dependent on overseas markets.1 President-elect Trump declared on the campaign trail that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, accompanied by punitive tariffs on Chinese imports that could reach 45%. This adds a major uncertainty to the growth outlook for China next year. Conditions And Remedies For A Currency Manipulator For now, it is impossible to predict what President Trump will do. He has become notably more pragmatic since his election victory. In his first policy statement, he declared his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations as his top priority on trade, while avoiding further China-bashing. However, the true color of his trade policy remains unclear. What is more certain is that the basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. The existing Treasury review process of foreign exchange practices is a formal process laid out in statutory law that governs the reporting process, the need for negotiations in cases of manipulation, and the recommended trade remedies if negotiations fail. Specifically, there are three conditions a nation must meet to be labeled a currency manipulator: It runs a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S.; It has a material current account surplus; and It has engaged in persistent one-sided intervention in the foreign exchange market. In China's case, the country does run a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S., but its current account surplus as a share of GDP has declined from a peak of 10% in 2007 to 2.5% currently (Chart 1). More importantly, while China's foreign exchange market intervention has indeed been one-sided since 2014, the effort has been to prop up the RMB against the dollar. Without the PBoC's intervention, the RMB would have fallen further, potentially substantially. The RMB may have met all three criteria for currency manipulation before the global financial crisis, but the case is a lot harder to make at the moment. Chart 1Conditions For A Currency Manipulator Moreover, even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. The U.S. Treasury is required to negotiate with alleged currency manipulators, utilizing several "sticks" if negotiations fail: Prohibit the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from financing (including providing insurance to) new projects in that country; Prohibit the federal government from procuring from that country; Seek additional surveillance of the macroeconomic and exchange rate policies of that country through the International Monetary Fund; Take into account the currency practices in negotiating new bilateral or regional trade agreements with that country. While these "sticks" may be intimidating enough for small open economies, for a country like China, they are largely irrelevant. There is no ongoing negotiation for bilateral trade agreement between the two countries, and on a federal level the U.S. government rarely procures in China, if at all. Therefore, labeling China a currency manipulator may be a highly symbolic move aimed at satisfying Trump supporters, but the real economic consequences are rather small. To be sure, the U.S. president has enough administrative authority to bypass existing legal constraints and take unilateral action on trade issues. However, that would require extraordinary political capital. Barring this rather "extreme" scenario, we expect trade frictions between the U.S. and China to increase in the form of product-specific tariffs. A broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The Impact On Investment Flows From a balance-of-payment point of view, a country running a trade deficit should not be viewed as a sign that it is losing in bilateral trade. Rather, it reflects capital flows from a surplus country to a deficit country in the form of exported domestic savings. In this vein, China running a chronic current account surplus with the U.S. implies that the country as a whole has been accumulating U.S. assets. By the same token, so long as China runs a current account surplus, it means it is still a net creditor to the rest of the world, and the nation's foreign asset holdings, official and private sector combined, continue to increase. In previous years, it was the Chinese central bank that had increased its holdings of foreign assets, primarily in the form of U.S. Treasurys and other low-risk liquid assets. More recently, as the RMB has been depreciating against the dollar, the Chinese domestic private sector been accumulating foreign assets, particularly denominated in U.S. dollars. In fact, the private sector has taken over as the main source of demand for foreign assets, primarily in risker asset classes such as corporate equities, bonds and real estate. The official sector, on the other hand, has been selling foreign asset holdings, as reflected in China's declining official reserves. In other words, rather than experiencing an exodus of capital, there has been a gigantic "swap" of foreign assets between private and public sector in China. Indeed, Chart 2 shows China's official reserves have dropped significantly in the past two years. Chinese official holdings of Treasurys currently stand at USD 1157 billion, down from USD 1315 billion in 2011. Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence suggests that buoyant demand among Chinese households for foreign assets, particularly real estate. For the corporate sector, there has been a dramatic increase in overseas mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and other investment activity by Chinese companies, particularly in the U.S. (Chart 3). So far this year, total announced M&A deals by Chinese firms in the U.S. have already tripled compared to last year, however, most are still in progress and pending. Chart 2The Official Sector Is##br## Shedding Foreign Assets... Chart 3... While The Private ##br##Sector Accumulates Looking forward, if the business environment in the U.S. under President Trump becomes less foreign-friendly, it may impact Chinese enterprises' confidence in acquiring U.S. assets, and complicate Chinese companies' M&A deals. At a minimum, the massive increase in Chinese M&A interest in the U.S. will pause until policy visibility improves, while the outlook for many already announced pending deals will remain murky. This may deter further capital flows to the U.S. by the Chinese private sector. Changing Correlation Between The RMB And Stocks? The RMB has continued to drift lower against the dollar in the past week in both the onshore and offshore markets. Interestingly, Chinese stocks have appeared to have largely ignored the RMB's slide and have continued to move higher. This is in stark contrast to last year's panic selloffs that happened whenever RMB appreciation against the dollar appeared to quicken (Chart 4). In August 2015 and January 2016, the RMB's outsized moves against the dollar caused major disruptions in both A shares and H shares, sending shockwaves across the globe. It is too soon to draw definitive conclusions from very short-term moves. However, the changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may have become less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. First, investors may be getting more accustomed to the RMB's rising volatility. The trade-weighted RMB in recent days has been stable, a sign that the RMB's weakness against the dollar is mainly a reflection of the strong dollar. The People's Bank of China and other relevant authorities have also been paying more attention when communicating to market participants, which may also help anchor investors' expectations. Second, in previous episodes of "sharper" RMB depreciation, the Chinese economy was clearly decelerating, and the RMB weakness further amplified investors' anxiety on China's macro conditions. Currently the Chinese economy is showing notable signs of improvement, particularly in the industrial sector, which also lessens investors' concerns. Chart 4The RMB Is Less Troubling ##br##To Market Chart 5The Mirror Image Between Yen ##br##And Japanese Stocks Finally, the market may be starting to reflect the reflationary impact of a weaker currency rather than the negative consequences of RMB depreciation. China's growth improvement is in no small part attributable to the falling exchange rate. This in and of itself limits the RMB's downside, rather than leading to an endless downward spiral. It remains to be seen whether Chinese stocks will stay calm as the RMB continues to depreciate against a surging dollar. Our hunch is that global equity markets, particularly in the U.S., have become complacent with a strong dollar and rising U.S. interest rates, both of which tighten global liquidity conditions. Therefore, global equities are vulnerable to downside risk, which could spill over to the Chinese market. For now, we are staying on the sidelines and do not suggest investors chase the rally in Chinese equities. However, over the long run, we expect investors will eventually come to terms with the "new normal" for the RMB as it becomes an important macro factor for the economy and stock market. Chart 5 shows that the performance of Japanese stocks has almost been a mirror image of the yen/dollar exchange rate, in which a weaker yen boosts Japan's growth profile as well as stock prices, and vice versa. Barring a crisis scenario, such a correlation will also emerge between the RMB and Chinese stocks over the long run. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 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

Special Report

Highlights A central bank cannot control/target the quantity and price of money simultaneously. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth toward targeting interest rates. As such, the reserve requirements imposed on banks have not and will not be a constraint on Chinese commercial banks' ability to lend and create money if the PBoC continues to supply banks with reserves "on demand." China's banks have created too many RMBs (broad money/deposits) and the PBoC has accommodated them. Such enormous supply of RMBs and mainland households' and companies' desire to get rid of their RMBs will lead to further yuan depreciation. Continue shorting the RMB and Asian currencies versus the U.S. dollar. Re-instate a short Colombian peso trade; this time against an equal-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Feature Following our October 26 Special Report titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses",1 some clients have asked us how our analysis squares with fact that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) conducts its monetary policy using a reserve requirement ratio. The relevant question being, why would the PBoC's reserve requirements not limit commercial banks' ability to create money/credit? In that Special Report, we wrote: "A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks "on demand." Given PBoC lending to banks has surged 5.5-fold over last three years (Chart I-1), we concluded that the reserve requirement ratio had, for all intents and purposes, lost its meaning in China. In this week's report we elaborate on this issue in detail. The main implication of our analysis today reinforces our conclusion from the previous report: namely, China's commercial banks have expanded credit enormously, and the PBoC has accommodated it. With respect to financial market implications, there are simply too many RMBs (broad money/deposits) in the system (Chart I-2). Chinese households and companies can instinctively sense this, and are opting to move their wealth into real assets, such as real estate, or foreign currencies. Hence, the oversupply of RMBs will continue to weigh on China's exchange rate, which will depreciate much further. We expect the US$/CNY to reach 7.8-8 over the next 12 months. Chart I-1The PBoC Has Provided Banks With Liquidity 'On Demand' Chart I-2There Are Too Many RMBs Floating Around Targeting Either The Quantity Or The Price Of Money Any central bank can target and control either the quantity of money or the price of money, but not both simultaneously. This holds true for any monopolist supplier of any good/service that does not have control over the demand curve. A demand curve for money is the function that ties the quantity demanded at various price points (the price being interest rates). Central banks - being monopolist suppliers of money, but unable to control money demand - must choose between controlling either the quantity of money or the price of money. The system of required reserves (RR) is a tool to control money supply (the quantity of money). When central banks reinforce the RR ratio, interbank interest rates typically swing enormously and often deviate considerably from the target policy rate (Chart 1). For example, when commercial banks expand loans too much and lack sufficient reserves at the central bank, they must borrow from the interbank market and thereby bid up interbank rates- i.e., short-term interest rates rise. This in turn restrains credit demand or the willingness to lend, and eventually reduces money growth. The opposite also holds true. When a central bank wants to target interest rates (the price of money), it cannot control money supply. To ensure that interbank/money market rates stay close to the policy rate - i.e., to reinforce its interest rate target - a central bank should provide the banking system with reserves "on demand." In other words, when interbank rates rise above the target policy rate, a central bank should inject sufficient liquidity into the system to bring interest rates down. Similarly, when interbank rates fall below the target policy rate, a central bank should withdraw enough liquidity from the banking system to assure interbank rates rise converging to its target policy rate. By supplying commercial banks with reserves (high powered money) "on demand" - i.e., providing as much reserves as they need - a central bank is de facto failing to enforce reserve requirements. As such, the central bank is giving up control over money creation. By and large, RRs lose their effectiveness if a central bank provides commercial banks with as much reserves as they request. In short, when a central bank opts for targeting interest rates, it cannot steer monetary aggregates - i.e., RRs and RR ratios lose their meaning. In the 1970s and 1980s, most central banks in advanced countries targeted money supply to achieve their policy goals such as inflation and sustainable economic growth. However, starting in the early 1990s, developed nations' central banks (the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the Swiss National Bank and others) began to move away from controlling money supply (monetary aggregates) and toward targeting interest rates. Individual banks' limitations to borrow from the central bank often rests with the availability of collateral. So long as a commercial bank has eligible collateral (often government bonds), it can access central bank funding. This is true for Chinese commercial banks too. Bottom Line: Monetary authorities cannot control/target the quantity and price of money simultaneously. The Money Multiplier In An Interest Rate Targeting System When a central bank opts for targeting interest rates, commercial banks can originate an unlimited amount of loans and demand the central bank provide additional reserves, as long as they have eligible collateral. This corroborates our point from our previous report that a commercial bank's loan origination is not constrained by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) "on demand." In a fractional reserve system, the ability of commercial banks to create loans/money is defined by a money multiplier. A potential ceiling for a money multiplier (MM) is calculated as: MM = (1 / RR ratio) For example, when the RR ratio is 10%: The money multiplier MM = (1 / 0.1) = 10 In effect, the banking system can create up to 10 times more money/loans/deposits per one dollar of reserves. Under the current system of interest rate targeting – which has prevailed among most developed countries since the early 1990s and more recently in China (more on China below) – we can think of the RR ratio as heading towards zero because central banks provide banks with almost unlimited liquidity (reserves). The RR ratio is not zero because there are still limitations on banks' ability to borrow from central banks due the availability (or lack thereof) of eligible collateral or compliance with Basel III requirements. Yet as the RR ratio gets smaller in size, its reciprocal (1 / RR ratio) becomes very large (not infinite, but a plausibly very large number). Overall, when a central bank targets interest rates, the ceiling of the money multiplier is not set by the central bank. Rather, the money multiplier is de facto determined by commercial banks' willingness to originate loans. Thus, the money multiplier can potentially be very high when animal spirits among bankers and borrowers run wild. Consequently, the points discussed in our Special Report titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses"2 - namely that commercial banks create loans/money/deposits out of thin air - holds, and is relevant in a system where central banks target/control interest rates. Bottom Line: When central banks opt to control short-term interest rates, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. In such a case, RRs and the RR ratio become almost irrelevant. Therefore, in an interest rate targeting system, banks' ability to originate loans/create money and deposits is not contingent on their reserves at the central bank. This point is greatly relevant to China. The PBoC: Shifting From Money To Interest Rate Targeting For the past few years, China’s central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth to targeting interest rates. As a result, nowadays the PBoC has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks or the money multiplier. It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. Chart I-3SHIBOR Crises In 2013 Forced PBoC ##br##To Start Targeting Interest Rates We suspect this shift in China's monetary policy management has been occurring since early 2014 on the heels of the so-called SHIBOR crisis, which erupted in June 2013 when interbank rates surged and was followed by another spike in interbank rates in December 2013 (Chart I-3). During these episodes, the PBoC enforced reserve requirements and thus did not provide liquidity to banks that were running short on it. In essence, it did whatever a central bank targeting money growth via control over RR would do. However, as interbank rates surged and banks complained, policymakers backed off, and provided banks with as much liquidity as they demanded. This stabilized interbank rates and, importantly, appears to have marked the PBoC's shift toward interest rate targeting. Thus, by de facto moving to a monetary system of targeting interest rates, the PBoC cannot effectively reinforce reserve requirements because it must supply any amount of reserves that commercial banks require to preclude a major spike in interbank rates. A few points illustrate that in fact the PBoC has been targeting short-term money market rates, and banks have expanded loans enormously despite their excess reserves being flat: Volatility in interbank rates has dropped substantially (Chart I-4), as the PBoC's claims on commercial banks has exploded 5.5-fold since the early 2014. Even though commercial banks' excess reserves have been flat, their lending has been booming - i.e., the money/credit multiplier has been rising (Chart I-5). This is only possible when the PBoC has been supplying reserves "on demand" or when it cuts the RR ratio. Since the RR ratio has not been cut over the past two years, it means that the former is true. Chart I-4Interbank Rate Volatility Has Fallen As ##br##PBoC Injected A Lot Of Liquidity Chart I-5China's Money/Credit Multiplier##br## Has Been Rising Just like central banks in advanced economies, the only way the PBoC can alter money/credit growth is if it lifts or cuts its interest rate target. Barring any changes to its policy rate, commercial banks, not the PBoC, determine money/loan/deposit creation in China. As to other factors that determine the amount of credit/money creation by commercial banks in China, we elaborated on these in the above-mentioned report. Bottom Line: It appears the PBoC has shifted toward targeting interest rates. Consequently, the PBoC cannot pretend to control money/credit origination unless it changes its interest rate target. Moreover, we reiterate that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative behavior among Chinese banks and borrowers, and not the natural result of the country's high savings rate. Oversupply Of RMBs = A Lower Currency As China's central bank has been printing RMBs and commercial banks have been "multiplying" them at a high rate (by originating loans), the supply of RMBs has continued to explode. Such an oversupply of local currency will continue to depress the value of the nation's exchange rate. The PBoC's liquidity injections have exploded in recent years (Chart I-6). The central bank has not only been offsetting the liquidity withdrawal due to its currency foreign exchange market interventions, but it has also been providing banks with as much liquidity as they require. The objective seems to have been to avoid a rise in interbank rates when corporate leverage is extremely high and banks are overextended. Since February 2015, the PBoC's international reserves have dropped by US$0.9 trillion, or 4.2 trillion RMB (Chart I-7). This means that the PBoC has withdrawn 4.2 trillion RMBs from the system. If the central bank did not re-inject these RMBs into the financial system, interbank rates would have skyrocketed. As the PBoC has injected RMBs into the system, it has effectively undone its RMB defense. The whole point of defending the exchange rate from falling or depreciating too fast is to shrink local currency liquidity. Yet, naturally, that would also lead to higher interbank rates. If the central bank chooses not to tolerate higher interest rates and continues to inject local currency into circulation, the RMB's depreciation will likely continue and accelerate. By injecting RMBs into the system, the monetary authorities have allowed banks to continue to lend, thereby creating enormous amounts of money and deposits. Banks create deposits when they lend. The Chinese banking system has a lot of deposits partially because commercial banks have lent too much. In short, the supply or quantity of money (RMBs) has continued to explode, despite massive capital outflows. Notably, if the PBoC did not lend RMBs to commercial banks, the latter's excess reserves would have plunged by 4 trillion RMB (Chart I-8) and banks would have been forced to pull-back their lending. Chart I-6PBoC's Liquidity Injections Have ##br##Exploded Since Early 2014 Chart I-7China: Foreign Exchange##br## Reserve Depletion Chart I-8China: What Would Have Banks' Excess Reserves##br## Been Without Borrowing From PBoC? Overall, in the current fiat money system, when a central bank targets interest rates, the monetary authorities can print unlimited high-powered money (bank reserves) and commercial banks can multiply it by creating enormous amounts of loans/deposits.3 However, there is no free lunch - no country can print its way to prosperity (otherwise all countries would have been very rich already). The negative ramifications of unlimited money creation are numerous, but this report focuses on the exchange rate implications. The growing supply of RMBs will lead to a much further drop in China's exchange rate. It seems Chinese retail investors and companies intuitively sense this, and are eager to get rid of their RMBs. This also explains Chinese investors' desire to overpay for any real or financial asset, domestically or abroad. We expect growing downward pressure on the RMB as capital outflows accelerate anew. Although China’s foreign exchange reserves are enormous in absolute U.S. dollar terms, they are low relative to money supply (Chart 9). The ratio of the central bank’s international reserves-to-broad money is 15% in China and it is relatively low compared with other countries (Chart 10). Chart I-9China: International Reserves Are Not##br## High Relative To Broad Money Chart I-10International Reserves-To-Broad##br## Money Ratio As a final note, the oversupply of local currency has not created inflation in the real economy because of massive overcapacity following years of booming capital spending. However, continued money creation will eventually lead to higher inflation. This does not seem imminent but we will be monitoring these dynamics carefully going forward. Bottom Line: China's banks have created too much RMBs and the PBoC has accommodated them. Such enormous supply of RMBs and mainland households' and companies' desire to get rid of their RMBs will lead to further yuan depreciation. Investment Implications: A Free-Fall For RMB And Asian Currencies The RMB's value versus the U.S. dollar will drop much further. Our new target range for US$/CNY is 7.8-8 over the next 12 months, or 11-14% below today's level. The forward market is discounting only 2.8% depreciation in the next 12 months (Chart I-11). We maintain our short RMB / long U.S. dollar trade (via 12-month NDF). A persistent relapse in the RMB's value will drag down other Asian currencies. In particular, the Korean won and the Taiwanese dollar have failed to break above important technical levels (their long-term moving averages), and have lately relapsed (Chart I-12). Chart I-11RMB Will Depreciate Much More##br## Than Priced In By Forwards Chart I-12Asian Currencies:##br##More Downside Ahead For the Korean won, we believe there is considerable downside from current levels. Consistently, we recommended shorting the KRW versus the THB trade on October 19.4 Chart I-13EM ex-China Currencies Total Return##br## (Including Carry): Is The Rally Over? Traders who believe in continued U.S. dollar strength, like we do, should consider shorting the KRW versus the U.S. dollar outright. For DM currencies, this means that the drop in the JPY has further to go. In emerging Asia, we are also shorting the MYR and the IDR versus the U.S. dollar and also versus Eastern European currencies such as the ruble and the HUF, respectively. As emerging Asian currencies depreciate versus the U.S. dollar, other EM currencies will likely follow. It is hard to see the RMB and other Asian currencies plunging and the rest of EM doing well. The total return (including the carry) of the aggregate EM ex-China exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar (equity market-cap weighted index) has failed to break above a critical long-term technical resistance, and has rolled over (Chart I-13). This is a bearish technical signal, implying considerable downside from these levels. As such, we maintain our core short positions in the following EM currencies outside Asia: TRY, ZAR, BRL and CLP and add COP to this list today. This is based on an assumption of diminished foreign inflows to EM and lower commodities prices. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Colombia: Headed Toward Recession In our May 4 Special Report on Colombia,5 we argued that despite a bright structural backdrop this Andean economy was headed for a growth recession (i.e. very weak but still positive growth). Domestic demand has buckled and now we believe the nation could be on the verge of its first genuine recession in two decades (Chart II-1). Colombia's Achilles heel is its low domestic savings rate, reflected by a still large current account deficit financed by FDI and portfolio capital inflows (Chart II-2). As a result, low oil prices and rising global interest rates have exposed the nation's main cyclical vulnerability. Given the trade deficit is still large (Chart II-3) and our bias is that oil prices will be flat-to-down, a further retrenchment in domestic demand is unavoidable. Chart II-1Colombia's First Recession##br## In 20 Years? Chart II-2Colombia's Lingering Balance Of ##br##Payments Vulnerability Chart II-3A Weaker COP Will Force The ##br##Necessary Adjustment Going forward, the external funding constraint will continue to bite. Moreover, policymakers are trapped and will be unable to prevent growth from contracting. The central bank is stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Cutting interest rates will undermine the appeal of the peso to foreign investors. Raising rates to prop up the currency, however, will exacerbate the economy's downward momentum. In the end, downward pressure on the exchange rate and still high inflation mean the central bank will not cut rates soon (Chart II-4). Tight monetary policy in turn means that private sector credit will decelerate much more (Chart II-5). Chart II-4High (Well Above Target) Inflation Limits##br## Central Bank's Ability To Ease Chart II-5Colombia: Credit Growth Is ##br##Headed Much Lower Our marginal propensity to consume proxy, an excellent leading indicator for household spending, signals consumption is set to weaken even further (Chart II-6). Facing weakening demand, investment is set to continue contracting (Chart II-7) and, ultimately, unemployment will be much higher, reinforcing the downtrend in consumer expenditures. Chart II-6Colombian Domestic Demand##br## To Retrench Further Chart II-7Contracting Investment Bodes ##br##Poorly For Employment Meanwhile, fiscal policy will remain tight as Colombia's orthodox policymakers struggle to adjust the fiscal accounts to the structurally negative terms-of-trade shock in this oil-dependent economy. The current fiscal reform effort is very positive for sustainable long-run dynamics, as influential central bank board members have highlighted.6 Yet particular parts of the reform, such as raising VAT taxes from 16% to 19%, will almost inevitably lead to a drop in consumer demand. Furthermore, nominal government revenues are already contracting and a slumping economy means that the total fiscal effort will need to be greater than currently envisioned. Overall, with monetary and fiscal policy stimulus hamstrung by the nation's low domestic savings rate (i.e. large current account deficit), a mild recession seems very likely. And while a lot of weakness has already been priced into the nation's financial markets, we think there is still more downside ahead. For instance, the Colombian peso may be cheap in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, but it is highly vulnerable due to the nation's still wide current account deficit. This week we recommend re-instating a short position in the peso; this time against an equal-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble.7 Turning to equities, Colombian stocks have fallen sharply since 2014, mostly a reflection of the collapse of the nation's energy plays. At present bank stocks account for 60% this nation's MSCI market cap, and though we believe they will fare better than many other EM banking systems,8 they will not go unscathed by a recession. Still, orthodox policymaking should limit the downside in the performance of this bourse and sovereign credit (U.S. dollar bonds) relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Meanwhile, fixed-income investors should continue to bet on yield curve flattening by paying 1-year/ receiving 10-year interest rate swaps, a trade we have recommended since September 16, 2015.9 The recent steepening in the yield curve will prove unsustainable as the economy tanks. Bottom Line: Colombia is probably headed toward recession and policymakers are straightjacketed and cannot ease monetary and fiscal policies to prevent it. As such, the currency will be the main release valve and it will depreciate further. Go short the COP versus an equal-weighted basket the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Dedicated EM equity and credit investors should maintain a neutral allocation to Colombia within their respective EM benchmarks. Continue to bet on flattening in the yield curve by paying 1-year/ receiving 10-year interest rate swaps. Santiago E. Gomez Associate Vice President santiago@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses", dated October 26, 2016. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016. 3 As we argued in Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses", dated October 26, 2016, it is new loans that create new deposits and vice versa. 4 Please refer to the section on Thailand in our Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled " The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Special Report titled, "Colombia: A Cyclical Downturn Amid Structural Strength," dated May 4, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Cano, Carlos Gustavo "Monetary Policy in Colombia: Main Challenges 2016 -2017" Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Small Talks Symposium, October 7, 2016, Washington DC http://www.banrep.gov.co/sites/default/files/publicaciones/archivos/cgc_oct_2016.pdf 7 For more on the ruble please refer to the section on Russia in our Emerging Markets Weekly Report, dated November 16, 2016, titled, "Russia: Overweight Equities; Reinstate Long RUB / Short MYR Trade". 8 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Special Report titled, "Colombia: A Cyclical Downturn Amid Structural Strength" dated May 4, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 9 Please refer to the section on Colombia in our Emerging Markets Weekly Report, dated September 15, 2015, titled "Colombia: An Incomplete Adjustment", available at ems.bcareseach.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations