Domestic Politics

Highlights Chinese political risks are heating back up; The 19th National Party Congress will replenish President Xi's political capital; Xi will escalate financial deleveraging and reboot his reform agenda in 2018; Yet the Chinese leadership is becoming more populist - holding reforms back; Volatility is going up; go long Chinese equities versus EM, and long big banks versus others. Feature China's economy grew at a faster-than-expected 6.9% rate in the second quarter (Chart 1), the result of easing financial conditions, healthy external demand, and domestic stimulus efforts that have enabled the country to shake off a range of serious risks since 2015. Chart 1As Good As It Gets Chart 2Exports And Monetary Conditions = Reflation The nominal rate of growth is at the top of what one can reasonably expect out of China today; the upside is limited. Stimulus is likely to wane, while the RMB, exports, and financial conditions are likely to be less supportive going forward (Chart 2). Moreover, the latest improvements came at the expense of China's structural reform agenda, which would rebalance growth toward consumption and services while encouraging private entrepreneurship and cutting back state-owned enterprises (SOEs) (Chart 3). As a result, risks are skewed to the downside. If China's total government and quasi-government fiscal-and-credit impulse rolls over, the recent improvements in industrial profits and domestic demand will come under threat (Chart 4). No surprise then that Chinese economic policy uncertainty remains elevated despite the growth recovery and stifling of capital outflows (Chart 5). Chart 3A Setback To##br## Economic Rebalancing Chart 4A Weaker Fiscal/Credit##br## Impulse Would Threaten Profits Chart 5Policy Uncertainty##br## Remains High The critical question going forward is: How will policymakers respond? Will they continue on the current path of waxing and waning stimulus combined with ad hoc reform efforts? Or will they attempt aggressive structural reforms to try to break out of the current cycle and escape the dreaded middle income trap?1 Between now and March of next year, China's political leaders will make a series of crucial decisions that have the potential to reshape the country's future over the long run. Though it is impossible to predict the precise outcome of the Communist Party's 19th National Party Congress - the crucial "midterm" leadership reshuffle set to take place in late October or November - there are nevertheless structural factors that will constrain the options available to the new leaders. Why Does The Party Congress Matter? The paradox of China's recovery from the turbulence of 2015-16 is that it coincided with the stagnation of President Xi Jinping's ambitious reform agenda, outlined to great fanfare at the 18th Central Committee's Third Plenum in 2013. Moreover, the impending 19th National Party Congress has implied that China would be even more vigilant than usual in maintaining stability. As we have argued, this meant that there would be neither dramatic reflation nor dramatic reform this year, which has (so far) been the case (Chart 6). Chart 6No Aggressive Stimulus Prior To Five-Year Party Congresses Now the party congress is approaching. In August, top leaders will convene at Beidaihe, a small seaside tourist village, to hammer out the final roster of the Chinese leadership for the next five years. Later the party congress delegates will mostly ratify this roster as well as any changes to the party's constitution. The historic average turnover of leaders in the Central Committee is significant, at about 60%. And this time around, almost the entire Politburo Standing Committee (PSC), the supreme decision-making body in China, will retire. A new PSC will literally emerge from behind a curtain for the world to see for the first time. China will have a substantially new set of decision-makers. Xi Jinping, who will give a report on where the party stands, will remain the "core" leader. The post-Mao system of power transition is relatively young and not as institutionalized as one might think. Still, some clear rules and norms are in place. In even-numbered years, party congresses mark a changeover in the top leaders (Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao in 2002, Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang in 2012), while in odd years they have served as a "midterm" reshuffle (as under Jiang Zemin in 1997, Hu in 2007, and now Xi). Crucially, the midterm reshuffle marks the point at which a leader "consolidates" his power over the party and state, after which he has a freer hand to push his policy agenda. The meeting is often preceded by the removal of key rivals, the promotion of key protégés, and the launching of a leader's priority policies. Witness the sudden ousting of Sun Zhengcai, Chongqing party boss, who was until this week the likeliest candidate to succeed Li Keqiang as premier in 2022.2 The question is political capital Xi will have after the congress. There is no chance of him becoming a lame duck, but there is potential for him to be checked if his followers make a poor showing on the PSC, the 25-member Politburo, and the 300-member Central Committee.3 China watchers will pore over the new membership rosters. Here are the important issues at stake: Institutionalization: Will Chinese politics become more or less institutionalized and predictable? Of particular importance is whether Xi retains existing age limits, term limits, the size of party bodies.4 Any drastic changes would suggest that Chinese power is becoming more personalized, "charismatic," and dictatorial.5 That would feed rumors that Xi intends to stay in power beyond his term limit of 2022. Succession: Will Xi and Premier Li Keqiang promote successors to take over their positions in 2022? They will be expected to elevate their favorites to the PSC, just as they were elevated by their predecessors in 2007.6 If the new PSC does not include two conspicuously younger officials who are clearly being groomed to take over the country in 2022, then political uncertainty will spike. It will suggest that Xi is following in Vladimir Putin's and Recep Erdogan's footsteps. Re-centralization: The size of the Politburo and PSC have fluctuated over the years. In 2012, Xi notably reduced the PSC from nine to seven members, which was the norm in the 1990s. This move was seen as a re-centralization of power after the 2002-12 nine-member PSC came to be seen as slower-moving, indecisive, and less effective. Now there is speculation that Xi will again reduce the PSC to five members, further concentrating power. We think this unlikely but the result would be in keeping with the trend of re-centralization. Factionalization: China only has one party, but the party is divided into factions. The Communist Youth League (CCYL) faction is the most coherent. It includes current Premier Li Keqiang, former President Hu Jintao, and at least four of the ten most likely candidates to ascend to the PSC this fall. It is also called simply the "Hu faction" (see Diagram 1) and is broadly associated with populist policies. By contrast, Xi Jinping, in addition to being part of an elite group of "princelings," or sons of revolutionary founders, is forming his own clique. It is very roughly allied with other "elitists" from former President Jiang Zemin's faction (hence the label "Jiang/Xi faction" in Diagram 1). Xi has recently criticized the CCYL and cut its funding - he is also believed to have taken the economic portfolio away from Li Keqiang. Hence the predominance of Xi's or Hu's faction on the PSC and Politburo will be important. And if Xi were to replace Li, that would be a sign of extreme factionalization and political risk. Diagram 1Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced? These issues can be debated ad nauseam, but for investors the chief takeaways are as follows: Chinese politics are not institutionalized: While we expect that Xi will largely adhere to party norms, we also expect him to make some tweaks. Unless he suffers a shocking setback at the party congress (very low probability), he is already lined up to be the most powerful leader in China through the 2020s. That is true even if he steps down from all formal positions as scheduled in 2022. Why? Because Chinese leaders - especially "core" leaders like Xi - continue to wield great power behind the scenes.7 In other words, many of China's underlying tendencies over the past five years (e.g. ideological purity, foreign policy ambition) will be with us for quite some time. Succession is what matters: We expect Xi to promote a successor. If he fails to do so, he will appear to be a true strongman who may stay in office after 2022. If the party congress points in that direction, then China's consensual political norms of the past thirty years will be in jeopardy. Rumors will say that Xi plans to revive the "chairman" position that Mao Zedong held and thus rule indefinitely. The factional balance in China will be upset and internal power struggle will ignite. Western governments will see China moving toward dictatorship. Capital flight pressure will intensify. Re-centralization will continue: China is in a re-centralization phase regardless of whether the PSC has five or seven members. Xi has charted this course and we expect it largely to continue due to his focus on regime security and international prestige. What matters is whether Xi is outnumbered by a rival faction on the PSC, since that could water down his policies or implementation. Factions do not predict policies: Factions reveal differences in the party that could weaken policy or stability, but they are limited in terms of predicting policy orientation. Xi has delayed difficult structural economic reforms with stimulus and promoted socially accommodative policies like his predecessor Hu Jintao.8 As such early expectations that Xi would be pro-market have dissipated. The real difference is that Xi has removed formidable enemies, giving him greater flexibility than Hu ever had. He may choose to use that flexibility for painful reforms in future, but he has notably refrained from doing so thus far. Chart 7Balance Of Institutions On China's Politburo A victory for the CCYL would be an "upset" for Xi, hindering his dominance, but would also be status quo for China as a whole. It would call into question Xi's political capital and ability to drive through his preferred policies. China would be seen as less economically promising, though possibly more politically mature. Xi's effectiveness in his first five years leads us to believe that this will not happen. We think he will secure control of the top policymaking bodies. Yet, as stated above, we also think Xi will broadly adhere to party norms and not lay the groundwork to become "leader for life." Why? The Communist Party has developed an informal but empirically verifiable history of balancing the members of the top leadership so that different institutions, regions, and skill-sets are represented. Hence the representation of leaders on the Politburo with key backgrounds in the party bureaucracy, the state bureaucracy, the regional governments, and the military have been remarkably stable since the 1980s (Chart 7). The balance is even more jealously guarded on the PSC than on the Politburo. Hence, the party congress is most likely to be a determiner of which way the balance tilts (more on that below), rather than whether the balance is entirely overthrown. Our expectation is probably the best short-term political outcome for financial markets: Xi enhances his political capital through 2022, but does not jeopardize the stability of the Chinese political system by resurrecting a Maoist "cult of personality" and embroiling the country in a future succession crisis. The country is thus more politically mature and (potentially) more economically promising. Bottom Line: Chinese politics are not institutionalized. Dramatic changes are taking place as we go to press; more are likely to occur before and after the party congress. Nevertheless, we expect Xi to uphold most of the party's rules even as he clinches full control of the party for the next five-year term. He will push the envelope but not break it. This is marginally positive for Chinese H-shares. What Comes Afterwards? The party congress provides an important infusion of political capital with which policymakers can try to get things done. For instance, after the 1997 congress, Jiang launched a massive "reform and restructuring" campaign of banks and state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that led to a spike in unemployment and bankruptcies to purge the system of inefficiencies (Chart 8). These policies ultimately transformed China - by one estimate they contributed about 20% of China's aggregate increase in total factor productivity through 2007.9 We expect the Xi administration to reinvigorate its policy agenda after this fall. The first five years of his presidency have centered on power consolidation - i.e. the sweeping anti-corruption campaign, breaking the fiscal and judicial independence of the provinces, and party purge. This campaign is likely to continue to some extent, but it has peaked in intensity (Chart 9) and the party congress should settle many of the most important power struggles, at least for a time. Chart 8China Embraced Creative Destruction In 1990s Chart 9Anti-Corruption Campaign Has Peaked Hence the central leadership's policy effectiveness should intensify in 2018. This is significant because Xi's reform agenda is incredibly ambitious. Our clients will remember that, in a deliberate echo of Deng Xiaoping's famous "reform and opening up" measures launched at the Third Plenum in 1978, Xi Jinping announced a raft of major reforms at the latest Third Plenum in 2013.10 The intention was to push forward the next wave of China's development and make market forces "decisive" in China's economy, namely by: rebalancing growth toward consumers, services, and private investors; deregulating upstream and downstream markets; reforming the fiscal system to give local governments sustainable finances; injecting private capital, competition and market discipline into the state-owned corporate sector; and stabilizing the business environment and broader society by fighting pollution and establishing the rule of law. As mentioned, this agenda has since been compromised, with Xi reverting to infrastructure spending and credit growth to avoid confronting the socio-political blowback of painful adjustments. With limited reforms, total factor productivity has continued on its post-GFC decline throughout Xi's term (Chart 10). Xi has also gone easy on SOEs, the weakest link in China's economy, maintaining the time-tried policy of rolling up inefficient ones into bigger conglomerates rather than letting them fail. The market has not perceived any loss of policy support for SOEs (Chart 11). Chart 10Productivity Weak In Xi's First Term Chart 11SOE Reforms Put On Hold Will the party congress change any of this? Will Xi be less pragmatic - i.e. more concerned with building a legacy as a historic reformer - in the coming five years? We cannot predict the precise membership of the next PSC or Politburo - especially given the furious horse-trading taking place after Sun Zhengcai's fall. But looking at key trends in the PSC's membership in recent decades, and assuming the top five likeliest candidates for 2017, the following trends become apparent (see Charts 12A & 12B): Chart 12ALeadership Characteristics Of ##br##The Politburo Standing Committee Chart 12BLeadership Characteristics Of ##br##The Politburo Standing Committee From technocrats to generalists: The "fourth generation" of Chinese leaders (Hu Jintao's generation) will finally rotate out of top posts this year. This is the last generation to have gone to college prior to the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), when schools and universities were disrupted, and to have largely studied natural sciences or engineering. Xi Jinping's "fifth generation" - and those beneath it - tend to come from educational backgrounds that are less technical and scientific and more legal and humanistic.11 The rise of the humanities may translate to a more ideologically doctrinaire outlook (pro-Communist Party, anti-West, anti-liberal) among the leadership, as opposed to the practicality of Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin. Rule by provincial chieftains: Leaders with executive experience either as governors or party secretaries of the provinces have taken up an ever-greater share of the PSC and Politburo. This suggests that leaders have made tough decisions and have a broad conception of China that encompasses its vast regional, demographic, and economic disparities. They have dealt closely with poverty, ethnic minorities, border and security issues, and social instability. They are presumably less afraid to make decisions, or to crack heads, than central bureaucrats. The central government knows best: The share of leaders with experience at the top of the state bureaucracy is also rising. This means that leaders have experience administering key government agencies and ministries. They are not, however, "technocrats," as defined above - they are simply politicians capable of handling a policy portfolio that applies across the country. Fewer soldiers and business executives: PSC members with military experience have declined since Deng Xiaoping's era. Meanwhile, PSC members with experience as executives of state-owned enterprises have vanished since the days that one of them (Jiang Zemin) led China. But this does not portend sweeping privatization and liberalization.12 The bottom line is that China is being ruled more and more by politicians and less by business leaders and generals. This should also portend greater ideological purity and loyalty to the Communist Party. The heartland's revenge: Leaders who hail from the thickly populated and poorer provinces of central China have recently outnumbered those from the wealthy coastal provinces. But while PSC leaders increasingly come from the interior, their executive experience is still mostly in rich coastal areas. They straddle - and maybe know how to balance - the country's stark regional divide. In essence, China's political elite is gradually shifting toward greater "populism." The Han Chinese heartland has reasserted control of the Communist Party to which it gave birth in 1921. China's leaders, as a result of their provincial governing experience, are increasingly primed to maintain socio-political stability through redistribution or force rather than to promote economic efficiency via competition and liberalization (Chart 13). Chart 13More Social Spending Needed Further, these leaders have grown more aloof from the hard sciences and business acumen that gave rise to China's industrial prowess and are more intent on supporting the Communist Party's foundational myths and regime control - as well as keeping the country's rapid social and technological development under that control. What does this mean for Xi Jinping's second term? Xi is seen as an "elitist" both in his policy preferences - the demand for greater economic competition, efficiency, and technological advances - and in his personal background as a princeling. Yet these preferences will likely be compromised in his second term, as in his first, because the economic drivers of the "populist" trend will persist. Insofar as leadership characteristics are a reliable predictor, the radical liberalizing agenda of the Third Plenum - soon to be supplanted by another Third Plenum in 2018 - will only briefly benefit from an infusion of new energy, say in 2018-19, before being moderated, postponed, or watered-down. The leadership is increasingly aware of the need to maintain minimum levels of growth, development, and income redistribution for the sake of stability. The creative destruction of the late 1990s is no longer an option. Xi will still make an attempt to revive his reforms - and therein lies a risk to short-run growth, as China's cyclical growth is simultaneously set to slow in 2018. But he will fail to launch a transformative new period of productivity growth in China over the long run. Bottom Line: The final line-up of the Politburo and PSC will enable us to revise the above sketch of China's elite with new data. But the main trends and implications are unlikely to be altered. Not only is Xi Jinping aiming to stabilize and preserve the regime and re-centralize power, but so too is the Communist Party. Xi's reform agenda will undoubtedly be rebooted after the party congress - with non-negligible risks to short-term growth - but Xi will not ride roughshod over these institutional constraints. At least, not for very long. Whither China? The structural constraints that will stymie Xi's new reform push are well known. Capital formation has been well above the range staked out by other emerging economies during similar phases of national development (Chart 14). This is a source of instability: the investment-led economic model has expired and yet the country has not weaned itself off of capital-intensive policies. China's debt load and debt-servicing costs have exploded upward both because of the inefficiencies of the state sector (SOEs and state banks) and because local governments rely on SOEs (and their own shady financing vehicles) to generate growth. Household debt is low but rising rapidly (Chart 15). Chart 14Excess Investment Is A Real Problem Chart 15Corporate Debt: The Achilles Heel The central government's surprising "deleveraging campaign" this year - which was softened to avoid mistakes ahead of the party congress - shows that China's leaders do not expect the view that the country's financial risks are negligible due to the large pool of savings. Instead, this year's financial crackdown serves as a dress-rehearsal for what is likely to be a much stricter crackdown on the financial sector as Xi reboots reforms in 2018. Financial tightening alone is a major aspect of restarting the reform agenda. Tighter controls on banks and leverage will translate into greater market discipline. This will in turn maintain the pressure on the sector most in need of change - the SOEs. The key question is how much of an appetite Xi has for bankruptcies and unemployment, since traditionally Chinese governments have not had much. Today's manufacturing employment indicators are weak despite the past two years' stimulus and growth recovery (Chart 16). The Xi administration will push forward with "supply side reforms" meant to weed out excess capacity - including at least some redundant workers13 - but this is precisely where any reformist intentions are likely to be compromised after the initial burst. The Communist Party has also placed greater emphasis on improving living standards and per capita disposable income, which will further limit the regime's appetite for self-imposed deleveraging (Chart 17). The hundredth anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021 will mark another politically sensitive calendar year and hence another reason for the party to backtrack after a spell of greater economic discipline. Xi will want to leave on a high note in 2022. Furthermore, excessive tightening would pose enormous risks for Xi's outward-looking economic and foreign policy agendas: not only the highly touted international development projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (OBOR), which require extensive Chinese investment, but also China's military rise in a region that is increasingly militarily competitive (Chart 18). Chart 16Employment Weak Despite Stimulus Chart 17Communist Party Expects Higher Incomes Chart 18Another Reason To Avoid Economic Slowdown Bottom Line: The Xi administration will renew its reform drive - particularly by curbing leverage, shadow banking, and local government debt. Growth risks are to the downside. But Beijing will eventually backtrack and re-stimulate, even as early as 2018, leaving the reform agenda in limbo once again. Investment Implications China's fundamental transition has already occurred. The demographic profile of the country no longer favors cheap labor or an ever-larger pool of savings that state authorities can easily direct into productivity-enhancing basic investments (Chart 19). The cost of capital is set to rise in the long run and that will put sustained pressure on the inefficient parts of the economy. "Reform" will become more an issue of withholding financial assistance, which the government will eventually be forced to grant out of concern for stability. As the pool of savings declines, the government faces the unprecedented challenge of moderating the wealth disparities that widened so rapidly during the boom years and that threaten regime stability (Chart 20). Chart 19The Savings Glut Is Coming To An End Chart 20Inequality: A Liability For The Party This will involve increasing the redistributive effect of taxes - which is remarkably low in China, and which in turn will generate higher levels of political tension between the haves and have nots, both households and regions. The Communist Party is only beginning to navigate these difficulties, which will stir up resentment among the large and ambitious middle class. Yet the middle class must be encouraged to thrive, as the rebalance of the Chinese economy cannot rest solely on the decline of investment. For that to occur, there needs to be a change in household, government, and corporate relations such that the government absorbs the excess debt created by corporations and instills greater efficiency among them, while devoting more resources to social wellbeing, thus enabling households to reduce precautionary savings. So far, Chinese households continue to save up for a rainy day (Chart 21), which leaves economic growth at the mercy of corporate borrowing and exports, the very dependencies that the Xi administration aims to reduce. Unfortunately for Xi, the chance to turn attention to these internal problems will coincide with bigger international challenges - especially tensions with the United States. We expect Sino-American distrust to worsen as long as China continues its more aggressive foreign policy and tries to carve out a sphere of influence in Asia. This is not a policy reliant on Xi's preferences alone but rather on China's growing domestic economic and security needs. In the event that Xi attempts to stay in power beyond 2022 - which we consider a low probability outcome - we expect U.S.-China confrontations to occur sooner than otherwise. Our long-term theme of global multipolarity will receive a steroid injection. There is no clear trend for Chinese H-shares around party congresses - sometimes they rally, sometimes they sell off (Chart 22). China's fiscal/credit impulse has ticked up and the coming slowdown may take time to develop, so we would not be surprised to see a rally leading into or following this year's congress. Chinese H-shares are cheap relative to their peers. Chart 21Chinese Still Saving For A Rainy Day Chart 22China Rallies Versus EM In Times Of Reform On the other hand, China's economic structure is worse than Xi found it. If he grabs the bull by the horns - as we think he will do - markets will sell off for fear of growth disappointments and policy mistakes, at least until investors are convinced it is safe to buy into China's long-term efficiency gains from reform. We recommend going long Chinese equities relative to EM. Xi's renewed reform drive will be attractive to EM dedicated investors in the context of un-reforming EMs like South Africa, Turkey, and Brazil, while EM will suffer from the negative short-term growth impact of Chinese reforms. This trade performed well during the major reforms of 1997-2002 and after the Third Plenum in 2014-15. Certainly we would bet against the continuation of extreme low volatility in Chinese assets, as measured by the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index. Both China's foreign and domestic political risks are understated. Finally, we recommend investors go tactically long Chinese Big Five banks versus small and medium-sized banks, a trade initiated by our fellow BCA Emerging Markets Strategy in October for a gain of 7.7% (Chart 23). Our EM Equity Sector Strategy has also lent credence to this view.14 The larger banks are better provisioned and prepared for credit losses and the financial tightening that we expect to come. Chart 23Big Banks Can Weather The Storm This trade has lost some altitude over the past month as a result of the perception that Chinese authorities would scale back their financial crackdown. However, the National Financial Work Conference held over the weekend of July 14-16 signaled that the Xi administration will expand its deleveraging campaign not only throughout the financial sector but also to SOEs and local governments to rein in China's formidable systemic risks. The new Financial Stability and Development Committee is likely to be more significant than market participants realize - Xi will have new political capital after this fall and is already shifting his attention to the sector. Moreover the announcement that the People's Bank of China will take a greater oversight role in the financial sector and for systemically important institutions is especially significant in light of the impending retirement of Governor Zhou Xiaochuan, which will usher in a new chapter in the PBoC's governance. Fortifying the country against financial risk is a regime security issue, as well as a basis for eventual financial reform and liberalization, and we expect the coming regulatory tightening to have far-reaching consequences. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 The "middle income trap" is a concept in economics describing developing countries that fail to make the transition into developed economies, despite showing rapid developmental progress for a time, and thus remaining stuck in the "middle income" GDP per capita range. Please see Indermit Gill and Homi Kharas et al, "An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas For Economic Growth," World Bank (2007), available at siteresources.worldbank.org. For a recent review of the literature, please see Linda Glawe and Helmut Wagner, "The middle-income trap - definitions, theories and countries concerned: a literature survey," MPRA Paper 71196, dated May 13, 2016, available at mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de. 2 The dismissal of Beijing Mayor Chen Xitong, for example, is seen as evidence of Jiang Zemin's consolidation of power ahead of the 15th National Party Congress, while the fall from grace of Shanghai Party Secretary Chen Liangyu in 2006 is seen as proof of Hu Jintao's consolidation ahead of the 17th Party Congress in 2007. 3 Indeed judging solely by the cyclical rotation of Chinese leaders according to generation and faction, Hu Jintao's acolytes are favored to outnumber Jiang Zemin's and Xi Jinping's in the 2017 reshuffle. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Two Factions, One Party," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. However, Xi's effectiveness and good luck since coming to power lead us to believe that he will secure his followers on the PSC and Politburo this year: please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook 2017, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 For instance, this time around there are rumors that Xi will keep his anti-corruption chief, Wang Qishan, on the PSC beyond the standard retirement age, and that he may even go so far as to oust Premier Li Keqiang. Such drastic changes are unlikely, particularly the latter, but certainly not unthinkable. 5 For our long-term investment theme of "charismatic leadership," please see our Strategic Outlook cited in note 3 above. 6 Please see Alice L. Miller, "China's New Party Leadership," Hoover Institution, China Leadership Monitor 23 (Winter 2008), available at www.hoover.org. For this discussion of factions please also see Willy Wo-Lap Lam, “The Eclipse of the Communist Youth League and the Rise of the Zhejiang Clique,” Jamestown Foundation, May 11, 2016. 7 For instance, Jiang Zemin has continued to be a powerbroker to this day: Xi's vaunted anti-corruption campaign over the past five years has largely aimed at rooting out the influence of Jiang's faction. This includes the ouster of Sun Zhengcai this past week. And that is thirteen years after Jiang gave up a formal post! 8 Note that Xi rose to power as a princeling and member of Jiang Zemin's faction, as opposed to Hu Jintao and the CCYL. Yet Xi combined with Hu to oust the princeling Bo Xilai, and his anti-corruption campaign has largely focused on eradicating Jiang's influence. 9 Please see Chang-Tai Hsieh and Zheng (Michael) Song, “Grasp the Large, Let Go of the Small: The Transformation of the State Sector in China,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, March 19 2015, available at www.brookings.edu. At the seventeenth party congress in 2007, Hu also launched major reforms, aiming to reduce income inequality, urban-rural disparities, and lack of development in western China, but his efforts were cut short by the global financial crisis. Please see Hu Jintao, "Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive for New Victories in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society," Report to the 17th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, October 15, 2007, available at www.china.org.cn. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013; and Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Please also see BCA China Investment Strategy, "Understanding China's Master Plan," dated November 20, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 11 There are obviously pros and cons to this change: the industrial era required leaders with technical skills; the modern era requires services, branding, and innovation. But, in the Chinese context, the humanities are not focused on critical thinking and questioning authority to the same extent as in the West. 12 In fact, Xi Jinping's recent promotions have re-emphasized SOE managers and his policies have supported SOEs. Please see Cheng Li and Lucy Xu, "The rise of state-owned enterprise executives in China's provincial leadership," Brookings, February 22, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 13 Even the official unemployment measure, which hardly ever moves, is slated to rise from 4.02% to 4.5% this year. Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The People's Congress," dated March 9, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Banks' Ominous Shadow," dated June 15, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Please see also BCA EM Equity Sector Strategy Portfolio Update, "Ranking Model And China Banks," dated July 18, 2017, available at emes.bcaresearch.com. Appendix

Highlights Yellen pointed out that the U.S. R-star is low but that it will rise as temporary depressing factors pass. The Fed is determined to push rates toward 3% over time. The euro area R-star is substantially lower than that of the U.S., limiting the capacity of the ECB to follow the Fed's path and pace. Traders are massively long the euro. Abe's woes do not signal the end of Abenomics, in fact they point toward more stimulus. The BoC has hiked and will keep doing so, continue to favor the CAD. Feature Janet Yellen offered both a fascinating and telling glimpse on the Federal Reserve's thinking this week. She argued that the equilibrium fed funds rate is currently very depressed, which is limiting the pace at which the FOMC can increase interest rates before plunging the economy into recession. However, she also noted that the Fed anticipates equilibrium interest rates will continue to rise over time, which means the actual fed funds rate has more upside on a multi-year horizon, despite what will be a slow pace of increases. With this additional information on the Fed's mindset, investors should be even more comfortable in their assessment that the period of maximum policy divergence between the euro area and the U.S. is behind us, which justified bullish bets on the euro. However, the broader picture is a bit more complex. Different Equilibria The idea that the neutral fed funds rate is still low but rising explains why the Fed is still pegging its terminal rate at 3%. Currently, the Laubach and Williams formulation of the neutral real fed funds rate (also known as R-star) is at 0.4%, while the current real fed funds rate stands at -0.5%, which implies 0.9% upside in real rates over the next two years or so (Chart I-1). Moreover, if as we expect core inflation moves back toward 2% over the Fed's forecast horizon, the upside to rates would be closer to 150 basis points. In the euro area, however, the same long-term R-star stands at -0.1%, depressed by lower population growth, a higher savings rate and lower structural productivity gains. Since the real policy rate is at -0.7%, this signifies that the gap between the actual real policy rate and its equilibrium is a smaller 0.6% (Chart I-2). This means that euro area rates have much less upside than U.S. ones before generating a deleterious impact on growth. Chart I-1U.S. R-Star Vs. Policy Rates Chart I-2Euro Area R-Star Vs. Policy Rates It is easy to argue that R-star differences are nice theoretical concepts, with little practical implications for currency investors. After all, interest rate differentials at the long end of the curve are clearly a function of the relative GDP per capita between the euro area and the U.S. (Chart I-3). These same GDP-dynamics also have an impact - albeit a less tight one - on EUR/USD. Chart I-3Yield Differentials And Relative GDP Chart I-4How R-Star And GDP Tango Yet, R-star spreads do affect growth differentials between the euro area and the U.S. As Chart I-4 illustrates, when the euro area real policy rate crosses above its equilibrium, euro area real GDP per capita growth sags soon after. The same holds true for the U.S. This suggests the capacity of European GDP per capita to outperform that of the U.S. is currently limited, or at the very least needs rates in Europe to remain quite low relative to the U.S., anchored lower by the depressed level of the R-star in Europe vis-a-vis the U.S. Moreover, the recent outperformance of European GDP per capita relative to the U.S. has a lot to do with the poor performance of U.S. GDP in 2016. However, U.S. GDP should firm in the coming quarters, particularly since household income levels are well supported. As Chart I-5 shows, based on an average of the pay-related and hiring-related components of the NFIB small businesses survey, the aggregate wages and salaries received by U.S. households are set to accelerate, both in nominal and real terms. This represents a boost to aggregate income and should support consumption, or almost 70% of the U.S. economy. Additionally, the rebound in U.S. capex should continue. Both the NFIB and the various regional Fed capex intention surveys remain healthy. This, along with labor market tightness, should be accretive to per capita GDP. As Chart I-6 shows, a composite indicator based on the NFIB survey capex and "jobs hard to fill" components is very strong, which historically has led to an acceleration of real-GDP-per capita growth. Chart I-5U.S. Household Income Will Accelerate Chart I-6U.S. Real GDP Per Capita Will Strengthen As a result, we are inclined to bet on a renewal of strength in the U.S. economy, which will support R-star there and help the Fed hike rates by more than the 43 basis points currently anticipated over the next 24 months. Bottom Line: The U.S. long-term equilibrium real fed funds rate is low, but remains substantially higher than the R-star in the euro area. This suggests that U.S. rates have more upside than European ones. Moreover, the outlook for U.S. per capita GDP is healthy, while that of Europe will continue to require low rates to remain on an upward path. Tactical Considerations Around EUR/USD EUR/USD is well bid, and our base case scenario remains that the 1.15 to 1.16 zone will be retested. However, some technical indicators have made us leery to chase this move, and might even prevent this target zone from ever being breached. To begin with, the number of long speculative bets on the euro has hit a record high, while the number of short bets has collapsed (Chart I-7). Net long speculative positions are not at a record high yet, but are in the upper echelons of the distribution of the past 17 years. Interestingly - and some would argue almost mechanically - while speculators' optimist or pessimist extremes can be used as contrarian indicators, commercial traders tend to be disproportionally short or long the euro at the appropriate time - i.e., when the euro is set to plummet or rally, respectively. Theoretically, commercial and non-commercial traders' positions should be in perfect balance as they are counterparties to one another, but in practice this is rarely the case. Because of this observation, we decided to amplify the message of both series by subtracting the net long commercial positions from net long non-commercial ones. This indicator tends to work best at highlighting tops in EUR/USD. The current reading has been indicative of an upcoming period of weakness in this pair (Chart I-8). The only exception was in 2007, a period when unlike today, the Fed was cutting rates while the ECB policy rate was being lifted all the way to July 2008. Chart I-7Record Longs In The Euro Chart I-8Aggregate Positioning Points To A Lower Euro Moreover, the buying pressure on EUR/USD may be exhausting itself. Wednesday, despite a seemingly dovish message from Fed Chair Yellen and despite stronger-than-anticipated industrial production numbers out of the euro area, EUR/USD weakened 0.6% instead of appreciating. In fact, our European Investment Strategy Senior Vice President Dhaval Joshi's Fractal Dimension indicator - a measure of group-think in the market - is now at 1.25, a level that also warns of an imminent trend change (Chart I-9).1 Chart I-9A Risk Of Reversal As a result, we do not yet think it is time to be betting aggressively on a fall in EUR/USD, especially as next week's ECB meeting might give an occasion for President Mario Draghi to re-affirm his optimism, giving the euro its final push toward 1.15-1.16. However, nimble traders should begin building small short positions in the euro on the optic of expanding their bets if the EUR/USD gathers downward momentum. Bottom Line: The euro may well hit the 1.15-1.16 range, but positioning in EUR/USD is currently extremely overstretched, and the euro's trading action suggests that groupthink has become prevalent, confirming the message of positioning. This means the euro is at risk. Nimble traders should begin building small short positions in EUR/USD, but it is not yet time to bet aggressively on this pair. Shinzo's Troubles Are Not The Demise Of Abenomics Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's popularity has been in freefall in recent weeks, hitting the most dismal levels of his current premiership (Chart I-10). The flogging received by the LDP in the recent Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly election is indeed being perceived as a rejection of the party's policy stance since 2012. Does this represent the coup de grace that will end Abenomics? We doubt it. The key behind the recent dip in Abe's popularity is not his economic policy but his move away from it. Instead, his focus on changing the pacifist constitution of post-war Japan is the source of the LDP's and Abe's woes, as this topic remains anathema with the Japanese public. Moreover, we are not willing to bet on the demise of the LDP. The Tokyo election was a one-off event. The new Tomin First no Kai (Tokyoites First) party that is now the largest force in the regional assembly is led by the very popular Tokyo governor Yuriko Koike, and will rely on the pacifist Komeito to control the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly. At the national level, the DPJ remains in tatters, and no potential new party is in place to carry the torch of the opposition. Japan is still effectively a one-party democracy. So what are the market implications of these political developments? We expect a doubling down by Abe on economic stimulus. If Abe ever wants a passing chance to have, let alone win, a referendum to increase Japan's militarism, the economy needs to be stronger than it is. Thus, we think this boot of unpopularity will be key to unlocking more fiscal stimulus out of Tokyo. When more fiscal stimulus finally does materialize, if it boosts growth, it will also lift long-term inflation expectations (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Abe's Plummeting##br## Popularity Chart I-11If Fiscal Stimulus Is Implemented ##br##CPI Expectations Will Rise... In this context, we would expect continued pressure on the Bank of Japan to remain one of the two most dovish central banks in the G10, as to not undo the benefits of fiscal stimulus. Moreover, the BoJ cannot remove stimulus, as realized CPI excluding food and energy remains in negative territory. Tokyo's CPI report, which offers a one-month lead on the national release, shows that core inflation is still in negative territory. National summer wage negotiations point to negative wage growth next year, making a revival of domestically generated inflation a remote event without an easing of financial conditions (Chart I-12). Additionally, the recent rollover in the leading diffusion index suggests the economic upswing may already be fading (Chart I-13). Continued BoJ support and higher inflation expectations would hurt Japanese real yields and handicap the yen. Chart I-12...But That Will Also Require Easy Monetary##br## And Financial Conditions Chart I-13A Slowdown ##br##In Japan The recent upswing in global bond yields is thus likely to continue to weigh on the yen, leading to a higher USD/JPY. As this week illustrated, rising global yields are forcing the BoJ to increase its amount of JGB purchases to cap the upside in Japanese 10-year yields. Tactically, USD/JPY has been in an upswing, but has hit an important resistance close to 114.5. A few more days of weakness could ensue, but such weakness should be used by investors to sell the yen. Bottom Line: Abe's political problems do not represent the end of Abenomics. Instead, they illustrate the Japanese public's lack of appetite toward abandoning Japan's post-war pacifism. If Abe is serious about holding a referendum on this topic, he will have to support growth going forward - which implies higher fiscal stimulus and inflation expectations. Meanwhile, the absence of inflation in Japan continues to hamstring the BoJ in keeping policy extremely supportive, limiting the upside to nominal interest rates across the Japanese yield curve. Real rate differentials will continue to support USD/JPY. Use any weakness in this pair to buy the dollar versus the yen. Canada: Poloz Delivers The Bank of Canada on Wednesday increased interest rates by 25 basis points to 0.75%, the first central bank to follow the Fed's lead. Our analysis two weeks ago suggested that the BoC was faced with some of the most supportive conditions in the world to follow the Fed's path.2 More interesting than the decision itself was the accompanying quarterly Monetary Policy Report. In the report, the BoC moved forward its estimation of the closure of the output gap from 2018 to 2017. Additionally, despite expecting a slowdown in household consumption in 2018, the BoC upgraded its GDP forecast by 0.2% in 2017 and 0.1% in 2018, to 2.8% and 2%, respectively. Obviously, the market took note of these views, with USD/CAD falling three big figures on the news. The tone of the report was quite bullish on the Canadian economy, highlighting robust as well as broad-based growth and increasing signs of vanishing slack. In fact, the message reiterated that of the summer Business Outlook Survey, which showed strong growth, growing difficulty meeting demand, and growing and intensifying labor shortages (Chart I-14). As a result, the BoC expects the weak Canadian CPI to rebound, after the transitory effects of low food inflation, automobile rebates, and Ontario's electricity subsidies dissipate. We are inclined to agree with this assessment. At 2% per annum, Canadian employment growth is robust and the unemployment rate has fallen significantly. Now that oil prices have stabilized, employment is improving, suggesting that even the weakest regions of the economy are participating in the party. Additionally, our Canadian economic diffusion index - based on retail trade, manufacturing sales, building permits and employment data in the 10 provinces - has sharply accelerated, pointing to a continued rise in GDP growth (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Canada Is Booming And Slack Is Shrinking Chart I-15Strong Data Across The Board USD/CAD continues to trade at a discount to real interest rate differentials, signaling further upside on the CAD. Also, while investors have begun to curtail their shorts on the loonie, there do remain enough stale shorts for the CAD advance to persevere. We continue to prefer playing the CAD's strength on its crosses such as versus the AUD and the EUR, as the risk profile seems cleaner on these pairs than versus the USD. Short EUR/CAD looks particularly attractive. Our long CAD/NOK trade is near its target, and we are closing this position. Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada has not only hiked rates, but it has also highlighted that the Canadian economy is strong and inching closer to full capacity. The market has taken note, with the loonie rallying violently. The CAD has more upside going forward, especially against the euro and the AUD. We are booking profits on our long CAD/NOK position. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see European Investment Strategy Special Report titled, "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model", dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy And Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report titled, "Who Hikes Next?", dated June 30, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The greenback has largely been flat this week, despite Yellen's statements regarding rate hikes and balance sheet normalization at her Congressional Testimony, even if, 10-year yields went down. U.S. economic data has a soft tone: NFIB Business Optimism Index came in lower than expected at 103.6, reflecting broad-based softness in the details of the survey; JOLTS job openings also came in lower than expected at 5.666 mn; Initial jobless claims underperformed expectations, coming in at 247,000; Additionally, continuing jobless claims were higher than expected at 1.945 mn. While data remains mixed, the Fed is still intent on tightening policy. The dollar will follow suit, especially if inflation moves as the Fed expects. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Look Ahead, Not Back - June 9, 2017 Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data out of Europe this week was reasonably strong: Both exports and imports increased at a 1.4% and 1.2% monthly pace, respectively; The current account beat expectations; Industrial production increased by 4%, more than the expected 3.6%; However, despite this upbeat data, the euro remained largely flat this week. This behavior is justified from a technical perspective: the RSI is close to overbought levels; the MACD line is rolling over and closing the gap with the signal line; the number of speculators with long positions is at its highest level ever. The considerable weakness in EUR/SEK and EUR/NOK on Thursday shows underlying weakness in the euro. This decreases the likelihood that EUR/USD breaches the 1.15-1.16 zone. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Labor cash earnings yearly growth outperformed expectations and grew from last month, coming in at 0.7%. However, machinery orders yearly growth was far below expectations, coming in at 0.6%. In spite of the selloff in the dollar, USD/JPY has rallied by more than 1% since last week, stopping its ascent after hitting a key technical level at 114.5. We continue to be yen bears, even in the face of the declining popularity of Shinzo Abe: the champion for expansionary fiscal policy in Japan. Instead, we are confident that Abe will double down on fiscal spending as his decline in popularity has been precisely because he has strayed away from this key policy pillar which made him so popular. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Halifax House prices grew by only 2.6% YoY, underperforming expectations of 3.1%. Industrial Production contracted by 0.2% year-on-year, also underperforming expectations. While the unemployment rate decreased, coming in at 4.5% and also beating expectations, average earning growth fell to 1.8%. After appreciating by almost 2% this week, and reaching 0.895, EUR/GBP has come down to 0.885, but the pound is likely to have short term downside against the euro. Furthermore, GBP/USD is also likely to have downside, as the pound is not as attractive as it was in the beginning of the year from a valuation standpoint. Indeed, sentiment has turned much more positive on the outcome of Brexit, which means that the significant discount in the pound has disappeared. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The AUD has seen a broad-based increase this week, except for against the CAD. This increase has largely been a factor of Chinese data, although domestic conditions also played a role: Chinese exports and imports both increased at a 11.3% and 17.2% annual pace, respectively; China's trade balance in June was USD 42.77 bn, better than expected; Chinese new loans came in at RMB 1,540 bn; NAB Business Conditions and Confidence both beat expectations; However, investment lending for homes is still contracting at 1.4%, albeit at a lesser than expected pace of 2.3%; Also, home loans are increasing at a lesser than expected pace of 1%. We retain our view of the inherent weakness in the Australian economy, which will restrict the RBA from changing its view. This will weigh on the AUD in the near future. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 AUD/NZD has rallied by almost 1.3% since last week. This in part, was the market reaction to an approved housing infrastructure fund by Prime Minister Bill English worth NZ$1 Billion aimed at increasing the supply of housing in the country. This measure provides the RBNZ with some breathing room, as it is a policy aimed at cooling housing market, which has prices growing at a 14% rate. The increase in housing supply alleviates the pent up demand generated by the dramatic increase in population in New Zealand in recent years. The RBNZ is unlikely to join the BoC and the Fed this year, as they remain cautious, and have opted for macro prudential measures to eliminate any imbalances in the economy. Stay short the NZD against the dollar and the yen. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canada followed the footsteps of its partner in the south, joining the U.S. as the only two central banks in the G10 space raising interest rates. The Bank of Canada highlighted that "the adjustment to lower oil prices is largely complete" and that "both the goods and services sectors are expanding". Alberta's economy validates this stance as all sectors of the economy are growing at a very brisk pace. The BoC estimates that the output gap will now close at the end of 2017, instead of the previous forecast of the first half of 2018, further escalating their hawkish rhetoric. The press release noted that the recent restrain in inflationary pressures will be transitory, as "excess capacity is absorbed". Recent data corroborates this view with strong employment data and stronger than expected housing starts. USD/CAD declined 1.3% at the end of the day of the hike, and outperformed all other currencies. Report Links: Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: Unemployment remains very low, coming in at 3.2% However, producer and import prices contracted by 0.1% year-on-year, coming below expectations and decreasing from the previous month. The low unemployment number is not the only indicator that shows a tight labor market, as employment is also growing at an astonishing 5% yearly rate. However, this tightness in the labor market is not translating to higher wages, as wages are growing at a paltry 0.6%, anchored by strong deflationary forces. Thus, the SNB will continue with their ultra-dovish monetary policy and with their interventions in the currency market. Nevertheless, we will monitor if the recent plunge in the CHF against the euro creates any kind of inflationary dynamics in the economy, and causes the SNB to rethink their stance. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Manufacturing output contracted by 0.3%, falling sharply from last month number. Additionally, although both core and headline inflation came above expectations at 1.6% and 1.9% respectively, they still fell from last month reading. The Krone has appreciated sharply the past week, with USD/NOK falling by 1.45% and EUR/NOK falling by 1.15%. This has been a result of the rebound in oil prices caused by the massive draws in inventories the past couple of weeks. Indeed, last week's number, which showed an inventory draw of 7.6 million barrels was the biggest since 2011. Overall, we expect that OPEC should be able to continue managing supply, and therefore, oil should rise until the end of the year. This will be negative for EUR/NOK. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 A Market Update: June 23, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The Riksbank's change in rhetoric was perfectly timed, as Sweden's economy is increasingly showing signs of strength. Data has outperformed these past two weeks: Manufacturing PMI came in at 62.4, beating expectations of 59.8; Industrial production increased at a 8% annual pace in May; Inflation in Sweden is firming, coming in at 1.7% in June and beating expectations. The SEK appreciated 0.7% against EUR, and 0.6% against USD. Markets are pricing in stronger growth and a further escalation of hawkish rhetoric from the central bank, especially as Stefan Ingves as tabulated to leave this Riksbank in a few months. Part of the reason for Sweden's strength is also a stronger European economy. With Germany leading the pack, Sweden's largest export partner is also lifting the largest Scandinavian economy. Report Links: Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The EM carry trade - supported by a commodity price rally, falling bond yields, and a weak USD - have propped up South African assets; Investors have largely ignored politics and focused on personalities instead of political fundamentals; South Africa's socio-economic factors - governance, middle class wellbeing, productivity, and unemployment - have all regressed; The "median voter" has therefore turned more radical and left-wing; Stay short ZAR versus USD and MXN, stay underweight stocks, sovereign credit, and domestic bonds, and bet on yield-curve steepening. Feature Why do investors in Europe and the U.S. continue to invest in South Africa? - Every client in South Africa Our recent week-long trip to South Africa was revealing for two reasons. First, it reminded us of the promise and opportunity of this amazing country and its people. Second, it impressed upon us the deep pessimism of its entire financial community. As the quote at the top of this report suggests, every client we met over seven days was deeply puzzled by continued resilience of foreign inflows. Clients were surprised that foreign investors continued to find value in South Africa's fixed income and currency markets amidst a continued growth downtrend, soft commodity prices, and the ongoing political imbroglio (Chart I-1). The answer to the puzzle is simple: the main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart I-2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist, economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled have supported the ongoing EM carry trade. The actual emerging market growth fundamentals and politics are therefore unimportant. Chart I-1ZAR Rally Amidst Economic##br## And Commodity Downturn Chart I-2EM Carry Trade Is ##br##Alive And Well How likely is it that the carry trade can continue? BCA's Global Investment Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy both argue that U.S. growth will soon accelerate.1 The U.S. financial conditions have eased thanks to lower Treasury yields, narrower credit spreads, a weaker dollar, and higher equity prices (Chart I-3). Historically, an easing in financial conditions has foreshadowed faster growth (Chart I-4). Meanwhile, the relative U.S. growth underperformance versus DM is late and will turn around very soon (Chart I-5). As U.S. economic growth surprises pick up, investors will bid up the 10-year Treasury yield and the greenback, ushering in the end of the carry trade. Chart I-3U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased... Chart I-4...U.S. Growth Should Therefore Sharply Rebound Chart I-5U.S. Underperformance Is Long-In-The-Tooth How resilient are South Africa's economic fundamentals and politics? In this report, we argue that they are not resilient at all. The country is facing considerable structural problems on both economic and political fronts. Even its sole silver lining - that it retains cyclical maneuvering room, i.e., it can adopt fiscal stimulus - will only encourage its leaders to double-down on a populist growth model that has already run out of steam. Cyclical Outlook: A Dark Cloud With A Silver Lining The cyclical outlook for South Africa has darkened as of late. All the drivers that pushed the rand to appreciate over the last 12 months are now showing signs of a reversal: The rand's rally in the past six months or so - a period when it decoupled from commodities prices - is often attributed to its higher interest rates. However, Chart I-6 demonstrates that higher local interest rates historically did not prevent the rand's selloff when metal prices fell. In short, we believe the last six months is an aberration rather than a new norm. Remarkably, hedged yields in South Africa are no longer attractive within the EM space. South Africa already offers the worst hedged returns, after Turkey and China, for the U.S. dollar and euro-based investors (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8).2 The situation will only get worse as the U.S. dollar appreciates and Treasury yields rise. Chart I-6High Local Interest Rates ##br##Are No Panacea For ZAR The drop in precious metal prices will force the rand to selloff (Chart I-9). The unprecedented resilience in the rand was supported by increasing financial flows. Now that these are decreasing, the historic correlation with precious metals should reemerge. The decoupling between the ZAR and AUD since early this year is unprecedented (Chart I-10). Both economies are leveraged to industrial and precious metals as well as coal prices, making both exchange rates correlated. Needless to say, Australia commands much better governance and politics than South Africa. In fact, higher interest rates in South Africa have never precluded the rand's depreciation when the AUD dropped. Chart I-9Is The Divergence With Precious Metals... Chart I-10...And AUD Sustainable? Therefore, we conclude that the rand's strength has not been warranted by any of its historic drivers. It has been due to nothing else than the blind search for yield. Over the medium and long run, the outlook for the rand remains bleak. The ongoing dynamic of high wage growth and negative productivity growth will assure a lingering stagflationary environment (Chart I-11). This is bearish for the rand. Surprisingly, despite a rising currency and falling bond yields over the last 12 months, the South African economy is still showing signs of weakness. The household sector, which represents 61% of the economy, is not showing signs of a recovery yet. Credit growth to households is still falling and private consumption is abysmal. (Chart I-12). On the corporate side, the situation is not reassuring either. Firms are not investing and business confidence has not shown any signs of a significant recovery (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Productivity Is Weak But Wages Are Strong Chart I-12Household Consumption Is Declining Chart I-13No Confidence, No Investment The one positive is that the government has fiscal room to maneuver. South African gross government debt is at a comfortable 51% of GDP. However, we suspect that the nature of fiscal spending will likely result in transfers to appease the population - especially ahead of key elections in late 2017 and 2018 - rather than investments that can genuinely improve productivity. In fact, fiscal spending in the form of transfers could very well entice consumers to import more and consequently widen the current account deficit, putting more downward pressure on the rand. Bottom Line: The commodity price rally in 2016 and falling bond yields failed to buoy the economy. While policymakers do retain fiscal room to stimulate, the problem is that such efforts will likely merely rekindle populist policies that have failed South Africa thus far. Structural Outlook: Late Innings Of The Crisis Of Expectations South Africa is not alone in the EM universe in having failed to improve governance over the past decade. Most EM economies have squandered the commodity bull market and Chinese industrialization, allowing their governance to stagnate or even worsen during the good times (Chart I-14).3 However, South Africa does stand alone when it comes to a tepid rise in middle class, as percent of total population (Chart I-15), and continued high income inequality (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Quality Of EM Governance Declined##br## Amidst The Good Times Chart I-15Middle Class Has ##br##Barely Budged... The data is clear: South Africa is as unequal overall, and its middle class unchanged relative to overall population, as it was at the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. Governance in the country has continued to deteriorate, and while it remains higher than in Sub-Saharan Africa, the gap has astonishingly begun to narrow from both ends (Chart I-17). Chart I-17Governance Gap With Sub-Saharan ##br##Africa Is Closing! A major reason for the deterioration in governance is the "state capture" thesis that has become a popular one in characterizing President Jacob Zuma's rule.4 This process began early, as the country shifted its developmental program in 1996 away from a top-down, state-led, developmental model to one that encouraged a free-market economy balanced with welfare spending. This was a natural result of the global rise of laissez-faire capitalism, the Washington Consensus, and "Third Way" politics of left-leaning parties. A commitment to laissez-faire capitalism and free markets, combined with a strong welfare state, were seen as hallmarks of a successful economy. The problem with this approach is that it confused the symptoms of developed economies with their catalysts. South Africa needed a much more state-led approach to development, one that would have harnessed the resources of the state for productivity-enhancing investments. As such, the laissez-faire approach unsurprisingly failed to address the inequalities of the apartheid system and the country saw a decline in the middle class as percent of total population under both Presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. This pivot towards free-market capitalism ended with the 2007 "Polokwane moment," which saw President Mbeki's free-market, reactive, attempt to address inequality between the white and black populations replaced with the proactive policy of Jacob Zuma. Zuma's more radical approach was to complement welfare transfers and high wage growth with an activist use of state owned enterprises (SOEs) as a vehicle for redistribution. This proactive policy meant using the government's tender system to doll out lucrative contracts to well-connected insiders, under the auspices of helping enfranchise black entrepreneurs and businesses. While the media has focused on the role that the Indian-born Gupta family has played in this process, it is highly unlikely that they are the only beneficiaries. Zuma's administration has, in the name of black enfranchisement and the fight against inequality, essentially rigged the entire government tender system for the sake of its own political preservation. The results of this process are unsurprising. First, government wages have outpaced those in both manufacturing and mining sectors (Chart I-18). Meanwhile, productivity has declined precipitously since 2007 and has been negative since 2012. South Africa has a lower productivity rate than both Latin American EM economies and its neighbors in sub-Saharan Africa (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Government Wages Have Outpaced All Others Chart I-19South African Productivity Has No Peer Financial media and investment research have continued to focus on the intricacies of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) politics. And we do so as well below. However, investors have to understand that South Africa's ills will not be fixed by the appointment of a pro-market finance minister or even the removal of Jacob Zuma from rule. South Africa has failed to develop inclusive economic institutions that engender creative destruction, which is at the heart of all successful development stories.5 South Africa ranked 74th in the World Bank's annual Doing Business report in 2017, an astonishing fall from grace over the past decade (Chart I-20). Compared to regional averages, South Africa barely beats the Sub-Saharan "distance to frontier" scores in several World Bank categories (Chart I-21). This is not due to the gross failure of the Zuma administration to do the "right thing." Rather, it exhibits a structural failing of South African political institutions. This development path is not unique to South Africa. Most sub-Saharan African states experienced a similar regression within 10-20 years of decolonization. Political scientist Robert Bates famously documented how African leaders co-opted colonial-era extractive economic institutions - such as the state marketing boards that purchased all cash crops and exported them on the global market - in order to generate enough revenue to industrialize their economies.6 While their intentions may have originally been noble, if misplaced, they quickly began to use control over marketing boards for political purposes. The rent generated from marketing boards became an immense source of political power for African leaders and they held on to it to the detriment of the economic development of their state. South Africa is far more developed than its sub-Saharan peers were in the 1970s. Nevertheless, its leaders are exhibiting similar rent-seeking behavior, albeit at a much higher level of development. It is also entering a dangerous period in its post-apartheid history: it has now been twenty years since South Africa's effective decolonization and it is facing its first serious economic downturn. Bottom Line: We doubt that anyone in the current leadership elite will be able to fully abandon the rent-seeking behavior of the Zuma administration and improve South Africa's economic institutions. The crisis of expectations among the country's voters is palpable and demands for greater redistribution are rising. This is not a context for pro-market reforms that will encourage creative destruction. Instead, we would expect a doubling-down of populism and greater emphasis on proactive redistribution, which will, at the same time, encourage greater out-migration of talent out of the country and rent seeking behavior from political elites. Can Any One Man Or Woman Fix South Africa? The African National Congress (ANC) will meet in December 2017 to decide the party candidate that will contest the 2019 general election (Diagram I-1). Given the ANC's stranglehold on the country's politics, it is likely that whoever emerges at the upcoming ANC Congress will be the next president of South Africa. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy subscribes to the idea that policymakers are price takers in the political marketplace, not price makers. This is particularly the case in democracies, but it is also the case in some authoritarian regimes where public opinion is relevant. As such, the puzzle investors have to resolve is not what policymakers stand for, but rather what the median voter wants. In South Africa, the median voter lives in a rural area, works in the agriculture or service industry, and is a black citizen. The polls indicate that the main concerns of the median voter are a high structural unemployment rate (Chart I-22), endemic corruption (Chart I-23), poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. Chart I-22Crisis Of Expectations Is this the profile of a median voter about to elect a pro-market reformer willing to pursue painful structural reforms? We do not think so. The two candidates vying for the ANC presidency are the ex-wife of Jacob Zuma and former Chair of the African Union, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, and former Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa is the darling of the international investment community. This is because he has abandoned his previous union credentials - he founded the country's largest trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers in addition to founding the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) - and turned into a successful businessman. As such, the narrative among South Africa bulls (who are exclusively found in Europe and the U.S.) is that he would be able to bridge the divide between the demands for redistribution and pro-market reforms. To the median voter, however, Ramaphosa is alleged to be involved in the Marikana Massacre. Acting as the Deputy President, he ordered increased police presence at the mines and called for the use of force, which resulted in 47 deaths in August-September 2012. Dlamini-Zuma, on the other hand, speaks the language of the median voter while also not being seen as part of Zuma's corrupt entourage. Her credentials are bolstered by a successful tenure as Chair of the African Union and as a woman independent and strong enough to divorce President Zuma. She has not amassed personal wealth and does not hold strong loyalties to a particular faction within the ANC. However, she has begun to parrot Zuma's line that the country requires "radical economic transformation," which is a signal to left-leaning members of the ANC that she will continue much of economic policies begun under Zuma. Both the ANC Youth and Women's Leagues, which are left leaning, support her. The problem that investors face in South Africa is that there is no clear demand for pro-market reforms. Investors cheered the results of the August 2016 municipal election, for example, because the ANC lost in several key cities and saw its total vote share fall by 8%. However, few in the media or investment research community raised the obvious point that the centrist Democratic Alliance only saw its vote total rise by 3% compared to the 2011 election. It was the radically left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters, led by ex-Youth League leader Julius Malema, which saw the largest increase in vote share, by over 8%. In other words, ANC voters that did abandon Zuma most likely fell behind Malema, who is far more redistributionist. As such, we stick to our long-held view that Zuma and the ANC leadership are unlikely to do what investors want them to do given that the South African median voter is swinging further to the left. There is no demand for pro-market reforms and thus policymakers are more likely to double-down on populism. Bottom Line: Dlamini-Zuma is the likely winner of the upcoming ANC Congress, which will effectively decide the next president of South Africa. She has the sufficient left-leaning economic credentials to satisfy the demands for redistribution of the median voter. There is also a chance that she will attempt to clean up the corruption that has become endemic under Zuma, which would undoubtedly be a good thing for the country. However, it is unlikely that the macroeconomic context she will face will be positive, or that she will have the mandate to balance redistributive policies with painful pro-market reforms that would rebuild institutions required for creative destruction. Investment Implications South African assets are ultimately at the mercy of foreign inflows. When the dollar is weakening, U.S. bond yields falling, and Chinese growth stable, even the election of Julius Malema to the presidency would not dent foreign enthusiasm for yield in South African assets. Given the expected improvement in U.S. growth and the transitory nature of the drop in the U.S. inflation rate, we expect the global macro backdrop to worsen substantially for carry trades in general, and for South Africa in particular. China remains the wild card in our analysis, but its credit and fiscal impulse has rolled over, suggesting slower import growth over the next six months (Chart I-24). Even if Chinese policymakers react by re-stimulating the economy, the effects will only be felt in early 2018 given lead times. When the global carry trade reverses, it will not matter who is in charge of South Africa. Investors will realize that the country has failed to address serious socio-economic ills that have plagued South Africa since the end of apartheid. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy continues to recommend the following investment positions: Chart I-24China Slowdown Is A Risk To EM Chart I-25Yield Curve Will Steepen Continue shorting ZAR versus USD and MXN. Underweight South African stocks, sovereign credit and domestic bonds relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: bet on yield-curve steepening (Chart I-25). The short end of the curve will be steady but populist politics, larger fiscal deficits/higher public debt, and an inflationary backdrop will push up long-end yields. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Beement Alemayehu, Research Assistant beementa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stocks Are From Mars, Bonds Are From Venus?" dated June 23, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Contradictions And A Resolution," dated June 14, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "EM Local Bonds: Looking At Hedged Yields," dated May 10, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 'Governance' is a catchall term that attempts to capture the quality of public service delivery, broadly defined. In essence, investors can consider governance as a factor that underpins the quality of political institutions. We rely on the World Bank's Development Indicators because the World Bank aggregates the work of several credible surveys on governance. These indicators are also useful because the World Bank standardizes the results in a way that allows cross-country/region comparisons. We then aggregate the scores across five different variables and look for trends and changes over time. 4 Please see State Capacity Research Project, "Betrayal Of The Promise: How South Africa Is Being Stolen," dated May 2017, available at pari.org.za. 5 Please see Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Business, 2012). 6 Please see Robert H. Bates, Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2014 edition). Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights The EM carry trade - supported by a commodity price rally, falling bond yields, and a weak USD - have propped up South African assets; Investors have largely ignored politics and focused on personalities instead of political fundamentals; South Africa's socio-economic factors - governance, middle class wellbeing, productivity, and unemployment - have all regressed; The "median voter" has therefore turned more radical and left-wing; Stay short ZAR versus USD and MXN, stay underweight stocks, sovereign credit, and domestic bonds, and bet on yield-curve steepening. Feature Why do investors in Europe and the U.S. continue to invest in South Africa? - Every client in South Africa Our recent week-long trip to South Africa was revealing for two reasons. First, it reminded us of the promise and opportunity of this amazing country and its people. Second, it impressed upon us the deep pessimism of its entire financial community. As the quote at the top of this report suggests, every client we met over seven days was deeply puzzled by continued resilience of foreign inflows. Clients were surprised that foreign investors continued to find value in South Africa's fixed income and currency markets amidst a continued growth downtrend, soft commodity prices, and the ongoing political imbroglio (Chart I-1). The answer to the puzzle is simple: the main driving force behind EM risk assets, year-to-date, has been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart I-2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist, economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled have supported the ongoing EM carry trade. The actual emerging market growth fundamentals and politics are therefore unimportant. Chart I-1ZAR Rally Amidst Economic##br## And Commodity Downturn Chart I-2EM Carry Trade Is ##br##Alive And Well How likely is it that the carry trade can continue? BCA's Global Investment Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy both argue that U.S. growth will soon accelerate.1 The U.S. financial conditions have eased thanks to lower Treasury yields, narrower credit spreads, a weaker dollar, and higher equity prices (Chart I-3). Historically, an easing in financial conditions has foreshadowed faster growth (Chart I-4). Meanwhile, the relative U.S. growth underperformance versus DM is late and will turn around very soon (Chart I-5). As U.S. economic growth surprises pick up, investors will bid up the 10-year Treasury yield and the greenback, ushering in the end of the carry trade. Chart I-3U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased... Chart I-4...U.S. Growth Should Therefore Sharply Rebound Chart I-5U.S. Underperformance Is Long-In-The-Tooth How resilient are South Africa's economic fundamentals and politics? In this report, we argue that they are not resilient at all. The country is facing considerable structural problems on both economic and political fronts. Even its sole silver lining - that it retains cyclical maneuvering room, i.e., it can adopt fiscal stimulus - will only encourage its leaders to double-down on a populist growth model that has already run out of steam. Cyclical Outlook: A Dark Cloud With A Silver Lining The cyclical outlook for South Africa has darkened as of late. All the drivers that pushed the rand to appreciate over the last 12 months are now showing signs of a reversal: The rand's rally in the past six months or so - a period when it decoupled from commodities prices - is often attributed to its higher interest rates. However, Chart I-6 demonstrates that higher local interest rates historically did not prevent the rand's selloff when metal prices fell. In short, we believe the last six months is an aberration rather than a new norm. Remarkably, hedged yields in South Africa are no longer attractive within the EM space. South Africa already offers the worst hedged returns, after Turkey and China, for the U.S. dollar and euro-based investors (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8).2 The situation will only get worse as the U.S. dollar appreciates and Treasury yields rise. Chart I-6High Local Interest Rates ##br##Are No Panacea For ZAR The drop in precious metal prices will force the rand to selloff (Chart I-9). The unprecedented resilience in the rand was supported by increasing financial flows. Now that these are decreasing, the historic correlation with precious metals should reemerge. The decoupling between the ZAR and AUD since early this year is unprecedented (Chart I-10). Both economies are leveraged to industrial and precious metals as well as coal prices, making both exchange rates correlated. Needless to say, Australia commands much better governance and politics than South Africa. In fact, higher interest rates in South Africa have never precluded the rand's depreciation when the AUD dropped. Chart I-9Is The Divergence With Precious Metals... Chart I-10...And AUD Sustainable? Therefore, we conclude that the rand's strength has not been warranted by any of its historic drivers. It has been due to nothing else than the blind search for yield. Over the medium and long run, the outlook for the rand remains bleak. The ongoing dynamic of high wage growth and negative productivity growth will assure a lingering stagflationary environment (Chart I-11). This is bearish for the rand. Surprisingly, despite a rising currency and falling bond yields over the last 12 months, the South African economy is still showing signs of weakness. The household sector, which represents 61% of the economy, is not showing signs of a recovery yet. Credit growth to households is still falling and private consumption is abysmal. (Chart I-12). On the corporate side, the situation is not reassuring either. Firms are not investing and business confidence has not shown any signs of a significant recovery (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Productivity Is Weak But Wages Are Strong Chart I-12Household Consumption Is Declining Chart I-13No Confidence, No Investment The one positive is that the government has fiscal room to maneuver. South African gross government debt is at a comfortable 51% of GDP. However, we suspect that the nature of fiscal spending will likely result in transfers to appease the population - especially ahead of key elections in late 2017 and 2018 - rather than investments that can genuinely improve productivity. In fact, fiscal spending in the form of transfers could very well entice consumers to import more and consequently widen the current account deficit, putting more downward pressure on the rand. Bottom Line: The commodity price rally in 2016 and falling bond yields failed to buoy the economy. While policymakers do retain fiscal room to stimulate, the problem is that such efforts will likely merely rekindle populist policies that have failed South Africa thus far. Structural Outlook: Late Innings Of The Crisis Of Expectations South Africa is not alone in the EM universe in having failed to improve governance over the past decade. Most EM economies have squandered the commodity bull market and Chinese industrialization, allowing their governance to stagnate or even worsen during the good times (Chart I-14).3 However, South Africa does stand alone when it comes to a tepid rise in middle class, as percent of total population (Chart I-15), and continued high income inequality (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Quality Of EM Governance Declined##br## Amidst The Good Times Chart I-15Middle Class Has ##br##Barely Budged... The data is clear: South Africa is as unequal overall, and its middle class unchanged relative to overall population, as it was at the end of apartheid in the early 1990s. Governance in the country has continued to deteriorate, and while it remains higher than in Sub-Saharan Africa, the gap has astonishingly begun to narrow from both ends (Chart I-17). Chart I-17Governance Gap With Sub-Saharan ##br##Africa Is Closing! A major reason for the deterioration in governance is the "state capture" thesis that has become a popular one in characterizing President Jacob Zuma's rule.4 This process began early, as the country shifted its developmental program in 1996 away from a top-down, state-led, developmental model to one that encouraged a free-market economy balanced with welfare spending. This was a natural result of the global rise of laissez-faire capitalism, the Washington Consensus, and "Third Way" politics of left-leaning parties. A commitment to laissez-faire capitalism and free markets, combined with a strong welfare state, were seen as hallmarks of a successful economy. The problem with this approach is that it confused the symptoms of developed economies with their catalysts. South Africa needed a much more state-led approach to development, one that would have harnessed the resources of the state for productivity-enhancing investments. As such, the laissez-faire approach unsurprisingly failed to address the inequalities of the apartheid system and the country saw a decline in the middle class as percent of total population under both Presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki. This pivot towards free-market capitalism ended with the 2007 "Polokwane moment," which saw President Mbeki's free-market, reactive, attempt to address inequality between the white and black populations replaced with the proactive policy of Jacob Zuma. Zuma's more radical approach was to complement welfare transfers and high wage growth with an activist use of state owned enterprises (SOEs) as a vehicle for redistribution. This proactive policy meant using the government's tender system to doll out lucrative contracts to well-connected insiders, under the auspices of helping enfranchise black entrepreneurs and businesses. While the media has focused on the role that the Indian-born Gupta family has played in this process, it is highly unlikely that they are the only beneficiaries. Zuma's administration has, in the name of black enfranchisement and the fight against inequality, essentially rigged the entire government tender system for the sake of its own political preservation. The results of this process are unsurprising. First, government wages have outpaced those in both manufacturing and mining sectors (Chart I-18). Meanwhile, productivity has declined precipitously since 2007 and has been negative since 2012. South Africa has a lower productivity rate than both Latin American EM economies and its neighbors in sub-Saharan Africa (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Government Wages Have Outpaced All Others Chart I-19South African Productivity Has No Peer Financial media and investment research have continued to focus on the intricacies of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) politics. And we do so as well below. However, investors have to understand that South Africa's ills will not be fixed by the appointment of a pro-market finance minister or even the removal of Jacob Zuma from rule. South Africa has failed to develop inclusive economic institutions that engender creative destruction, which is at the heart of all successful development stories.5 South Africa ranked 74th in the World Bank's annual Doing Business report in 2017, an astonishing fall from grace over the past decade (Chart I-20). Compared to regional averages, South Africa barely beats the Sub-Saharan "distance to frontier" scores in several World Bank categories (Chart I-21). This is not due to the gross failure of the Zuma administration to do the "right thing." Rather, it exhibits a structural failing of South African political institutions. This development path is not unique to South Africa. Most sub-Saharan African states experienced a similar regression within 10-20 years of decolonization. Political scientist Robert Bates famously documented how African leaders co-opted colonial-era extractive economic institutions - such as the state marketing boards that purchased all cash crops and exported them on the global market - in order to generate enough revenue to industrialize their economies.6 While their intentions may have originally been noble, if misplaced, they quickly began to use control over marketing boards for political purposes. The rent generated from marketing boards became an immense source of political power for African leaders and they held on to it to the detriment of the economic development of their state. South Africa is far more developed than its sub-Saharan peers were in the 1970s. Nevertheless, its leaders are exhibiting similar rent-seeking behavior, albeit at a much higher level of development. It is also entering a dangerous period in its post-apartheid history: it has now been twenty years since South Africa's effective decolonization and it is facing its first serious economic downturn. Bottom Line: We doubt that anyone in the current leadership elite will be able to fully abandon the rent-seeking behavior of the Zuma administration and improve South Africa's economic institutions. The crisis of expectations among the country's voters is palpable and demands for greater redistribution are rising. This is not a context for pro-market reforms that will encourage creative destruction. Instead, we would expect a doubling-down of populism and greater emphasis on proactive redistribution, which will, at the same time, encourage greater out-migration of talent out of the country and rent seeking behavior from political elites. Can Any One Man Or Woman Fix South Africa? The African National Congress (ANC) will meet in December 2017 to decide the party candidate that will contest the 2019 general election (Diagram I-1). Given the ANC's stranglehold on the country's politics, it is likely that whoever emerges at the upcoming ANC Congress will be the next president of South Africa. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy subscribes to the idea that policymakers are price takers in the political marketplace, not price makers. This is particularly the case in democracies, but it is also the case in some authoritarian regimes where public opinion is relevant. As such, the puzzle investors have to resolve is not what policymakers stand for, but rather what the median voter wants. In South Africa, the median voter lives in a rural area, works in the agriculture or service industry, and is a black citizen. The polls indicate that the main concerns of the median voter are a high structural unemployment rate (Chart I-22), endemic corruption (Chart I-23), poor healthcare infrastructure, and a desire for aggressive, and targeted, redistributive economic policies. Chart I-22Crisis Of Expectations Is this the profile of a median voter about to elect a pro-market reformer willing to pursue painful structural reforms? We do not think so. The two candidates vying for the ANC presidency are the ex-wife of Jacob Zuma and former Chair of the African Union, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, and former Deputy President, Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa is the darling of the international investment community. This is because he has abandoned his previous union credentials - he founded the country's largest trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers in addition to founding the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) - and turned into a successful businessman. As such, the narrative among South Africa bulls (who are exclusively found in Europe and the U.S.) is that he would be able to bridge the divide between the demands for redistribution and pro-market reforms. To the median voter, however, Ramaphosa is alleged to be involved in the Marikana Massacre. Acting as the Deputy President, he ordered increased police presence at the mines and called for the use of force, which resulted in 47 deaths in August-September 2012. Dlamini-Zuma, on the other hand, speaks the language of the median voter while also not being seen as part of Zuma's corrupt entourage. Her credentials are bolstered by a successful tenure as Chair of the African Union and as a woman independent and strong enough to divorce President Zuma. She has not amassed personal wealth and does not hold strong loyalties to a particular faction within the ANC. However, she has begun to parrot Zuma's line that the country requires "radical economic transformation," which is a signal to left-leaning members of the ANC that she will continue much of economic policies begun under Zuma. Both the ANC Youth and Women's Leagues, which are left leaning, support her. The problem that investors face in South Africa is that there is no clear demand for pro-market reforms. Investors cheered the results of the August 2016 municipal election, for example, because the ANC lost in several key cities and saw its total vote share fall by 8%. However, few in the media or investment research community raised the obvious point that the centrist Democratic Alliance only saw its vote total rise by 3% compared to the 2011 election. It was the radically left-wing Economic Freedom Fighters, led by ex-Youth League leader Julius Malema, which saw the largest increase in vote share, by over 8%. In other words, ANC voters that did abandon Zuma most likely fell behind Malema, who is far more redistributionist. As such, we stick to our long-held view that Zuma and the ANC leadership are unlikely to do what investors want them to do given that the South African median voter is swinging further to the left. There is no demand for pro-market reforms and thus policymakers are more likely to double-down on populism. Bottom Line: Dlamini-Zuma is the likely winner of the upcoming ANC Congress, which will effectively decide the next president of South Africa. She has the sufficient left-leaning economic credentials to satisfy the demands for redistribution of the median voter. There is also a chance that she will attempt to clean up the corruption that has become endemic under Zuma, which would undoubtedly be a good thing for the country. However, it is unlikely that the macroeconomic context she will face will be positive, or that she will have the mandate to balance redistributive policies with painful pro-market reforms that would rebuild institutions required for creative destruction. Investment Implications South African assets are ultimately at the mercy of foreign inflows. When the dollar is weakening, U.S. bond yields falling, and Chinese growth stable, even the election of Julius Malema to the presidency would not dent foreign enthusiasm for yield in South African assets. Given the expected improvement in U.S. growth and the transitory nature of the drop in the U.S. inflation rate, we expect the global macro backdrop to worsen substantially for carry trades in general, and for South Africa in particular. China remains the wild card in our analysis, but its credit and fiscal impulse has rolled over, suggesting slower import growth over the next six months (Chart I-24). Even if Chinese policymakers react by re-stimulating the economy, the effects will only be felt in early 2018 given lead times. When the global carry trade reverses, it will not matter who is in charge of South Africa. Investors will realize that the country has failed to address serious socio-economic ills that have plagued South Africa since the end of apartheid. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy continues to recommend the following investment positions: Chart I-24China Slowdown Is A Risk To EM Chart I-25Yield Curve Will Steepen Continue shorting ZAR versus USD and MXN. Underweight South African stocks, sovereign credit and domestic bonds relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: bet on yield-curve steepening (Chart I-25). The short end of the curve will be steady but populist politics, larger fiscal deficits/higher public debt, and an inflationary backdrop will push up long-end yields. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Beement Alemayehu, Research Assistant beementa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stocks Are From Mars, Bonds Are From Venus?" dated June 23, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Contradictions And A Resolution," dated June 14, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "EM Local Bonds: Looking At Hedged Yields," dated May 10, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 'Governance' is a catchall term that attempts to capture the quality of public service delivery, broadly defined. In essence, investors can consider governance as a factor that underpins the quality of political institutions. We rely on the World Bank's Development Indicators because the World Bank aggregates the work of several credible surveys on governance. These indicators are also useful because the World Bank standardizes the results in a way that allows cross-country/region comparisons. We then aggregate the scores across five different variables and look for trends and changes over time. 4 Please see State Capacity Research Project, "Betrayal Of The Promise: How South Africa Is Being Stolen," dated May 2017, available at pari.org.za. 5 Please see Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Business, 2012). 6 Please see Robert H. Bates, Markets and States in Tropical Africa: The Political Basis of Agricultural Policies (Berkeley, University of California Press, 2014 edition). Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Trump's failures have helped fuel the bull market; Yet inflation and Trump legislative wins will embolden the Fed; The U.K. will have yet another election by 2019; Dodd-Frank repeal is a no go ... but small banks may get relief; The Tea Party just found its hard constraint ... in Kansas. Feature Investors in South Africa surprised us last week. The first question on everyone's mind was "Will Trump be impeached?" Our answer that impeachment is highly unlikely at least until the midterm elections was received with suspicion.1 The perspective of our South African clients is understandable. Their domestic assets have been underpinned since Trump's election by a phenomenon we like to call "the Trump put." The thesis posits that U.S. politics will remain a mess for much of the year, delaying any progress on populist economic policies that would have buoyed U.S. nominal GDP growth and given the Fed a reason to hike interest rates more aggressively. The result is a weak dollar, lower 10-year Treasury yields, and a rally in global risk assets (Chart 1). Of course, stubbornly weak inflation and disappointing Q1 GDP numbers bear responsibility as well as Trump (Chart 2). Chart 1The 'Trump Put' Chart 2Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market For our South African clients, the fate of President Trump is irrelevant. What matters is that the American political imbroglio continues, reducing the likelihood of a hawkish mistake from the Fed, and thus keeping EM risk assets well bid. The market has generally agreed. Several assets associated with Trump's populist agenda have reversed their gains since the election. The yield curve, small caps, and high tax rate equities have all shown signs of disappointment with the Trump agenda (Chart 3). If the Trump put were to continue, we would expect U.S. bonds and stocks to rally, DXY to continue to face headwinds, and international stocks to outperform U.S. stocks. That said, the proxies for Trump's agenda in Chart 3 are starting to perk up. They may be sniffing out some positive political signs, such as the movement in the Senate on the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The budget reconciliation procedure - a process by which Republicans in Congress intend to avoid the Democrat filibuster in the Senate - requires Obamacare to be resolved before the House and the Senate can take up tax reform.2 If Obamacare clears Congress's calendar by the August recess, the odds of tax reform (or merely tax cuts) being passed by the end of 2017 will rise considerably. Second, former Director of the FBI James Comey's testimony was a non-event. We refused to cover it in these pages as we expected it to be theatre. The market had already digested everything that Comey was going to say, given that he had leaked the juiciest components of his testimony weeks ahead of the event. Chart 3Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Third, President Trump's approval rating with Republican voters remains resilient (Chart 4). If the worst has passed with the Russian collusion investigation - which we expect to be the case now that Comey's testimony has come and gone with little relevance - we could see GOP voters rally around the president. Several clients have pointed out that our measure is less relevant given the decline in voters who identify as Republicans (Chart 5). We disagree. As long as Republican voters vote in Republican primaries, they can act as a constraint on GOP members in Congress who are thinking of abandoning the president's populist agenda. This brings us to the main event: the economy. Our colleague Ryan Swift, who writes BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy, could not care less about the ongoing political drama. As Ryan has argued in a cogent report that we highly recommend to clients, the Fed's median projection for two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the end of the year, and for PCE inflation to reach 1.9% (Chart 6), is not going to happen if inflation continues to disappoint over the summer.3 The market seems to be saying that a PCE of 1.9% is unlikely. Core PCE inflation is running at only 1.54% year-over-year through April, and will probably stay low in May given that year-over-year core CPI fell from 2% in March to 1.89% in April. Chart 5Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Chart 6Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Ryan's Philips Curve model, however, disagrees with the market. The model looks to approximate Chair Yellen's own philosophy for forecasting inflation, which she outlined in a September 2015 speech.4 Specifically, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy models core PCE as a function of: 12-month lag of core PCE; Long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters; Resource utilization; Non-oil import prices relative to overall core PCE. BCA's core PCE model is sending a strong signal that the market's inflation expectations are overly pessimistic (Chart 7). Even after stressing the model under several adverse scenarios, Ryan concludes that it is very likely that core PCE inflation will indeed approach the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year-end. The U.S. economy is quickly running out of slack, with unemployment at a 16-year low of 4.3%. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally attached workers and those in part-time employment purely for economic reasons, has dropped to its pre-recession print of 8.4% (Chart 8). Chart 7Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Chart 8U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack Wages are also rising, with the underlying trend in wage growth having accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 9). The acceleration has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 10). Chart 9Wages Heating Up Chart 10Wage Improvements Broad-Based BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, therefore expects the Fed to raise rates in line with its own expectations. In fact, the Fed could expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later in the year.5 It will be difficult for the Fed to ignore macroeconomic data, even if, from a political perspective, the Trump put continues. The analogy we use with clients in meetings is that of the U.S. economy as a camp fire around which the various market participants - bond and equity investors, foreign and domestic, etc. - are huddled. According to our sister publications that conduct macroeconomic research, that campfire is well lit. And according to our political research, "Uncle Donny" had a few too many drinks and is about to pour some bourbon on the fire to show the kids a good time. Chart 11Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures For the Trump put to continue, we would have to see a combination of the following: GOP voters begin to abandon President Trump; Congress remains embroiled in Obamacare debates through FY2017, only seriously picking up on tax reform and other agenda items in FY2018. Greater doubts would undermine the recent uptick in assets tied to Trump's policy agenda (Chart 11). Impeachment concerns heat up again due to new revelations that implicate President Trump directly. So far impeachment talk has not correlated with the rally in Treasuries but it could do so if new evidence comes to light. Perhaps Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and special counsel investigating Russia's role in the election, will drop another bombshell later this year. In addition, for the Trump put to continue our colleagues Ryan and Peter would have to be wrong about the economy and inflation. For investors interested in playing the Trump put, and allocating funds to EM assets in particular, we would caution against it. However, given that BCA's bond and FX views have been challenged over the past several months by the Trump put, we understand why many of our clients are itching to chase the global asset rally. The summer months will be critical. Does Brexit Still Mean Brexit? We posited last week that the extraordinary election in the U.K. was about austerity and, more importantly, about repudiating the Conservative Party's fiscal policies.6 This remains our view. The most investment-relevant message to take from the election is that U.K. fiscal policy will become easier over the life of the coalition government, while monetary policy remains stuck in D - for dovish. This should weigh on the pound over the course of the year. That said, investors will begin to wonder about the longevity of the coalition between the U.K. Conservative Party and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In practice the coalition will have only a five-seat majority, which would be tied for the second-smallest margin since Harold Wilson in 1964 (Chart 12). Technically it is an even smaller one-seat majority. U.K. governments with a majority of fewer than ten seats are rare and usually only last one-to-two years (Harold Wilson's four-seat 1974-79 run is an exception). This bodes ill for May's government - that is, if she survives today's brewing leadership challenge from within her party. We have no idea if the election means a softer Brexit as we have no idea - and neither does anyone else - what that means. Generally speaking, the wafer-thin majority for the Tories means the following: "No deal is better than a bad deal" is no longer going to be acceptable to the government or the public; London will end up paying a larger "exit fee" than it probably thinks it will; There will be no favorable deal for the U.K.'s financial industry. In essence, the U.K. clearly has the weaker hand in the upcoming negotiations. Cheers went up in Brussels. Does this change anything? First, we never bought the argument that the U.K. had a strong negotiating position because continental Europeans want to export BMWs to consumers in Britain. The EU is a far bigger market for the U.K. than the U.K. is for the EU (Chart 13). On this measure alone, the U.K. was always going to be the underdog in the negotiations. Chart 13The U.K. Lacks Leverage Second, the influence of Tory Euroskeptics has been reduced. That might appear counterintuitive, given that May wanted to reduce their influence by getting a bigger majority. However, it is highly unlikely that she will get the ultimate EU deal through Westminster, with a five-seat majority, without at least some votes from the opposition. Euroskeptics will therefore either remain quiet and compliant or force May to seek a deal that Labour MPs could agree to. Which brings us to the very likely scenario that the final deal will not pass Westminster without a new election. As we argued right after the referendum, the U.K. will likely have a "Brexit election" sometime in 2019.7 There is no way around it now. At very least the ruling alliance will face a contradiction in trying to soften Brexit while maintaining a strict stance on immigration. And given the weak majority, if Labour does not play ball, the Tories will have to call a new election on the basis of the deal they conclude. The good news for the Conservative Party is that the polls continue to show that a majority of U.K. voters support Brexit (Chart 14). Furthermore, the two Brexit-lite campaign promises by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were the least preferred policies ahead of the election (Chart 15, see next page). However, the election also saw a complete collapse in support for Euroskeptic-leaning parties, in terms of share of the overall vote (Chart 16). Could Brexit ultimately be reversed? Certainly the odds have risen. Furthermore, there does appear to be some regret amongst U.K. voters, with a recent survey showing a decline in national identification: now more Britons identify as "also European" than ever (Chart 17). Nonetheless, a full reversal of Brexit will still require an exogenous shock, such as a recession or a geopolitical calamity that convinces the U.K. that they need Europe. Investors should remain vigilant of the polls. A clear trend reversal in Chart 14 would constitute a political opportunity for the opposition parties to campaign on a new referendum. Chart 16Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Bottom Line: Odds of a softer Brexit have certainly risen as the Tories face considerable domestic constraints in their negotiating strategy with the EU. We continue to believe that the negotiations will not be acrimonious and therefore the pound will not fall below its lows on January 16. However, it may re-test that 1.2 level due to a coming mix of easy fiscal and monetary policy over the course of the year. U.S.: Doing A Number On Dodd-Frank Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff, Than an ambulance down in the valley! - Joseph Malins, "The Fence or the Ambulance," 1895 The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 by a vote of 233-186 on June 8. This is the GOP's second major attempt, after the Affordable Care Act, to rewrite a signature law of President Obama's administration. This time it is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, known simply as "Dodd-Frank," that is on the docket. The bill's prospects in the Senate are dim. President Trump promised to "do a number" on Dodd-Frank shortly after coming into office, by which he meant dismantling the law. The so-called "CHOICE Act" put forward by Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) now goes to the Senate, where it faces a high hurdle because Democrats can filibuster it, forcing the GOP to summon 60 votes. So the question is what kind of a "number" can the GOP actually do to Dodd-Frank, and does it matter? First a little bit of background.8 Dodd-Frank cleared Congress in the wake of the subprime financial crisis, July 2010. It had both a quixotic and a more pragmatic aim: the first to reduce the likelihood of future financial crises, and the second to improve the ability of regulators to stem risks as they emerge. The law has never been fully implemented and is best understood as a work in progress. The law grants the Federal Reserve and other agencies greater powers of oversight, prevention, and crisis management. In particular it ensures that the Fed would regulate not only banks but also non-bank investment companies and other financial firms (such as the giant insurance company AIG that had to be bailed out at the height of the crisis). It also frees the Fed of the responsibility to rescue failing institutions or dismantle them, handing those duties over to others, while still enabling the Fed to act as lender of last resort. The key provisions are as follows: Impose tougher capital standards: In keeping with the international Basel III banking reforms,9 Dodd-Frank tried to ensure that banks were better fortified against liquidity shortages in future. The new standards would apply both to domestic banks and foreign banks with American subsidiaries. Orderly Liquidation Authority: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a major institution born amidst the Great Depression, would take over the responsibility of liquidating failing firms in the event of a crisis - assuming Treasury's go-ahead due to the systemic importance of the failing firm. Additional measures would hold the entire financial sector responsible for the bill if the FDIC made losses in the process. Each firm would have to maintain a "living will" to make the resolution process easier in the event of disaster. A new Financial Stability Oversight Council: Chaired by the Treasury Secretary and consisting of the various financial regulatory bodies, this council would identify systemically important financial companies, monitor them, and take actions to prevent crises. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the anti-Wall Street firebrand, the bureau would be funded by the Fed but otherwise entirely independent of it, and tasked with patrolling the banks on behalf of consumers. The Volcker Rule: The rule, named after former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, would force banks to curtail a number of short-term, high-risk trading activities on their own accounts, including derivatives, futures, and options, unless to hedge risks or serve bank customers. This was viewed as a partial reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall law, a Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking but was repealed by President Clinton in 1999. Republicans want to overturn Dodd-Frank to increase financial sector profits, credit growth, economic growth, and animal spirits. Lending has arguably suffered as a result of the new regulations (Chart 18). The share of bank loans to overall bank credit has remained subdued, reflecting bank behavior under QE and possibly also risk-aversion under tighter regulation (Chart 19). Chart 18Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Chart 19Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Republicans would also satisfy an ideological goal of reducing state involvement, which grew as a result of the law. In addition, the CBO estimates that the proposed rewrite would cut the budget deficit by a net $22.3 billion over a ten-year period.10 A very small amount, but again in line with GOP's political bent. The way the CHOICE Act would work is to create an "escape hatch" that would allow banks that maintain capital-to-asset ratio of over 10% to bypass Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial companies that do not meet the 10% leverage ratio could either raise funds or remain subject to Dodd-Frank oversight, including required capital ratios, stress tests, living wills, and other regulations. Critically, the 10% leverage ratio for those banks that opt out of Dodd-Frank would not be calculated using risk-weightings for different assets (whereas Dodd-Frank requires both risk-weighted and non-risk-weighted capital ratios to be maintained). Therefore, banks that opt out would be able to take on greater risk while still fulfilling minimum capital requirements. This is supposed to boost lending, earnings, and growth. About 70% of the $18 trillion in U.S. banking assets belongs to banks defined by Dodd-Frank as "systemically important." The eight U.S. banks defined as "globally systemic important banks" account for about $9 trillion in assets and are unlikely to take advantage of the Republicans' escape hatch because they would then have to raise new capital and yet would still be subject to international Basel III regulations even if exempted from Dodd-Frank. The CBO estimates that banks holding about 2% of the bank assets held by systemically important banks (i.e. $252 billion) would opt out of Dodd-Frank (Chart 20). Further, the CBO estimates that, among non-systemically important banks (30% of $18 trillion total banking assets), the banks that both meet the 10% leverage ratio and would opt out of Dodd-Frank account for about 7% of U.S. banking assets ($1.26 trillion) (see Chart 20 above). Community banks (with assets under $10 billion each) and credit unions are especially likely to do so. Therefore, if the Republican bill were to become law, banks comprising something like $1.5 trillion in U.S. banking assets would become less restricted and eligible to adopt riskier trading practices free of Dodd-Frank policing. The greatest impact will be in areas with a higher concentration of small banks and credit unions than elsewhere. These U.S. banks would also, arguably, become more likely to take excessive risks and fail at some future point. Using probabilistic models for bank failures, the CBO found that the U.S.'s Deposit Insurance Fund would only suffer an additional $600 million in losses over the next ten years as a result of this increase in risk. It is a credible estimate but the reality could be far costlier if more and more banks gain the ability to bypass regulation or if banks significantly change their behavior to take advantage of the regulatory loophole. Other aspects of the bill would: Repeal the FDIC's orderly liquidation fund: The private sector would largely take over the responsibility for managing liquidations. The CBO estimates that the federal government would save an estimated $14.5 billion in liquidation costs over ten years. Eliminate the Volcker Rule: Banks would be able to trade riskier assets on their own accounts and forge closer relationships with private equity and hedge funds. Audit the Fed: Within one year of passage, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would audit the Fed's board of governors and the Federal Reserve regional banks, including their handling of monetary policy. The Fed's open market committee (FOMC) would also have to establish a new interest rate target, based on economic parameters, which the GAO would monitor. Reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Board: The agency would have its powers neutered and funding dependent on the Congress, rather than transfers from the Fed. It would be re-branded as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency and have its power to oversee institutions with more than $10 billion in assets taken away, making it, in effect, a monitor of small banks only. Cut penalties for violating regulations: However, outright criminality would be punished more severely. Various authorities and institutions would be tweaked, mostly in accordance with the general aim of reducing regulatory burdens on the financial sector. So, what options do the Republicans have going forward?11 Republicans either need 60 votes to defeat a Senate filibuster or they need procedural work-arounds like budget reconciliation. Chart 21Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Some Republicans claim that certain elements of the rewrite can be tucked into a reconciliation bill. However, reconciliation requires a single, concentrated policy focus. The GOP is currently undertaking an unprecedented two budget reconciliation bills in a single year: first, the FY2017 reconciliation procedure to repeal Obamacare, and second, the FY2018 procedure to cut taxes. Rewriting Dodd-Frank is a far cry from either health care or tax reform. Dodd-Frank measures crammed into either of these bills would likely be revoked under the so-called "Byrd Rule" which keeps the reconciliation process focused and excludes extraneous material.12 So it is unlikely that this method will work. The FY2018 budget resolution will be a critical signpost. Second, it is hard to see how a bipartisan rewrite of Dodd-Frank is possible. Dodd-Frank was the Democrats' signature response to the subprime mortgage debacle and broader financial crisis. They will not participate in dismantling it. We cannot see eight Democrats joining Republicans in the Senate for what Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has called "collective amnesia." However, there is one general principle that could find its way into law: the idea of giving small, regional banks a reprieve from Dodd-Frank requirements. Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has tentatively supported giving these banks a break.13 These banks, with under $10 billion in assets, face the most difficulty in meeting Dodd-Frank's requirements and yet tend to meet the 10% leverage ratio. Politicians could at least attempt to make a popular argument for easing the burden on small community banks and credit unions, which are often vital to local communities. The same cannot be said for the Dodd-Frank rewrite as a whole, which smacks of granting impunity to Wall Street. Still, we think that even a bill focused exclusively on helping small banks would have trouble passing on its own. The legislative agenda is too busy in 2017; while 2018 will see midterm elections, when few candidates will want to appear soft on Wall Street. Instead, a provision helping small banks could pass if tacked onto the larger budget bill or bills for FY2018, if not later. It would have to be made palatable to Democrats, or else it would be perceived as a "poison pill" and risk adding to the numerous risks of government shutdown over the budget this fall. Other than these legislative options, the Trump administration can ease regulation, or relax enforcement, through executive action, as it has already promised to do. Assuming America's financial sector will get a reprieve, investors could capitalize on it by favoring small U.S. bank equities over large bank equities. The share price of small banks relative to large banks, which rallied in the aftermath of Trump's election only to fall back in the subsequent months, has recently perked up (Chart 21). Relative earnings have been flat over the same period. If Dodd-Frank is partially watered down, these banks should see earnings improve, which should drive up their share prices. Our colleagues at BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy are positive on global bank equities, particularly European and American ones. The latter are still relatively affordable as they undertake the long trek of recovery after a once-in-a-generation crisis (Chart 22). U.S. banks have notably better fundamentals than peers in Europe and Japan - more capital, higher net interest margins, lower or equal NPL ratios. They also stand to benefit from relatively faster rising interest rates (Chart 23).14 Chart 22The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery Chart 23U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally In addition, the FiscalNote Financial Sector Index suggests that the flow of legislative and regulatory proposals has been steadily getting less onerous on the financial sector.15 Chart 24 is an aggregation of the favorability scores - which assess whether the bill is likely to be favorable or unfavorable to the sector - for all U.S. Congressional legislation that is determined to be relevant to the financial sector since 2006. It provides a snapshot of the regulatory environment for the financial sector at any given point in time. Chart 24Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Risks to the view? Republicans could somehow squeeze a broader Dodd-Frank rewrite through the budget reconciliation process. We think the probability of this is less than 10%. Financially, this would deliver a bigger jolt to the financial sector, and financial stocks, than currently expected. But it would still benefit small banks more than large ones. Politically, a full repeal could add to Republican woes in 2018 - particularly if it is their only legislative achievement. It may well be political suicide to contest the 2018 midterm election on two pieces of legislation: one that denies millions of Americans health insurance and another that favors Wall Street. A full rewrite would also probably increase systemic financial risks. Even deregulation just for the small banks would do so. Lawmakers, focused on restraining the "too big to fail" giants, could end up clearing the way for excesses among the pygmies. That said, excessive regulation can also fuel shadow banking, a risk in itself. And the next crisis may well emanate from somewhere other than the financial sector. Bottom Line: Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits even for Republicans in an environment of populism. However, a bill focused on lightening the regulatory load on small banks has a chance of passing if tacked onto the budget process. Large banks would remain subject to closer scrutiny and stricter international standards. The Trump election rally for bank stocks has mostly fallen back. Now is an opportunity to favor small banks versus large ones on expectations of Trump getting tax cuts passed and regulatory easing of some kind. Kansas: Where Seldom Is Heard A Discouraging Word A chill went through the Tea Party's collective spine on June 6 when two-thirds of the GOP-controlled Kansas legislature overrode the veto of GOP Governor Sam Brownback to repeal a 2012 budget law that slashed taxes on income, small business, and retail sales. You heard that right: Republicans in one of America's reddest states just overrode their leader in order to increase taxes. And it was the largest tax hike in state history. We will spare our readers the nitty-gritty details of the Brownback saga. Suffice it to say that the Tea Party-friendly Kansas legislature slashed state taxes and spending under Brownback's leadership in May 2012. Brownback called it a "real live experiment" of conservative economic principles and argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster growth. Art Laffer, of "Laffer Curve" fame, allegedly consulted on these measures via the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The medicine proved more dangerous than the illness. Since 2012, the state has burned through a budget surplus and growth has slowed (Chart 25). Both Moody's and S&P downgraded Kansas debt. Employment gains have lagged those of neighboring states. Beginning in October 2013, Brownback began to slip in public opinion polls (Chart 26). Cuts to core government services, especially education, caused a tide of criticism. In an extraordinary development, a hundred establishment Republicans supported his Democratic opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial election. He won by a margin of 3.7% but soon afterwards fell out of favor with the public. A series of confrontations with the Kansas Supreme Court hastened his decline, mostly over education funding, which is guaranteed by the state constitution. Brownback, the legislature, and various activist groups attempted to strong-arm the courts, including by ousting four members of the Supreme Court in the 2016 elections. All four retained their posts. The new budget law raises $1.2 billion in income taxes over two years by revoking swathes of the 2012 law, particularly the income tax exemption for business owners and professionals. Brownback duly vetoed the legislation and was promptly overridden by two-thirds of a legislature that is 70% Republican. This is a remarkable event for a state as ideologically conservative as Kansas. What does it mean nationally? There are two reasons that the Kansas experiment will have a limited impact on Republican thinking nationally: Kansas has a balanced budget law (Section 75-3722), while D.C. does not ... and this helped increase the pressure on the administration; Brownback is the least popular governor of any governor in the United States (Chart 27). The blame for the whole fiasco may fall on him personally, distracting from the policy failure. Nevertheless, we think Kansas has set the high-water mark for an aggressive Tea Party agenda in the U.S. that focuses on fiscal conservativism to the exclusion of everything else. Republicans will take note that even as conservative of a state as Kansas has a limit when it comes to spending cuts. It was the cuts to education - which resulted in shorter schoolyears in some districts, and various other disruptions - that fatally wounded Brownback's public standing. Thus public demand for core services is a real constraint on the extent to which taxes can be slashed. Bottom Line: We expect the Trump administration to go forward with tax cuts. But we also think that Trump will get far less in spending cuts than his budget proposals pretend. As such, we expect the GOP tax reform agenda to blow out the budget deficit, a path that Kansas could not legally (or politically) take. This will be the path of least resistance for Congressional Republicans who want to slash taxes yet fear they may not survive the spending cuts necessary to pay for them.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Janet L. Yellen, "Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy," Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 24, 2015, available at www.federalreserve.gov. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit - Next Steps," dated July 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We are particularly indebted to Ben S. Bernanke's account in The Courage To Act: A Memoir Of A Crisis And Its Aftermath (New York: Norton, 2015), pp. 435-66. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Preparing For Basel III: Who Will Win, Who Will Lose?" dated September 12, 2011, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 10, Financial CHOICE Act of 2017," CBO Cost Estimate, May 18, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 11 The Republicans managed to repeal one aspect of Dodd-Frank with a simple majority via the Congressional Review Act, an option that is now closed. U.S. oil, gas, and mineral companies can now be somewhat less transparent about payments made to foreign governments to gain access to resources. Proponents claim U.S. resource companies will gain competitiveness; opponents claim corruption will increase, particularly in foreign countries. 12 Please see Bill Heniff Jr., "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's 'Byrd Rule,'" Congressional Research Service, November 22, 2016, available at fas.org. 13 Please see Yellen's February testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, e.g. "Yellen Wants To Ease Regulations For Small Banks," Associated Press, February 14, 2017, available at www.usnews.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Girding For A Breakout," dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com, and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Breakout," dated May 5, 2017, and "Wind Of Change," dated November 11, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 15 The FiscalNote Policy Index measures regulatory risk daily for sectors, industries, and individual companies from every legislative and regulatory proposal. Using proprietary machine-learning-enabled natural language processing algorithms, FiscalNote ingests and processes thousands of legislative and regulatory policy events, scoring each for relevance, favorability, and importance to affected sectors. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Dear clients, Instead of our usual Weekly Report, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Marko Papic and Matt Gertken with BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service. In this piece, Marko and Matt argue that impeachment is a political, not legal, process in the U.S. political system. If Democrats take control of the House of Representatives in 2018, Trump will almost certainly be impeached. Otherwise, it would require “smoking gun” evidence of criminal behavior to turn House Republicans against the president. For now, financial markets will largely ignore impeachment risks and focus on tax cuts. Midterm elections will accelerate their tax-cutting attempts. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Highlights Impeachment is a political, not legal, process; The House of Representatives decides what is impeachable; The Senate is judge, jury, and executioner; Democrats will impeach Trump if they take the House in 2018; Republicans will not impeach, unless there is a "smoking gun." Markets will look through impeachment risks to tax cuts, for now. Feature "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office." - Representative Gerald Ford, April 15, 1970 Chart 1Trump's Support Abysmal Since the election of President Donald Trump we have been inundated with client questions regarding the probability of impeachment. We have hesitated to put our thoughts on paper due to the fact that the House of Representatives plays a crucial role in impeachment proceedings and that the Republican Party enjoys a comfortable 21-seat majority in that legislative chamber. Since the election, however, President Trump has continued to confound supporters and critics alike with controversial moves. His firing of FBI Director James Comey, reportedly without consulting any of his political advisors, is the latest in a string of unorthodox decisions. Leaks and accusations are swirling in the aftermath. In addition, his overall approval numbers continue to languish at historically abysmal levels for the start of a presidency (Chart 1), which portends a tough midterm election for the Republican Party in the House of Representatives (Chart 2). The American political context remains as polarized as ever, with the quantitative measure of ideological polarization at a record high (Chart 3).1 This dataset treats the North-South division of the Civil War differently from ideological polarization; the current level of ideological polarization is the highest since the post-Civil War period. In this environment, we suspect that, were the Democrats to win a majority in the House of Representatives, the probability of impeachment would be very high. Trump would have to hope that Republican Senators have his back, which at that point is by no means a foregone conclusion.2 Chart 2Republicans Heading For Huge Defeat In 2018 Chart 3Record-High Polarization In U.S. Politics According To Key Quantitative Measure We will not get into the "merits" of a case against President Trump. It suffices to repeat Gerald Ford's quip from the top of this report: "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be." Given the vitriol and polarization of American politics at the moment, we therefore suspect that impeachment will almost certainly occur if the House falls to the Democrats. Otherwise, for the Republicans to impeach one of their own, even one as loosely allied with the GOP as Trump, would require "smoking gun" evidence of the president's direct hand in a grave scandal. A Guide To Impeaching The President Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "the President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." This is a low bar for impeachment, not a high bar. "Misdemeanors" is a slippery term and the House of Representatives determines what it means. There is no appeals process and no interjection by the Supreme Court. The most important point about the U.S. impeachment process is that the "House decides." Decides what? Everything. Hence impeachment proceedings can be started by the House for whatever crime the legislative body deems worthy of impeachment proceedings. Once the House approves the "articles of impeachment," the Senate must hold a trial and vote on whether to remove the president from office by a two-thirds majority (67 votes). Historically the first presidential impeachment was that of President Andrew Johnson, who assumed the presidency following the assassination of President Lincoln in 1865. Johnson was a Democrat who ran with Republican President Lincoln on a National Union ticket. Johnson was impeached on the grounds that he violated the Tenure of Office Act (which is no longer applicable) by firing his Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. But the real political backdrop to the proceeding was that Johnson, a Southern Democrat, favored quick restoration of state rights to the rebellious South and was firing members of the Lincoln cabinet whom he deemed too abolitionist. Johnson was ultimately acquitted in the Senate by just one vote. President Bill Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached, with the GOP-held House of Representatives largely voting along party lines on the two articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate failed to get the 67 votes required for conviction, with Republican Senators from the Northeast (Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont) and Pennsylvania siding with the Democrats. Both the Johnson and Clinton impeachment were more about the deeply polarized environment in Washington and the country at large than about actual crimes. Only the impeachment proceedings initiated against President Nixon provide a clear example of high crimes and misdemeanors. However, President Nixon was never actually impeached as he resigned before the House of Representatives could consider the articles of impeachment against him. He had been warned he would not survive, given the "smoking gun" evidence of his direct personal involvement in the Watergate break-in scandal, and he did not want to be the first president to be removed from office. Thus, as far as a U.S. president is concerned, the House of Representatives is the accuser and the Senate is the judge, jury, and the executioner. Because the bar for adopting impeachment articles in the House is so low (simple majority), we are almost certain that a Democratic-held House would find a reason to impeach President Trump. Whether the Senate then removes President Trump would depend on the severity of his alleged crimes, which we have no way to assess at this point in time. One crucial point to note - particularly in the case of President Trump - is that the House of Representatives can vote on articles of impeachment that deal with alleged crimes committed prior to coming to the office. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled that the House decides and there is no appeals process.3 Therefore, if the House decides that the president can be impeached for alleged crimes and misdemeanors committed before or outside of his office, then he can. Bottom Line: Impeachment is an intrinsically political process. As such, the legal merits of the accusations matter less than the political context in which the House considers impeaching the president. Given the historically high level of political polarization in the U.S., the extremely low levels of Trump's popularity, and his unorthodox policymaking process, we expect that there is a high probability that a Democratic-held House would impeach President Trump on some grounds. Whether President Trump would then be removed from office would depend on whether the accusations of the House of Representatives have sufficient merit - both in terms of the weight of the crimes and the political interests - for Senate Republicans to abandon the president. A Guide To A Constitutional Coup D'état Intriguingly, the U.S. Constitution provides for a procedure by which the president can be removed from office even without an impeachment process.4 The 25th Amendment, passed following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, gives the Vice President and the Cabinet the authority to remove the president from power. Section 4 of Article 25 states: Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [Cabinet members] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. If the above paragraph sounds like a constitutional coup d'état, that is because it is one. If the president challenges the argument that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office," then the issue goes before Congress, where it would require two-thirds of each legislative body to vote to remove the president. As such, the 25th Amendment has a higher hurdle than the impeachment process in Congress, but it could be a quicker way to remove a sitting president who is incapacitated for health reasons, becomes mentally unstable, or broadly-speaking loses touch with reality.5 Chart 4GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump In the case of President Trump, this process would require a complete loss of confidence in his leadership by Vice President Pence, the Cabinet, and Republican members of Congress. Given Trump's high level of support with Republican voters (Chart 4), we are nowhere close to the risk of the 25th Amendment being invoked. However, if Trump's popularity declines precipitously, his own Cabinet has the ability to eject him from the Oval Office without any accusation of legal misconduct. Presumably Trump would have taken concrete action that proved plainly detrimental to the national interest in order to set this process in motion - at which point any number of earlier erratic behaviors or statements could come into play against him. Bottom Line: Impeachment is not the only process by which a sitting U.S. president can be removed from office. Article 25 of the Constitution, Section 4, offers a constitutional coup d'état process that avoids the messiness of a Senate trial. However, the legislative hurdle for this procedure is even higher than the impeachment process. As such, it would require Donald Trump to completely lose the faith of Republican voters and legislators. Signposts To Impeachment We do not intend to prosecute claims against President Trump in this or any future report. First, we are not legal experts. Second, we do not have access to full information. Third, as we pointed out above, the impeachment process is a highly political process. As such, key triggers are political, and only minimally criminal. First, either Democrats win the House of Representatives, or GOP voters turn against President Trump in large numbers. As such, investors should keep close attention to Chart 4 data, at least until the midterm elections. Second, President Trump has to lose the confidence of Republican legislators, particularly in the Senate. Nonetheless, there are several other, more specific, issues we will watch carefully. Special investigation: In both Nixon's and Clinton's scandals, a special committee investigated executive wrongdoing. In Nixon's case this was the Senate Watergate Committee; in Clinton's case it was the special investigation led by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Starr's investigation initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Why it matters today? The precedent of special investigations and committees is strong in American politics. It will be difficult for President Trump to deny the public a special investigation of his campaign team's dealing with Russian officials. The Clinton example illustrates the danger of such investigations: what began as an investigation into a suspicious real estate deal concluded with perjury accusations on a completely unrelated matter. In other words, once independent investigators start digging, there is no telling what skeletons they will exhume. Subpoenas: Congressional committees investigating impropriety can subpoena individuals or physical evidence to appear before the committee. Such subpoenas can reveal potential crimes and misconduct only tangentially related to the original investigation. The Watergate Tapes were critical to the eventual resignation of President Nixon. The White House challenged their subpoena, but the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs. Nixon, July 1974, that executive privilege did not allow President Nixon to deny the release of the tapes. Why it matters today? Currently, the Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and has issued a subpoena to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for documents regarding his interactions with Russian officials. President Trump will not be able to claim ignorance if sufficient members of his inner circle are found to have colluded with a foreign power. It didn't work for President Nixon. Furthermore, it should worry President Trump that three Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee are either former GOP primary opponents (Marco Rubio of Florida) or vocal critics (Susan Collins of Maine and Tom Cotton of Arkansas). Law enforcement: The President, as the head of the executive and as the attorney general's direct superior, is in charge of all U.S. federal law enforcement agencies. He therefore has the constitutional prerogative of summarily firing various members of the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies. However, this does not mean that those same agencies will stay loyal and not collude with the opposition or the press to undermine the president's authority. In the Watergate scandal, Associate Director of the FBI, Mark Felt, was the "Deep Throat" source that fed Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein the information that ultimately led to President Nixon to resign. Felt's actions were by no means selfless. Why it matters today? President Trump has fired FBI Director James Comey under unorthodox circumstances. While the official reason is that Comey mishandled the investigation into Secretary Hillary Clinton's email scandal, sources close to Comey (read: Comey) argue that it was because the FBI Director wanted to expand the agency's investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election. Trump also seems to have feared that Comey was after him personally. Given the penchant of U.S. intelligence agencies to leak embarrassing information on members of Trump's inner circle - e.g. the transcript of Flynn's conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak - we assume that members of the FBI who remain loyal to Comey could leak further information. In other words, President Trump has from the beginning of his presidency made powerful enemies in U.S. law enforcement agencies. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing on any front, we suspect that it will leak. Bottom Line: Once congressional committees begin investigating, subpoenaing documents and witnesses, there is no telling where or how the process ends. What begins as an investigation into Russian interference in the U.S. election can end up somewhere completely different. Given that the Senate Intelligence Committee is already holding investigations and that President Trump has made powerful enemies in the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence community, we have to accept that there is a high probability that the investigations into impropriety expand. Whether they expand to the point of causing the impeachment preconditions listed above is anyone's guess at this point. Investment Implications Of Impeachment Given the small number of cases, it is difficult to rely on historical precedents to make broader conclusions on how the market would react to impeachment or severe political scandal in the White House. Chart 5 looks at market performance during the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974), and President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999). Of the three, Teapot Dome did not result in impeachment proceedings, but only because President Harding died in office in 1923 - and neither his death nor the unfolding scandal prevented the stock market from "roaring" through the mid-1920s.6 Chart 5AEquities Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 5BVolatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals The market reaction to the Lewinsky Affair was also highly muted. Like Teapot Dome, it occurred amidst one of the greatest bull markets in U.S. history. Of course, U.S. equities did fall 19% mid-way through the Clinton impeachment process. Watergate appears to have affected both equity markets and volatility. The S&P 500 fell 39% from February 7, 1973 - when the Senate established a select committee to investigate Watergate - to Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. That said, the scandal alone did not cause the correction, but rather it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, and a massive insurance fraud. Writing in the summer of 1973, BCA's own Tony Boeckh remarked that a speculative, "Watergate-inspired," attack on the dollar further contributed to a short-term capital outflow, but that the macro-fundamentals of the economy would ultimately persevere: Particularly in recent weeks, the Watergate affair has had an effect on the market much like a slow presidential assassination might... The Watergate affair, while primarily of psychological importance in the short run, clearly has had the effect of sustaining the weakness in the dollar and adding greatly to an already deeply negative psychology. If one can see these basic factors as temporary, then the whipsaw possibilities are obvious.7 Tony's analysis ultimately proved prescient, with stocks rallying briskly from Nixon's resignation in August 1974 and throughout 1975. What would happen this time around? If scandals surrounding Russian interference in the election grow over the next several months, the market may begin to price in a loss of the House in November 2018, which would obviously stall Trump's populist, "pump-priming" agenda. We think that the market could fret if the scandals worsen for three main reasons: Legislative agenda - An embattled White House would be a distracted White House. It is difficult to see how the White House could provide leadership on health and tax reform. The seriousness of the alleged crimes - President Clinton was impeached for having an extra-marital workplace affair and lying about it. If the Russian electoral interference charges stick, the Trump administration would be essentially accused of treason. The White House lashes out - An embattled President Trump could shift gears from domestic to foreign policy, as he faces few constitutional constraints on the latter. President Clinton faced off against Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic mid-way through the impeachment process, finally ordering NATO air strikes on the heels of his acquittal by the Senate. President Trump could shift his focus on North Korea, Iran, or "unfair" trading partners. Despite good reasons to worry that impeachment will become a possibility after the midterm elections, we think the market will continue to focus on the prospects for tax reform. And on that front, it is highly unlikely that a growing scandal in the Trump administration would matter. Provided, of course, that there is not some material evidence that accelerates the crisis and forces even a GOP-controlled House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reform. We would therefore largely look through the risks of impeachment - as our predecessors at BCA did amidst the Watergate scandal - at least until the months before November 6, 2018 (midterm election date). In particular, there are three main reasons to fade any near-term equity market volatility: President Mike Pence - Under both impeachment rules and the 25th amendment, the U.S. president would be replaced by the Vice President. Vice President Pence's approval rating largely tracks that of President Trump and is in the 40% area, but investors should note that he once stood at nearly 60% during the campaign (Chart 6). As such, the worst case scenario for investors in case of a post-midterm impeachment is that Trump is replaced by Mike Pence, an orthodox Republican, and that Pence has to deal with a split Congress. It would grind reforms to a halt, but at least tax reform would be out of the way by then. Given the market's focus on tax reforms, it is difficult to see why this tail-risk would have to be priced in over the next 12 months. Midterm Election - If the Trump White House becomes engulfed in scandal, Republicans in the House will fear losing their majority. Yes, the partisan drawing of electoral districts - "gerrymandering" - has reduced the number of competitive U.S. House districts from 164 in 1998 to 56 in 2016 (Chart 7). But the Democrats managed to win the House in 2006 and the Republicans managed to take it back in 2010, so there is no reason the roles cannot be reversed yet again. However, this is not a risk, it is an opportunity. It will motivate the GOP in Congress to lock in tax and healthcare reform well ahead of the midterm elections. Given that they plan to use a FY2018 budget reconciliation bill to pass tax reform, it means that passage by April or May of 2018 is highly likely. Then they can campaign all summer on how they kept their promises to give tax relief and create jobs. Counter Revolution - With Trump embattled and facing impeachment, the market may give a sigh of relief because it would mark a clear defeat of populist politics in the U.S. Much as with electoral outcomes in Europe, investors may want to cheer the defeat of an unorthodox, anti-establishment movement in the U.S.8 Chart 6Could Be Worse Than Pence Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces ##br##Competitive House Seats As such, we would push against any "Russia scandal"-induced volatility in the U.S. markets, at least until the midterm election. We think the market would digest the volatility and realize that Trump's impeachment, were it to occur post-midterm elections, would not arrest the Republican agenda before the midterms. After all, the GOP has waited over 15 years to make Bush-era tax cuts permanent and the opportunity to do so may evaporate within the next 12 months. The one risk we do not account for here is that a "smoking gun" of Trump campaign collusion with Russia is unearthed well before the midterm election. This could force the GOP in the House to focus on impeachment instead of tax reforms. We do not expect this to happen, but we also have no evidence to support our view. At this point, however, there is absolutely no proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Do we agree that Trump's impeachment would signal the end of populism? No. As our colleague Peter Berezin has repeatedly said - and our clients ought to listen given that he correctly predicted Trump's victory in September 20159 - American voters voted for "Trumpism," not Trump. As Peter recently pointed out, "either Trump will start delivering on the promises that endeared him to blue-collar workers in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, or he will go down in flames in the next election."10 Of course, if Trump "goes down in flames" in an impeachment scenario, Peter's point about blue-collar workers still stands. The next election, in 2020, will still feature populism, especially if the U.S. experiences a recession in the meantime and if Trump's policies do not help the median voter by that time. In that case, the election in 2020 will not feature moderates such as Pence, but rather unorthodox policymakers from both the left and the right. We intend to publish a report on populism in America over the next several weeks and elucidate our pessimistic view of politics, the economy, and the markets after 2017. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 The data for polarization analysis uses "nominate" (nominal three-step estimation), a multidimensional scaling method developed to analyze the preference and choice of legislators based on their roll-call voting record in the U.S. Congress. According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level ever. Their research shows that the "primary dimension of polarization," the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy, explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension. Please see Poole, Keith T. and Howard Rosenthal, "D-Nominate After 10 Years: A Comparative Update To Congress: A Political-Economic History Of Roll-Call Voting," Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1 (Feb. 2001), pp. 5-29. 2 Especially when one considers that President Trump's fate may at some point in the near future be in the hands of Senators "Lyin' Ted" and "Little Marco." 3 Please see Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the jurisdiction of the Senate in the impeachment proceedings and confirmed that no judicial appeals process exists. As a side point, the case had nothing to do with former President Richard Nixon, but rather was brought against the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Walter Nixon. 4 We thank our former colleague, and expert on the U.S. Constitution, Mike Marchio for pointing out this loophole. 5 The only time the Section 4 of the 25th Amendment was seriously contemplated was in 1987, due to President Ronald Reagan's growing "inattentiveness" and "laziness" (probably early signs of Alzheimer disease). Incoming Chief of Staff Howard H. Baker Jr. was asked by his predecessor Donald Regan to carefully examine whether President Reagan was capable of performing his duties. President Reagan passed the test. Please see Jason Linkins, Huffington Post, "Happy 50th Birthday To The 25th Amendment To The Constitution!" dated February 10, 2017, available at huffingtonpost.com. 6 "Teapot Dome" was for decades the largest corruption scandal in U.S. history. It involved President Warren G. Harding, his Secretary of the Interior, other officials, and a number of oil companies that were given extremely favorable leases to drill oil on federal land in Wyoming. Investigations and prosecutions lasted through 1927. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Stock Market And Business Forecast," June 1973 - Vol. XXIV No.12 and July 1973 - Vol. XXV No. 1, copies available on request. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Establishment Strikes Back," dated April 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Markets have gone too far in pricing out the Republican's market-friendly policy agenda. The President desperately needs a win ahead of mid-term elections. A bill that at least cuts taxes should be forming by year end. The risk is that continued political turbulence, now including the possibility of impeachment, distracts Congress and delays or completely derails tax reform plans. Fortunately for the major global equity markets, corporate profits are providing solid support. We expect U.S. EPS growth to accelerate further into year end, peaking at just under 20%. The projected profit acceleration is even more impressive in the Eurozone and Japan. Corporations are still in a sweet spot in which the top line is growing but there is no major wage cost pressure evident yet. U.S. EPS growth is well ahead of both Japan and the Eurozone at the moment, but we expect some "catch up" by year end that will favor the latter two bourses in local currency terms. EPS growth will fall short of bottom-up estimates for 2017, but what is more important for equity indexes is the direction of 12-month forward EPS expectations, which remain in an uptrend. The positive earnings backdrop means that stocks will outperform bonds for the remainder of the year even if Congress fails to pass any market-friendly legislation. The FOMC is "looking through" the recent soft economic data and slower inflation, and remains on track to deliver two more rate hikes this year. The impact of the Fed's balance sheet runoff on the Treasury market will be limited by several factors, but a shrinking balance sheet and Fed rate hikes will force bond yields to rise faster than is currently discounted. Policy divergence will push the dollar higher. The traditional relationship between the euro/USD and short-term yield differentials should re-establish following the French election. The euro could reach parity before the next move is done. "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Chinese growth has slowed but the authorities are easing policy, which will stabilize growth and support base metals. That said, we remain more upbeat on oil prices than base metals. Feature Investors have soured on the prospects for U.S. tax reform in recent weeks, but the latest travails in Washington inflicted only fleeting damage on U.S. and global bourses. The S&P 500 appears to have broken above the 2400 technical barrier as we go to press. Market expectations for a more tepid Fed rate hike cycle, lower Treasury yields and related dollar softness undoubtedly provided some support. But, more importantly, corporate profits are positively surprising in the major economies and this is not just an energy story. The good news on company earnings should continue to drive stock prices higher this year in absolute terms and relative to bond prices. It is a tougher call on the dollar and the direction of bond yields. We remain short duration and long the dollar, but much depends on the evolution of U.S. core inflation and fiscal policy. A Death Knell For U.S. Tax Reform? Chart I-1 highlights that the market now sees almost a zero chance that the Republicans will ever be able to deliver any meaningful tax cuts or infrastructure spending. Many believe that mushrooming political scandals encumbering President Trump will distract the GOP and delay or derail tax reform. Indeed, impeachment proceedings would be a major distraction, although this outcome would not necessarily lead to an equity bear market. The historical record shows that the economy is much more important than politics for financial markets. BCA's geopolitical strategists looked at three presidential impeachments, covering the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974) and the President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999).1 Watergate was the only episode that coincided with a bear market, but it is difficult to pin the market downturn on Nixon's impeachment since the U.S. economy entered one of the worst post-war recessions in 1973 that was driven by tight Fed policy and an oil shock. Impeachment would require that Trump loses support among the Republican base, which so far has not happened. The President still commands the support of 84% of Republican voters (Chart I-2). Investors should monitor this support level as an indicator of the President's political capital and the risk of impeachment. Chart I-1Fading Hopes For Tax Reform We believe that markets have gone too far in pricing out Trump's market-friendly policy agenda. The President desperately needs a win ahead of mid-term elections, and tax reform and deregulation are two key areas where the President and congressional Republicans see eye to eye. The odds are good that an agreement to cut taxes will be formed by year end. Congressional leaders want tax reform to be revenue neutral, but finding sufficient areas to cut spending will be extremely difficult. They may simply require that tax cuts are paid for in a 10-year window. This makes it possible to lower taxes upfront and promise non-specific spending cuts and revenue raising measures down the road. Or, Congress may pass tax reform that is not revenue neutral through the reconciliation process, which would require that tax cuts sunset at some point in the future. Tax cuts would give stocks a temporary boost either way but, as we discuss below, it may be better for corporate profits in the medium term if Congress fails to deliver any fiscal stimulus. Profits, Beats And Misses While economists fret over the soft U.S. economic data so far this year, profit growth is quietly accelerating in the background (Chart I-3). On a 4-quarter moving total basis, S&P 500 earnings-per-share were up by more than 13% in the first quarter (84% reporting). We expect growth to accelerate further into year end, peaking at about 18%, before moderating in 2018. Profit growth is accelerating outside of the energy sector. The projected acceleration in EPS growth is equally impressive in the Eurozone and Japan. The favorable profit picture in the major economies reflects two key factors. First, profits are rebounding from a poor showing in 2015/16, when EPS was dragged down by the collapse in oil prices and a global manufacturing recession. Oil prices have since rebounded and global industrial production is recovering as expected (Chart I-4). Our short-term forecasting models for real GDP, based on a mixture of hard data and surveys, continue to flag a pickup in economic growth in the major economies (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Top-Down Profit Projection Chart I-4EPS Highly Correlated With Industrial Production Chart I-5GDP Growth Poised To Accelerate The U.S. model's forecast paints an overly rosy picture, but it does support our view that Q1 softness in the hard data reflected temporary factors that will give way to a robust rebound in the second and third quarters. The Eurozone economy is really humming at the moment, as highlighted by our model and recent readings from the IFO and purchasing managers' surveys. Indeed, these indicators are consistent with real GDP growth of nearly 3%! Our GDP models are also constructive for Japan and the U.K., although not nearly as robust as in the U.S. and Eurozone. Chart I-6Profit Margins On The Rise Second, the corporate sectors in the major economies are still in a sweet spot in which the top line is growing but there is no major wage cost pressure evident yet. This is the case even in the U.S., where labor market slack has largely been absorbed. Indeed, margins rose in Q1 2017 for the third quarter in a row (Chart I-6). Our indicators suggest that the corporate sector has gained some pricing power at a time when wage gains are taking a breather.2 The hiatus of wage pressure may not last long, and we expect the "mean reversion" in profit margins to resume next year. But for now, our short-term EPS growth model remains upbeat for the next 3-6 months (not shown). Profit margins are also on the rise in Japan and the Eurozone. Margins in the latter appear to have the most upside potential of the three major markets, given the fact that current levels are still depressed by historical standards, and that there remains plenty of slack in the European labor market. We are not incorporating any margin expansion in Japan because they are already very high. Nonetheless, we do not expect any "mean reversion" in margins over the next year either, because the business sector is going to great lengths to avoid any increase in the wage bill despite an extremely tight labor market. U.S. EPS growth is well ahead of both Japan and the Eurozone at the moment, but we expect some "catch up" by year end: The U.S. is further ahead in the global profit mini recovery and year-ago EPS comparisons will become more difficult by the end of the year. The drag on corporate profits in 2017 from previous dollar strength will be larger than the currency drag in the Eurozone according to our models, assuming no change in trade-weighted exchange rates in the forecast period (Chart I-7). The pass-through of past yen movements will be a net boost to EPS growth for Japanese companies this year.3 Currency shifts would favor the Japanese and the Eurozone markets versus the U.S. even more if the dollar experiences another upleg. We expect the dollar to appreciate by 10% in trade-weighted terms. A 10% broad-based dollar appreciation would trim EPS growth by 2½ percentage points, although most of this would occur in 2018 due to lags (Chart I-8). Eurozone and Japanese EPS growth would receive a lift of 2 and ½ percentage points, respectively, as their currencies depreciate versus the dollar. Chart I-7Currency Impact On EPS Growth Chart I-8A 10% Dollar Rise Would Trim Profits Finally, the fact that profits in Japan and the Eurozone are more leveraged to overall economic growth than in the U.S. gives the former two markets the edge as global industrial production continues to recover this year and into 2018. Japanese and Eurozone equity market indexes also have a higher beta with respect to the global equity index. The implication is that we remain overweight these two markets relative to the U.S. on a currency hedged basis. Lofty Expectations Even though the message from our EPS models is upbeat, our forecasts still fall short of bottom-up estimates for 2017. Is this a risk for the equity market, especially in the U.S. where valuations are stretched? Investors are well aware that bottom-up estimates are perennially optimistic. Table I-1 compares the beginning-of-year EPS growth estimate with the actual end-of-year outcome for 2007-2016. Not surprisingly, bottom-up analysts massively missed the mark in the recession. But even outside of 2008, analysts significantly over-estimated earnings in seven out of nine years. Despite this, the S&P 500 rose sharply in most cases. One exception was 2015, when the S&P 500 fell by 0.7%. Plunging oil and material prices contributed to an EPS growth "miss" of seven percentage points. Chart I-9 highlights that the level of the 12-month forward EPS estimate fell that year, unlike in the other years since the Great Recession. Valuations are more demanding today than in the past, but the message is that attaining bottom-up EPS year-end estimates is less important for the broad market than the trend in 12-month forward estimates (which remains up at the moment). Chart I-9S&P 500 Follows ##br##12-month Forward EPS The bottom line is that the backdrop is constructive for equities even if the Republicans are unable to push through any fiscal stimulus. In fact, it may be better for the stock market in the medium term if the GOP fails to pass any meaningful legislation. The U.S. economy does not need any demand stimulus at the moment (although measures to boost the supply side of the economy would help lift profits over the long term). The current long-in-the-tooth U.S. expansion is likely to stretch further in the absence of stimulus, extending the moderate growth/low inflation/low interest rate backdrop that has been positive for risk assets in recent years. The Fed's Balance Sheet: It's Diet Time The minutes from the May FOMC meeting reiterated that policymakers plan to begin scaling back on reinvesting the proceeds of its maturing securities of Treasurys and MBS by the end of the year. The Fed is leaning toward a gradual tapering of reinvestment in order to avoid shocking the bond market. Still, investors are rightly concerned about the potential impact of the balance sheet runoff, especially given that memories of the 2013 "taper tantrum" are still fresh. Chart I-10 presents a forecast for the flow of Treasurys available to the private sector, taking into consideration the supply that is absorbed by foreign official institutions and by the Fed. The bottom panel shows a similar calculation for the aggregate supply of government bonds from the U.S., Japan, the Eurozone and the U.K. While the supply of Treasurys has been positive since 2012, the net flow has been negative for these four economies as a whole because of aggressive quantitative easing programs. This year will see the largest contraction in the supply of government bonds available to the private sector, at US$800 billion. The flow will become less negative in 2018 even if the Fed were to keep its balance sheet unchanged (mostly due to assumed ECB tapering). If the Fed goes ahead with its balance sheet reduction plan, the net supply of government bonds from the major economies will move slightly into positive territory for the first time since 2014. There is disagreement among academics about whether quantitative easing (QE) directly depressed bond yields by restricting the supply of high-quality fixed income assets, or whether the impact on yields was solely via the "signaling effect" for the path of future short rates. Either way, balance sheet runoff will likely have some impact on bond yields. A good starting point is to employ an empirical estimate of the impact of QE. The IMF has modeled long-term Treasury yields based on a number of economic and financial variables and the stock of assets held by the Fed as a share of GDP. Just for exposition purposes, let us take an extreme example and assume that the Fed simply terminates all re-investment as of January 2018 (i.e. the runoff is not tapered). In this case, the amount of bank reserves held at the Fed would likely evaporate by 2021. This represents a contraction of roughly 10 percentage points of GDP (Chart I-11). Applying the IMF interest rate model's coefficient of -0.09, it implies that long-term Treasury yields and mortgage rates would rise by 90 basis points from the "portfolio balance" effect alone. Chart I-11Fed Balance Sheet Runoff Scenario However, it is more complicated than that. The impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: The balance sheet may never fully revert to historic norms relative to GDP. Some academic experts are recommending that the Fed maintain a fairly large balance sheet by historical standards because of the need in financial markets for short-term, risk-free assets that would diminish if there are fewer excess bank reserves available. Banks, for example, are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years. As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City estimated that a $675 billion reduction in the size of the Fed's balance sheet is equivalent to a 25 basis point increase in the fed funds rate (although the authors admit that the confidence band around this estimate is extremely wide).4 We expect that the impact of runoff alone will be much less than the 90 basis point estimate discussed above. Still, the combination of balance sheet shrinkage and Fed rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than are currently discounted in the market. Fed Outlook: Mostly About Inflation The May FOMC minutes confirmed that the FOMC is "looking through" the soft economic data in the first quarter, chalking it up to temporary factors such as shifts in inventories. They are also inclined to believe that the moderation in core CPI inflation in recent months is temporary. The message is that policymakers remain on track to deliver two more rate hikes this year, in line with the 'dot plot' forecast. The market is pricing almost a 100% chance of a June rate hike. However, less than two full rate hikes are expected over the next year, which is far too benign in our view. Investors have been quick to conclude that recent economic data have convinced Fed officials to shift from a "gradual" pace of rate hikes to a "glacial" pace. Treasurys rallied on this shift in Fed expectations and a decline in long-term inflation expectations. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has dropped to about 1.8%, the lowest level since before the U.S. election. This appears to us that the bond market over-reacted to the drop in core CPI inflation from 2.2% in February to 1.9% in April. The evolution of actual inflation will be critical to the outlook for the Fed and Treasury yields in the coming months. Our U.S. fixed-income strategists have simulated a traditional Phillips Curve model of inflation (Chart I-12).5 The model projects that core PCE inflation will reach 2.1% by December, even assuming no change in the unemployment rate or the trade-weighted dollar. Inflation ends the year not far below the 2% target even in an alternative scenario in which we assume that the dollar appreciates and that the full-employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed currently assumes. Chart I-12U.S. Inflation Should End Year At 2% Thus, the trend in inflation should reinforce the FOMC's bias to keep tightening policy, forcing the bond market to reassess the pace of rate hikes discounted in the curve. That said, if we are wrong and inflation does not trend higher in the next 3-4 months, then it is the FOMC that will be forced to reassess and our short duration recommendation will probably not pan out on a six month horizon. Longer-term, last month's Special Report highlighted that we have reached an inflection point in some of the structural forces that have depressed bond yields. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 20, builds on that theme with a look at the impact of technological progress on equilibrium bond yields. With respect to credit spreads, the state of nonfinancial corporate sector balance sheets and the overall stance of monetary policy will continue to be the main drivers of the credit cycle. If unwinding the balance sheet leads to a premature tightening of financial conditions, then the Fed will proceed more slowly on rate hikes. The crucial indicator to watch is core PCE inflation. Credit spreads will remain fairly well contained until core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target. At that point, the pace of monetary normalization will ramp up, putting spreads at risk of widening. Stay overweight corporate bonds within fixed income portfolios for now. While the Fed's balance sheet reduction by itself may not have a big impact on the dollar, we still believe the currency has more upside because of the divergence in the overall monetary policy stance between the U.S. on one side and the ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) on the other. The BoJ will hold the 10-year JGB near to zero for quite some time. The ECB will also not be in a position to tighten policy for an extended period, outside of removing negative short rates and tapering QE purchases a bit further in 2018. The euro has appreciated versus the dollar even as two-year real interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar since the end of March. This divergence probably reflects euro short-covering following the market-friendly French election outcome. Next up are the two rounds of French legislative elections in June. Polls support the view that Macron's En Marche and the center-right Les Republicains will capture the vast majority of seats in the legislature. Such an election outcome would make possible the passage of genuine structural reforms that would suppress wage growth and make French exports more competitive. Investors may be shocked into pricing greater odds of Euro Area dissolution when Italy comes back into focus. In the meantime, we do not see any risk factors emanating from the Eurozone that could upset the global equity applecart in the near term. Moreover, the traditional relationship between the euro/USD exchange rate and 2-year real yield differentials should now re-establish. The implication is that the euro could reach parity before the next move is done. Dr. Copper? The recent setback in the commodity pits has added to investor angst regarding global growth momentum. The LMEX base metals index is up almost 25% on a year-ago basis, but has fallen by 5% since February (Chart I-13). From their respective peaks earlier this year, zinc and copper are down about 7-10%, nickel has dropped by 18% and iron ore has lost almost half of its value. Is the venerable "Dr. Copper" sending an important warning about world growth? Chart I-13What Are Commodities Telling Us? Some of our global leading economic indicators have edged lower this year, as we have discussed in previous reports. Nonetheless, the decline in base metals prices likely has more to do with other factors, such as an unwinding of the surge in speculative demand that immediately followed the U.S. election last autumn. Speculators may be disappointed by the lack of progress on Republican promises to cut taxes and boost infrastructure spending. The main story for base metals demand and prices, however, is the Chinese real estate sector. China accounts for roughly 50% of world consumption for each of the major metals. The Chinese authorities are trying to cool the property market and transition to a more consumer spending-oriented economy, thereby reducing the dependence on exports, capital spending and real estate as growth drivers. Fiscal policy tightened last year and new regulations were introduced to limit housing speculation. The effect of policy tightening can be seen in our Credit and Fiscal Spending Impulse indicator, which has been softening since mid-2016 (Chart I-14). The economy held up well last year, but the policy adjustment resulted in a peaking of the PMI at year-end. Growth in housing starts also appears to be rolling over. Both the PMI and housing starts are correlated with commodity prices. The good news is that BCA's China Investment Strategy service does not expect a major downshift in Chinese real GDP growth this year, which means that commodity import demand should rebound: The authorities wish to slow credit growth, but there is no incentive for the authorities to crunch the economy given that consumer price inflation is still low and the surge in producer price inflation appears to have peaked. Monetary conditions have tightened a little in recent months, but overall conditions are not restrictive. Both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment have picked up noticeably this year (Chart I-15). Finally, the PBoC re-started its Medium-Term Lending Facility and recently made the largest one-day cash injection into the financial system in nearly four months. Chart I-14China Is The Main Story ##br##For Base Metals Demand Chart I-15Direct Fiscal Spending And ##br##Infrastructure Have Picked Up Recently Export growth will continue to accelerate based on our model (not shown). The upturn in the profit cycle and firming output prices should boost capital spending. Robust demand will ensure that housing construction will continue to grow at a healthy pace. Households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high last quarter. Tighter housing policies in major cities will prevent a massive boom, but this will not short-circuit the recovery in housing construction. Fading fears about a China meltdown may give commodities a lift later this year. Our commodity strategists are particularly positive on crude oil, as extended production cuts from OPEC and Russia outweigh the impact of surging shale production, allowing bloated inventories to moderate. In contrast, the backdrop is fairly benign for base metals. Our commodity strategists do not see the conditions for a major bull or bear phase on a 6-12 month horizon. Within commodity portfolios, they recommend a benchmark allocation to base metals, an underweight in agricultural products and an overweight in oil. From a broader perspective, our key message is that "Dr. Copper" is not signaling that global growth will soften significantly this year. Investment Conclusions: Accelerating corporate profit growth in the major advanced economies provides a healthy tailwind and suggests that stocks could perform well under a couple of different scenarios in the second half of 2017. If the rebound in U.S. economic growth from the poor first quarter is unimpressive and it appears that Congress will be sidetracked by political turmoil in the White House, then the S&P 500 should benefit from the 'goldilocks' combination of healthy profit growth, low bond yields, an accommodative Fed and a soft dollar. If, instead, U.S. growth rebounds strongly and Congress makes progress on the broad outline of a tax reform bill over the summer months, then stocks should benefit from the prospect of stronger growth in 2018. Rising bond yields and a firmer dollar would provide some offset for stocks, but would not derail the equity bull market as long as inflation remains below the Fed's target. Our model suggests that U.S. inflation will remain below-target for the next several months, but could be near 2% by year end. This scenario would set the stage for a more aggressive Fed in 2018, a surge in the dollar and possibly a bear market in risk assets next year. We are therefore comfortable in predicting that the stock-to-bond total return ratio will continue to rise for at least the remainder of this year. The tough part relates to bond yields and the dollar, since the above two scenarios have very different implications for these two asset classes. Our base case is closer to the second scenario, such that we remain below benchmark in duration and long the dollar. That said, much depends on the evolution of U.S. core inflation and U.S. politics. Both are particularly difficult to forecast. A failure for core PCE inflation to pick up in the next 3-4 months and/or continuing political scandals in Washington would force us to reconsider our asset allocation. Of course, there are other risks to consider, including growing mercantilism in the U.S., Sino-American tensions and North Korea. At the top of the list are China and Italy. (1) China China remains our geopolitical strategists' top pick as the catalyst most likely to scuttle our upbeat view on global risk assets in 2017.6 Our base case assumption is that policymakers will not enact wide-scale financial sector reform, which would entail a surge in realized non-performing loans and bankruptcies and defaults, ahead of the Fall Party Congress. The regulatory crackdown so far seems merely to keep the financial sector in check for a while. The government has already stepped back somewhat in the face of the liquidity squeeze, and fiscal policy has been loosened (as mentioned above). All of the key Communist Party statements have emphasized that stability remains a priority. Nonetheless, it may be difficult for the authorities to manage the deleveraging process given nose-bleed levels of private-sector leverage. Politicians could misjudge the fragility of the financial system and investors might front-run the reform process, sending asset prices down well in advance of policy implementation. (2) Italy We have flagged the next Italian election as a key risk for markets because of polls showing that voters have become disillusioned with the euro. It appeared that an election would not take place until 2018, and we have downplayed European elections as a risk factor for 2017. However, the 5-Star Movement has now backed a proportional electoral system, which raises the chances of an autumn election in Italy. This would obviously spark turbulence in financial markets in the months leading up to the event. Turning to emerging markets, the pickup in global growth and a modest bounce in commodity prices would support this asset class. However, our view that the dollar is headed higher on the back of Fed rate hikes keeps us from getting too excited about EM stocks, bonds or currencies. Our other recommendations include the following: Within global government bond portfolios, overweight JGBs and underweight Treasurys. Gilts and core Eurozone bonds are at benchmark. Underweight the periphery of Europe. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Overweight the dollar versus the other major currencies. Overweight small caps stocks versus large in the U.S. market. Stay exposed to oil-related assets, and favor oil to base metals within commodity portfolios. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst May 31, 2017 Next Report: June 29, 2017 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Overview," April 017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Currency shifts affect earnings with a lag, which in captured by our models. 4 Forecasting the Stance of Monetary Policy Under Balance Sheet Adjustments. The Macro Bulletin, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Troy Davig and A. Lee Smith. May 10, 2017. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets ," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com II. Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds? This month's Special Report was written by Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist for BCA's Global Investment Strategy Service. The report is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, which argued that some of the structural factors that have depressed global interest rates are at an inflection point. These factors include demographic trends and the integration of China's massive labor supply into the global economy. Peter's report focuses on technology's impact on bond yields. He presents the non-consensus view that slow productivity growth likely depresses interest rates at the outset, but will lead to higher rates later on. Not only could sluggish productivity growth lead to higher inflation, it could also deplete national savings. Both factors would be bond bearish, reinforcing the other factors discussed in last month's Special Report. I trust that you will find the report as insightful and educational as I did. Mark McClellan Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software ##br##Has Dampened IT Productivity Gains Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The ##br##1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce ##br##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed ##br##Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed ##br##Thanks To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The breakout in the S&P 500 above 2400 in May has further stretched valuation metrics. Measures such as the Shiller P/E and price/book are elevated relative to past equity cycles. The price/sales ratio is in a steep rise too. However, our U.S. Composite valuation metric, which takes into consideration 11 different measures of value, is still a little below the one sigma level that marks significant overvaluation. This is because our composite indicator includes valuation measures that take into account the low level of interest rates. Of course, these measures will not look as favorable when rates finally rise. Technically, the U.S. equity market has upward momentum. Our Equity Monetary Indicator has remained around the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. Our Speculation Index is high, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our Composite Sentiment Index and low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. The U.S. net revisions ratio jumped higher this month, and it is bullish that the earnings surprise index advanced again. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500, although it is now so elevated that it suggests that there could be little "dry powder" left to buy the market. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking forward, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. It is disconcerting that our Europe WTP suffered a pull-back over the past month. Nonetheless, we believe that accelerating corporate profit growth in the major advanced economies provides a strong tailwind and suggests that stocks remain in a window in which they will outperform bonds. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as we have reached an inflection point in some of the structural forces that have depressed bond yields. We also believe that the combination of Fed balance sheet shrinkage and rate hikes will lead to higher bond yields than are currently discounted in the market. Technically, our composite indicator has touched the zero line, clearing the way for the next leg of the bond bear market. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. Technically, the dollar has shifted down this year, crossing the 200-day moving average. That said, according to our dollar technical indicator, overbought conditions have been totally worked off, suggesting that the currency is clear to move higher if Fed rate expectations shift up as we expect. Moreover, we believe that policy divergence in the overall monetary policy stance between the U.S. on one side and the ECB and BoJ on the other will push the dollar higher. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights Geopolitical risks remain overstated in 2017, but China and Italy could scuttle the party; June elections in France and the U.K. are not market-movers; But early Italian election is a risk that could prompt the ECB to stay easy, close long EUR/USD for a gain; U.S. budget reconciliation process may be arcane, but is vital to understand upcoming tax reform process; Investors should expect details of tax reform by Q4 2017, but legislation may only pass in Q1 2018. Feature We turned the traditional adage of "sell in May and go away" on its head last month in a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!"1 So far so good (Chart 1). The fundamental reasons behind the breakout is the narrowing of the global equity risk premium on the back of easy monetary policy and a recovering global economy (Chart 2) two trends that our colleagues at the Global Alpha Sector Strategy highlighted last September.2 Since then, geopolitical risks cited as likely to end the party have been largely overstated.3 We continue to worry about Chinese financial sector reforms, U.S. politics, Sino-American tensions, signs of growing U.S. mercantilism, prospects of early Italian elections, and especially the developments in North Korea. But these remain risks for 2018, rather than 2017.4 Chart 1Blow-Off Phase Has Resumed Chart 2Global ERP Has Room To Fall There are still some "loose ends" to tie up from the first quarter, including the upcoming French legislative and U.K. general elections. On the former, there is nothing to say other than that investors should indeed prepare for a "French Revolution," by which we mean a supply-side revolution.5 Current seat projections based on the latest polling have pro-market, centrist, Europhile parties controlling between 85-92% of the National Assembly following the two-round elections in mid-June (Diagram 1).6 Diagram 1French National Assembly Seat Projection Yes. In France. Skeptical commentary will surely rain on the centrist parade by pointing out that anti-establishment presidential candidates won nearly 50% of the vote in the first round of the presidential election (true), that Marine Le Pen will be back even stronger in 2020 (false), or that the electoral system is designed to suppress the populist vote (yes, so what?). We are not as perceptive nor profound as the witty op-ed writers. Our far simpler conclusion is that the French National Assembly will elucidate the revealed preference of the French electorate, given the electoral rules that are quite familiar to all French voters. And that preference appears to be for pro-market, and quite possibly painful, structural reforms. We remain long French industrials relative to German ones, but our clients may find alternative ways to play the upcoming free-market revolution in France. On the British front, Tory PM Theresa May is facing her first genuine crisis. The impact of the Manchester terrorist attack on the election is difficult to forecast. However, May's "dementia tax" gaffe has clearly given Labour new life in the polls (Chart 3). What most commentators saw as a clear shoo-in for the Conservative Party has now become a competitive, if not exactly tight, race. Chart 3Labour Gains... Chart 4...But Tories Keep Devouring UKIP We would note that despite Labour's rise in the polls, May's strategy of suppressing the UKIP vote by campaigning from the nationalist right is paying off. As Chart 4 illustrates, UKIP voters appear to be switching to the Tories en masse: UKIP has gone from support of 20% in April 2016 to under 5% today. Given Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system, May's strategy of swallowing the UKIP whole is a savvy move. It will eliminate the probability that UKIP siphons votes away from the Tories in competitive constituencies. Our own, highly conservative, estimate gives the Tories a minimum of 11 gained seats (Table 1). This is based on constituencies that voted for Brexit but where Labour and the Liberal Democrats won by less than 5% in the last election. Table 1Minimal Scenario Gives Tories 11 New Seats For Their Majority We do not think that the election will have much impact on the Brexit process. Political risks peaked in January when May announced that she planned to take the U.K. out of the EU Common Market. We pointed out at the time that this decision made it highly unlikely that the U.K. and EU negotiations would take an acrimonious turn.7 The market agreed with us, with the pound bottoming in mid-January. We continue to believe that the Brexit process will have no investment relevance for global assets. As for U.K. equities and the pound, a larger-than-expected seat grab by the Tories (375+) at the upcoming election would likely strengthen the pound further, which in turn could weigh on the FTSE 100 (with the FTSE 250 being less affected). A disappointing result, one where the Conservative Party fails to reach 350 seats, could create temporary headwinds for the pound. The one risk that remains on our horizon is faster-than-expected deleveraging in China. As we mentioned in our report last week, China's financial crackdown raises near-term risks (Chart 5).8 We do not think that policymakers are looking to enact wide scale financial sector reform, which would entail a surge in realized non-performing loans, bankruptcies, and defaults ahead of the Fall Party Congress. However, Chinese investors and businesses may already be looking ahead to 2018. Chart 5Policymakers Are Inducing Financial Risk... Chart 6...At A Time When Vulnerability Is Growing China's reserves-to-M2 ratio - an IMF-proposed measure that captures Chinese reserves of liquid assets against those that its residents could potentially liquefy as part of wide scale capital flight - has continued to decline (Chart 6). Measures of quarterly net portfolio flows and capital flight show that the Q4 2016 outflows accelerated sharply after a slowdown in outflows in the previous two quarters (Chart 7), although we have no information for Q1 2017. More recently, there has been a stunning surge in Bitcoin prices. The crypto-currency is up 65% since the start of May, which cannot be attributed to Euro Area fears given the victory of Europhile Emmanuel Macron in the French election. Could it be related to policy uncertainty in China? We think yes (Chart 8). China remains our pick for the risk that is most likely to scuttle our sanguine view on global risk assets in 2017. Chart 7Chinese Outflows Restarted In Q4 2016 Chart 8Chinese Uncertainty Is Bitcoin's Gain The final risk to investors that we have been tracking this year is inaction by U.S. Congress on the tax reform front. We have received many client questions regarding when investors should expect to see tax reform legislation and when (and how) it is expected to pass. We turn to this question in the rest of this report. Market Relevance Of The Budget Reconciliation Process The U.S. legislative process is complicated, arcane, and highly mutable. We have tried to spare our clients as much of the headache of U.S. congressional procedure as possible.9 However, the budget reconciliation process underpins current efforts to reform both the 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and enact tax reform. To understand how, when, and whether the GOP-controlled Congress will pass these pieces of legislation, it is necessary for investors to learn the basics of the reconciliation process in particular, and the budget process more broadly. Budget reconciliation - or simply, reconciliation - simplifies the process of passing a budget and was introduced by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.10 To understand why reconciliation matters, we first have to explain how the U.S. Congress sets the budget. The U.S. Budget Process The U.S. budget process (Diagram 2) begins with the U.S. president submitting the White House budget request to Congress. This is a largely ceremonial act as Congress has the power over the appropriations process. Diagram 2U.S. Budget Process: A Tentative Timeline Congress takes into account the president's request as it formulates a budget resolution, which both houses of Congress pass but which is not presented to the president and does not actually constitute law. The resolution sets out the guidelines for the budget process, which is supposed to ultimately produce an appropriations bill. It is this bill, also referred to as a budget bill, which appropriates funding for the various federal government departments, agencies, and programs. Under a revised timetable in effect since 1987, the annual budget resolution is supposed to be adopted by both chambers of Congress by April 15, giving legislators sufficient time to then pass a budget bill by the start of the fiscal year on October 1. However, there is no obligation to do so. In fact, Congress failed to pass a budget resolution for most of President Obama's two terms in office due to a high degree of polarization between the Democrats and Republicans. As such, the government was funded via "continuing resolutions," which merely extended pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year. Reconciliation Process Where does the reconciliation process fit? It was originally introduced to simplify the process of changing the law on the books in order to bring revenue and spending levels into line with the budget resolution. The crucial feature of the process, and the reason we are focusing so much on it, is that it limits the debate in the Senate to 20 hours, thus automatically preventing any Senator from filibustering the ultimate legislation that emerges from the reconciliation process. No filibuster, no need to reach 60 Senate votes to invoke cloture, an act that ends the debate in the chamber. In the current context, where the Republican Party controls 52 seats, this means that the Republicans can use the reconciliation process to pass legislation that would otherwise be "filibustered" in the Senate. The reconciliation procedure is a very powerful legislative tool by which Congress can pass controversial legislation, as long as such legislation has an impact on government revenues or spending levels. Tax legislation, obviously, would impact government revenues. George W. Bush used the reconciliation procedure to lower taxes in 2001 and 2003. His father, George H. W. Bush used reconciliation to raise taxes in 1990 (and thus roll back some of the Ronald Reagan 1986 tax reform). The 1996 welfare reform - the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 - was also passed via the reconciliation process. Obamacare was not passed via the reconciliation procedure. The main portion of the bill - including almost all of its key provisions - was passed at the beginning of the 111th Congress in 2009 when the Democrats held 58 seats in the Senate following the momentous 2008 election.11 It was the subsequent amendments to the original bill that required the reconciliation process due to the death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, particularly several crucial funding provisions. The one unifying feature of all reconciliation bills is that they must have an impact on the budget, essentially by changing the revenue or spending levels of the federal government. If the bill introduces extraneous provisions that deviate from the budgetary requirement, then these can be struck out by invoking the so-called "Byrd rule." Waiving the Byrd rule requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senate, which is 60 votes. As such, it essentially requires the 60-seat majority needed to also invoke cloture, making the entire reconciliation process redundant. Bottom Line: The budget reconciliation process allows U.S. Congress to pass legislation without the a 60-seat Senate majority. However, procedural rules require the provisions of a reconciliation bill to deal exclusively with legislation that impact government revenue or spending levels. Timing Since the introduction of the procedure in 1974, there have been 24 reconciliation bills, three of which were vetoed by the president. The reconciliation process begins with the passing of the budget resolution, which sets out the "reconciliation instructions." However, since the procedure was introduced, it has rarely progressed along the intended timeline. The very first reconciliation act in 1980 was introduced in a budget resolution that passed well after the April 15 deadline, in mid-June. And the ultimate appropriations bill, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, was only signed into law in early December 1980, so essentially two months after the start of FY1981 on October 1. Investors should therefore understand that the U.S. budget process has no real firm deadlines. The schedule is highly malleable. A reconciliation bill also does not have to be passed with the actual budget. Despite being initiated by the budget resolution, reconciliation runs parallel to the budget process. For example, Congress has already set appropriations for FY2017, but the reconciliation bill on Obamacare - set by the FY2017 budget resolution - is still in negotiations. Diagram 3 illustrates that half of all reconciliation bills were passed after the start of the fiscal year for which they were introduced in a budget resolution. And five reconciliation bills were passed in the calendar year of the fiscal year for which they were supposed to reconcile the budget, basically mid way through the fiscal year. Diagram 3Timing Of Reconciliation Procedures This is important in the current context because investors are waiting for tax reform legislation which is supposed to be passed via the budget reconciliation process for FY2018. However, the GOP-controlled Congress has not even finished the budget process for FY2017. In fact, the budget resolution for FY2017 only passed the House on January 13, 2017. As we learned above, U.S. budget process guidelines call for the budget resolution to have been passed by April 15, 2016. As such, the Obamacare repeal and replace bill, if it were to ultimately pass the Senate, would certainly be the most delayed reconciliation bill ever. In fact, we could see the current Congress passing the FY2017 reconciliation bill in the waning days of FY2017! Congressional rules only allow one budget resolution to be active at any one time. In fact, as soon as a new budget resolution is passed, the old reconciliation instructions are made void. As such, investors have to wait for the Republicans to decide what they plan to do with the Obamacare reconciliation bill before they begin contemplating tax reform. Bottom Line: Republicans in Congress decided to issue reconciliation instructions as part of the FY2017 budget resolution, which passed in January. As such, investors have to wait until that process ends - with either Obamacare repeal or failure of the bill - before Congress can produce a FY2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions for tax reform. We suspect that the FY2018 budget resolution will be passed sometime between the end of the August Congressional recess, on September 5, and December. But that is just a guess (Diagram 4). It could happen earlier, in July, if Obamacare is dealt with over the next month. Diagram 4Tentative U.S. Political Timeline Reconciliation Rules And Tax Reform Changing America's complex tax laws is precisely the sort of legislative action that reconciliation was designed to facilitate. That said, investors are still not sure whether the Trump administration and Congress will be able to agree on comprehensive tax reform that includes lowering top rates for corporations, or whether they will merely agree to cut household taxes on households. Some clarity will emerge once the Republican-controlled Congress passes the FY2018 budget resolution, which will contain reconciliation instructions for either comprehensive tax reform (most likely) or merely household tax reform (unlikely). At that point, the length of the reconciliation process will depend on how much agreement there is surrounding tax reform. Diagram 3 shows that tax cuts - such as those in 2001 and 2003 - take relatively little time to pass. Tax reform, on the other hand, could take a while longer given multiple competing interests. If comprehensive, we would expect tax reform to be passed by the end of Q1 2018. Would that mean that tax cuts would only be effective from January 1, 2018? Or, even less bullish, from the start of FY2019? No. The GOP would have the option of making tax cuts retroactive and thus can avoid a huge market disappointment if tax cuts come later in the next year. It is even legally possible for tax laws passed in 2018 to take effect on January 1, 2017 - though it is admittedly more of a stretch than doing it this year.12 Can reconciliation be used to pass budget-busting tax reform, as we have argued investors should expect? You bet! From 1980 to the 1990s the reconciliation procedure was primarily used - and in fact designed - to reduce the deficit through reductions in mandatory spending, revenue increases, or both. It has since become a tool to expand deficits. This was most famously done by the Bush era reconciliation bills in 2001 and 2003, which introduced large tax cuts. The aforementioned Byrd rule forces any provision of a bill that increases the deficit beyond the years covered by the reconciliation bill to "sunset." In the case of the 2001 and 2003 bills, this meant that Bush-era tax cuts expired in 2011 (estate tax) and 2013 (which investors will remember as the "fiscal cliff"). The sunset period does not have to be ten years, it could conceivably be a lot longer, in effect making tax reform permanent, as far as most investors' time horizons are concerned. Following the Democratic Party sweep in the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrat-controlled Senate changed reconciliation rules to prohibit any deficit-increasing measures, regardless of the sunset clause loophole. However, the Republicans changed the rules back in 2015, after they re-took the Senate in the 2014 midterm election. This is crucial for two reasons: first, it means that the current procedural rules on the books allow deficits to be blown out via the reconciliation procedure and second, it establishes that the current cohort of Republicans in Congress is fiscally profligate, despite media punditry to the contrary. Bottom Line: The reconciliation process was designed to facilitate precisely the type of legislation that Republicans will try to pass via tax reform. According to the current procedural rules, such legislation can increase the budget deficit, as long as it sunsets at the conclusion of the budgetary period set out by the legislation (normally 10-years, but it could be longer). We suspect that tax reform will take until Q1 2018 to pass, but Republicans will be able to make its effects retroactive to January 1, 2017. The Big Picture - What Does It All Mean For Fiscal Policy? We expect the Republican-held Congress to attempt to pass comprehensive tax reform over the next four quarters. If the GOP fail to agree on "revenue offsets" for corporate tax cuts, we could see the Republican Congress electing to pass simple tax cuts for households, as the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did. To facilitate such legislation politically, the Republicans will rely on "dynamic scoring," the macroeconomic modeling tool based on the work of economist Arthur Laffer (of the "Laffer curve" fame). The idea is that the headline government revenue lost through tax cuts fails to take into account the growth-generating consequences ("macroeconomic feedback") of the cuts, factors that actually add to revenues. In other words, "tax cuts pay for themselves." It is true that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will balk at dynamic scoring. But we doubt that "egghead, socialist economists" will stand in the way of tax reforms. As we discussed above, the CBO's score will ultimately only force the Republicans to "sunset" tax reform legislation, not scuttle it. The market disagrees with us. After a wave of euphoria following the presidential election, the market has largely priced out meaningful fiscal stimulus. This can be seen in the flagging relative performance of infrastructure stocks and highly-taxed companies, as well as in the sharp decline in inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Market Has Voted: No Fiscal Stimulus We think the market is making a serious mistake by taking the Republican mantra of "revenue neutral" - meaning that any tax cuts would need to be offset by other revenue-raising measures - tax reform seriously. This is easier said than done. The three main ways that House Republicans have offered to pay for corporate and personal tax cuts - introducing a border adjustment tax, eliminating the deductibility of business interest payments, and jettisoning the deduction for state and local income taxes for individuals - will all face resistance from vested interests. We suspect that the GOP will produce some revenue offsets, but not enough to have a revenue-neutral tax reform. The path of least resistance, therefore, will be to bust the budget and then force the measures to expire over the life of the budget-setting window. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney has already floated the idea of extending the 10-year budget scoring window to 20 years. This would allow tax reform measures, even if they are characterized by the CBO as profligate, to expire in two decades. That's practically a lifetime away, as far as any investor is concerned. What is the investment significance of a stimulative tax reform package? Our colleague Peter Berezin has recently pointed out that it is ironic that fiscal stimulus is coming to America only when the economy has reached full employment. This means that much of the increase in aggregate demand arising from a more expansionary fiscal stance will be reflected in higher inflation rather than faster growth. This does not represent a major threat to risk assets now, but could later next year, as the Fed responds to greater fiscal thrust with tighter monetary policy.13 We encourage our clients to read BCA Special Report "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," penned by Martin Barnes in March, which details the likely path that assets and the economy will take over the next two years.14 In the short term, the market will continue to fret that tax reform is doomed and that Republicans are committed to austerity. However, budget-busting tax reform could begin to be priced in by the market well before the reconciliation bill is ultimately passed. We suspect that the outlines of tax reform will emerge this summer. The market may realize that stimulus is coming as soon as the FY2018 budget resolution, containing tax reform instructions, is passed in Q3 or Q4 2017. Such a realization later this year could augur a violent snap-back in the USD. Currently, the two-year real interest rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. have widened by 58 basis points in favor of the latter since the end of March, even though EUR/USD has actually rallied over this period (Chart 10). We have been long EUR/USD since March 22,15 in expectations that investors would be busy covering their euro hedges that they put on in the lead up to the French elections, the outcome of which we have had a high conviction on since November.16 However, now that net long speculative positions in the euro have risen to a three-year high - having been deeply short just a few weeks ago - the speculative demand for euros will ultimately subside (Chart 11). Chart 10Widening Real Rate ##br##Differentials Support The Dollar Chart 11Speculators Are Long The Euro##br## For The First Time In Three Years We are therefore closing our USD short versus both the euro and the pound, for gains of 3.48% and 3.34% respectively. As we expected, the ECB is going to look to guide investors towards a "dovish" tapering of its QE program. Speaking before the European Parliament's committee on economic affairs, ECB President Mario Draghi confirmed that "very accommodative financing conditions" reliant on "a fairly substantial amount of monetary accommodation" would continue. The ECB will have to make a decision whether to extend its sovereign bond purchase program into the next year or start winding it down as planned. Given news flow out of Italy that an election may be planned as early as September, the ECB may be forced to stand pat until after the end of the year. Given our view that tax reform in the U.S. would ultimately happen, and that it would eventually be marginally stimulative, any resurfacing of political risks in Europe - which we are expecting - should be negative for the EUR/USD. What should investors do about European equities? We are cautious. As we have been pointing out to our clients since September of last year, Italy is the political risk in Europe.17 However, we think that most investors are willing to bet that European equities can survive Italian political turbulence. This could be a mistake in the short term, as we think that Euroskeptic (albeit evolving) Five Star Movement could win a plurality in the next election. In the long term, Italy will become ECB's proverbial boulder, that Draghi must push up a hill like Sisyphus, only to see it roll down to the bottom with each bout of Italian political instability. As such, Italy's instability will force ECB to set its monetary policy for the weakest link in the Euro Area (Italy), rather than the aggregate. This should be positive for Euro Area risk assets, but negative for the euro, all other things being equal. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Strike While The Iron Is Hot," dated September 2, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 The dates for the two rounds of the legislative elections are June 11 and 18. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 We draw on several overviews of the budget reconciliation process in this report. Please see David Reich and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Introduction To Budget 'Reconciliation'," dated November 9, 2016, available at cbpp.org; Megan S. Lynch, Congressional Research Service, "The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing Of Legislative Action," dated February 23, 2016, available at fas.org; and Megan S. Lynch, Congressional Research Service, "Budget Reconciliation Measures Enacted Into Law: 1980-2010," dated January 4, 2017, available at fas.org. 11 To reach the required 60 seat filibuster-proof majority the Democrats relied on some luck and cunning. Democrat Al Franken unseated Republican Incumbent Norm Coleman in a recount in Minnesota and Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, switched his party affiliation to Democrat. 12 Congress, after the sweeping 1986 tax reforms, corrected certain oversights in that law by passing subsequent measures in 1987. These were made to be retroactive back to the previous calendar year, i.e. January 1, 1986, and the courts upheld the legislation. Hence, there is precedent for Republicans to pass tax reform in 2018 that takes effect January 1, 2017, though admittedly the circumstances would matter. Courts have even upheld retroactive tax legislation back to two calendar tax years. Please see Erika K. Lunder, Robert Meltz, and Kenneth R. Thomas, "Constitutionality of Retroactive Tax Legislation," Congressional Research Service, October 25, 2012, available at fas.org. 13 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight," dated May 26, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Fiscal policy is likely to be eased modestly in most advanced economies over the next two years. The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has proposed. Ironically, fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. The market is pricing in too little Fed tightening over the remainder of the year. The dollar's swoon is ending. Go short EUR/USD with a target of parity by the end of the year. Feature Fiscal Thrust Around The World In its latest Fiscal Monitor, the IMF estimated that advanced economies eased fiscal policy by 0.2% of GDP in 2016, reversing a five-year streak of fiscal tightening (Chart 1). The Fund expects a further 0.1% of GDP of easing in 2017, followed by a neutral stance in 2018. In the EM universe, the IMF foresees a fiscal thrust1 of -0.2% of GDP in 2017 and -0.4% of GDP in 2018. Chart 1IMF Expects Modest Fiscal Easing In Advanced Economies, Further Tightening In EM Averages can disguise a lot of variation across countries (Charts 2). Comparing 2018 with 2016, the IMF expects Canada and the U.S. to experience a positive fiscal thrust of 0.7% of GDP and 0.4% of GDP, respectively. The fiscal thrust is projected to be -0.2% of GDP in the euro area, -1% of GDP in the U.K., and -0.5% of GDP in Japan. Among the larger advanced economies, Australia is expected to experience the largest degree of fiscal tightening, with a fiscal thrust of -1.2% of GDP. Across the EM universe, most of the fiscal tightening is projected to occur among oil producers. The IMF expects oil-exporting economies to collectively reduce their fiscal deficits by US$150 billion between 2016 and 2018. Political considerations require that the IMF give considerable weight to the stated objectives of governments when formulating fiscal projections. In reality, governments often struggle to meet their budget targets. Consequently, the Fund has typically overestimated the degree of fiscal consolidation that ends up happening (Chart 3). As such, our own projections foresee somewhat less fiscal tightening - and in some countries, a fair bit of fiscal easing - than the IMF projects. In particular: Chart 2Countries Will Follow Different Fiscal Paths Chart 3IMF Forecasts Tend To Overestimate Extent Of Fiscal Consolidation We do not expect much more incremental fiscal tightening out of the euro area. Thanks to a slew of austerity measures, the euro area's structural primary budget balance went from a deficit of 2.6% of GDP in 2010 to a surplus of 1.0% of GDP in 2014. It has remained close to those levels ever since. Now that a primary surplus has already been achieved and interest rates and bond spreads have fallen to exceptionally low levels, the need for further belt tightening has abated. That's the good news. The bad news is that high government debt levels in many European economies rule out any major new stimulus programs (Chart 4). The U.K. will slow the pace of fiscal consolidation. The U.K.'s structural primary budget deficit fell from a peak of 7.1% of GDP in 2009 to 1.3% of GDP in 2016. The IMF expects the primary balance to move into a surplus of 0.6% of GDP in 2019. We think that's unlikely. The Conservatives are under intense pressure to keep the economy afloat during Brexit negotiations. Prime Minister Theresa May has indicated she will delay eradicating the budget deficit until the middle of the next decade, having previously promised a 2020 target date. Japan has limited scope to further tighten fiscal policy. Japan's structural primary budget deficit reached 6.9% of GDP in 2010. The IMF expects it to reach 3.7% this year and fall further to 2% in 2020, provided the government goes forward with raising the VAT from 8% to 10%. We are skeptical that Japan's economy will be strong enough to allow the government to raise taxes. However, even if it is, this will only be because the Bank of Japan gooses growth by keeping long-term yields pinned to zero, thereby allowing the yen to depreciate further. China is making a structural transition to large budget deficits. The IMF estimates that China's structural primary budget balance deteriorated from a surplus of 0.1% of GDP in 2014 to a deficit of 2.8% of GDP in 2016. The increase in the fiscal deficit cannot be explained by the reclassification of off-budget spending as on-budget, since the IMF's "augmented" fiscal balance - which attempts to control for such statistical issues - deteriorated by roughly the same amount (Chart 5). Part of the erosion in China's fiscal balance stemmed from the global manufacturing slowdown in 2015-2016, which hit tax receipts and necessitated a healthy dose of fiscal stimulus. However, there is more to the story than that. As we controversially argued in "China Needs More Debt," now that China is no longer in a position to run gargantuan current account surpluses, large fiscal deficits will be necessary to absorb excess private-sector savings.2 The government's desire to rein in credit growth will only add to the impetus to find new sources of aggregate demand. The era of red ink has begun. Chart 4Government Debt Levels Outside Of Germany Are Still High Chart 5China's Fiscal Deficit Has Been Increasing The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has ambitiously proposed. After a wave of euphoria following the presidential election, the market has largely priced out meaningful fiscal stimulus. This can be seen in the flagging relative performance of infrastructure stocks and highly-taxed companies, as well as in the sharp decline in inflation expectations (Chart 6). We think this pessimism is overdone. Donald Trump desperately needs a "win," and cutting taxes is one key area where the President and Congress both see eye to eye. Trump's falling poll numbers have heightened the risk that the Republicans will lose control of the House of Representatives next November (Chart 7). This makes passing a tax bill before the midterm elections all the more urgent. The main questions surround the scale and scope of any tax cuts, and just as critically, how they are paid for. We discuss these issues next. Chart 6Markets Have Priced Out Meaningful Fiscal Stimulus Chart 7Challenging Outlook For Republicans In 2018 Trump's Budget Proposal: Fake Math Chart 8Trump In Wonderland? If the definition of a good leader is one who underpromises and overdelivers, then President Trump's budget proposal left much to be desired. Trump's plan assumes that U.S. growth will reach 3% over the next ten years. Even in the unlikely event that the economy manages to avert a recession over this period, such a growth rate would be a remarkable feat. After all, growth has averaged only 2.1% since 2009. And keep in mind that the unemployment rate has fallen from 10% to 4.4% over this interval, consistent with potential GDP growth of only 1.4%. The slow pace of capital accumulation following the Great Recession undoubtedly hurt the supply side of the economy, but it would take a phenomenal - and rather implausible - acceleration in potential GDP growth to justify Trump's 3% target. Many of the other assumptions in Trump's blueprint are no less dubious (Chart 8). Despite projecting much slower growth, the Federal Reserve expects short-term rates to rise to 3% in 2019. In contrast, the Trump administration sees rates increasing to only 2.4%, an assumption that perhaps not coincidentally helps reduce projected debt-servicing costs. Most flagrantly, the plan assumes no decline in the revenue-to-GDP ratio, even though the basis for faster growth largely rests on the assumption of steep tax cuts. When pressed on the issue, officials from the Office of Management and Budget sheepishly noted that there would be offsetting limits on tax deductions, which would have the effect of broadening the tax base. However, no specific information was given on what these would entail. Many theories have been offered as to why Trump offered such an outlandish budget plan. Was he trying to appease conservatives in Congress? Perhaps this was just a sly attempt to gain leverage in future budget negotiations? Our theory is simpler: Trump promised an economic boom during the election campaign, while assuring voters that his tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Hell would need to freeze over before he released a plan that did not share these assumptions. Congress Will Decide So where do we go from here? The specifics of Trump's plan are irrelevant. Congress will rewrite the budget from scratch. Major spending cuts will be scrapped. So will the onerous cuts to insurance subsidies and Medicaid in the House version of the health care bill. The Senate will ditch those. In contrast, Trump's tax cuts will be preserved, albeit on a smaller scale than envisioned in his budget proposal. Granted, congressional leaders have said they want tax reform to be revenue neutral, meaning that any tax cuts would need to be offset by other revenue-raising measures. That is easier said than done, however. The three main ways that House Republicans have offered to pay for corporate and personal tax cuts - introducing a border adjustment tax, eliminating the deductibility of business interest payments, and jettisoning the deduction for state and local income taxes for individuals - all face severe resistance from vested interests. In Washington, where there is a will there is usually a dishonest way. Budget forecasts are typically made over a 10-year window. Thus, it is possible to lower taxes upfront and promise spending cuts and ill-defined revenue raising measures in the tail end of the budget window. Such a strategy would generate a positive fiscal thrust early on, while leaving the door open for Congress to dump any future spending reduction or revenue measures before they are actually implemented. Add to that the tax revenue that is projected to pour in from supply-side reforms, and the stage is set for a dollop of fiscal easing starting in early 2018. How likely is it that Republicans will pursue such a strategy? Very likely. As evidence, look no further than the fact that White House budget director Mick Mulvaney floated the idea on Wednesday of extending the 10-year budget scoring window to 20 years. Investment Conclusions Chart 9Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well An obsessive focus on fiscal austerity hamstrung the recovery in many countries following the Great Recession. The irony is that fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. This means that much of the increase in aggregate demand arising from a more expansionary fiscal stance will be reflected in higher inflation rather than faster growth. This does not represent a major threat to risk assets now, but could later next year. Despite all the obituaries that have been written for the death of the Phillips curve, the data show that it is alive and well (Chart 9). Higher inflation will allow the Fed to raise rates once per quarter. The market is not prepared for this. Investors currently expect only 45 basis points in rate hikes over the coming 12 months. That is far too low. On the other side of the Atlantic, the ECB's months-to-hike measure has plummeted from 65 months in July 2016 to only 24 months today (Chart 10). Real rates are projected to be a mere 14 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area in five years' time (Chart 11). Chart 10The Big Shift In Market Sentiment Towards ECB Policy Chart 11The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread Poor demographics and high private-sector debt levels imply that the neutral rate of interest is lower in the euro area than in the U.S. And while the euro area may not be tightening fiscal policy any longer, the fact that its structural primary budget balance is 2.6% of GDP larger than America's means that the euro area's overall fiscal stance will contribute less to aggregate demand than in the U.S. This will force the ECB to keep rates lower for longer, causing the euro to weaken. Chart 12Widening Real Rate Differentials ##br##Support The Dollar Chart 13Speculators Are Long The Euro For ##br##The First Time In Three Years Incredibly, two-year real interest rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. have widened by 41 basis points in favor of the latter since the end of March, even though EUR/USD has actually rallied over this period (Chart 12). We think this divergence has occurred because investors have been busy covering the euro hedges that they put on in the lead up to the French elections. However, now that net long speculative positions in the euro have risen to a three-year high - having been deeply short just a few weeks ago - the speculative demand for euros will subside (Chart 13). With all this in mind, we are going short EUR/USD today with a year-end target of parity and a stop-loss of 1.14. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the structural primary budget balance from one year to the next. As a convention, we define a positive thrust as loosening in fiscal policy (i.e., a lower fiscal balance). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, and "China Needs More Debt," dated May 20, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Brazilian President Michel Temer has been accused of crimes much worse than what got his predecessor impeached; Further instability is likely, with low probability that Temer's impeachment would restart reforms; Only a technocratic government, or brand new election, could produce a market-friendly outcome. Odds are that Brazil's public debt load will continue to escalate, and that in two years or so the debt-to-GDP ratio will spiral out of control. Without structural reforms and higher commodities prices, Brazilian financial markets are looking into the abyss. Stay put on Brazilian financial markets. Feature Investors cheered the impeachment of Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff, bidding up Brazilian assets for over a year despite the challenging macroeconomic context. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy services have repeatedly cautioned investors not to buy the hype. Brazil was already "priced for political perfection" on May 12, 2016 when Rousseff was removed from office to face trial by the senate over fiscal accounting irregularities.1 And yet, the political context has been far from perfect. As we wrote last May: "It is highly unlikely that the political dysfunction within Brazil's political class will end with a Temer administration, at least not anytime soon." The latest corruption revelations have directly implicated acting president Michel Temer of the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) as well as Senator Aecio Neves, the leader of centrist and investor-friendly Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB) and a key Temer ally in Congress. The market has placed a massive bullish bet in the abilities of the tentative Temer-Neves (PMDB-PSDB) entente cordiale to push through largely unpopular fiscal reforms through Congress. These reforms, none of which have passed yet (!), are now likely to stall until either an early election is called (best case scenario) or until the current government's mandate expires in October 2018. We have expected Brazil's political rally to dissipate. As we argued in 2016, without a new election, the interim government has no mandate for painful structural reforms. We are sticking to this view today. What Is Going On In Brazil? According to revelations in the Brazilian press, President Temer was caught in an audio recording asking the chairman of JBS Group - the world's largest meatpacker - to continue making payments to the former President of the Chamber of Deputies Eduardo Cunha, who was jailed for corruption in 2016. Cunha, a former Temer ally and member of PMDB, was indicted in the large scale "Operation Car Wash" corruption scandal involving the state-owned oil company Petrobras. The payments by JBS were allegedly meant to ensure that Cunha did not spill the beans on his co-conspirators. Cunha had previously disclosed that he possessed compromising information about several senior politicians linked to the Petrobras scandal. JBS Chairman Joesley Batista, himself under investigation, recorded a conversation with Temer on March 7 as part of his plea bargain negotiations with law enforcement officials. According to press reports, Temer asked Batista to continue payments to ensure Cunha's silence. As part of the same investigation, Senator Aecio Neves - the darling of the Brazilian investment community who narrowly lost the presidential election to Rousseff in 2014 - was filmed soliciting two million reals ($638,000) from Batista. This is not his first brush with the law, Neves was also under corruption investigation when he was the governor of the state of Minas Gerais. Neves's apartment has since been raided by the police as the corruption probe against Brazilian politicians reaches a fever pitch. How serious are the charges against the Temer and his ruling coalition? They are deadly serious. As an aside, we have been puzzled that investors have never posed the following question: how was it possible that the entire political and especially congressional system is so corrupt but Temer - the long-serving head of the largest party in the congress and one of the most shrewd politicians in Brazil - has not been involved in this corruption scheme. President Dilma Rousseff, former leader of the left-wing Workers Party (PT) and successor to President Inácio "Lula" da Silva, was impeached and removed from power for a lot less. There was never any actual evidence that Rousseff was personally involved in Operation Car Wash, at least at the time of her impeachment. In fact, the strongest legal case against Rousseff was that she failed to uphold the so-called Fiscal Responsibility Law. Essentially, Rousseff was impeached and removed from power because she stimulated the economy for political gain. A charge that practically every president in Brazil's history has been guilty of (if not every leader in the world!). Temer and Neves are accused of much greater crimes. If the reporting of the Brazilian press is accurate, Neves personally profited and continues to profit from Operation Car Wash. And Temer is then directly involved, to this day, in obstruction of justice and witness intimidation. These are not crimes by association or mere technicalities resulting from politically charged fiscal profligacy. Rather, they are serious crimes that could end with lengthy jail terms, let alone removal from power. Rousseff claimed that her removal from power was a coup d'état. She was correct to characterize it as such. Unlike in the U.S., where a president removed from power is replaced with the vice president from the same party, in Brazil vice presidents are often appointed from a coalition partner. As such, Vice President Temer replaced Rousseff and proceeded to alter Brazilian policy in a dramatic fashion. He abandoned the PMDB legislative alliance with left-wing PT, turned to the centrist PSDB for votes in Congress and proceeded to enact orthodox, conservative, supply-side reforms. While these are absolutely the reforms that Brazil needs, we never accepted the view that they are reforms that Brazilians want. In fact, Rousseff won the 2014 election against Neves, with Temer as her running mate, by campaigning on a populist platform against precisely these types of supply-side reforms. Bottom Line: We hate to tell our clients "we told you so," but Temer's 180-degree turn in policy was never going to work. Not without an election that bolsters his political mandate to enact painful structural reforms. We also cautioned our clients that corruption in Brazilian Congress was endemic and severe and would therefore not magically disappear with Rousseff's removal from power. As such, "impeachment was no panacea,"2 especially not when many members of Congress voting against Dilma were under investigation for corruption themselves! The high level of corruption is not because of a moral failing particular to Brazilian mentality. Rather, corruption is a feature of Brazil's fractured and regionalized politics that depend on side-payments and pork barreling to grease the wheels of legislative process. Rousseff's crimes appear paltry when compared to the (yet unproven) allegations against Temer and Neves. J-Curve Of Structural Reforms Amidst the 2016 political crisis, we argued that the only positive outcome for Brazilian politics and markets in the long-term would be a new election (Figure I-1).3 Why? Because we understood how painful fiscal reforms would have to be to deal with Brazil's disastrous fiscal position (Chart I-1). Without a new election, the interim Temer administration would not have the political capital to enact painful reforms. Figure I-1Brazil: Our Take On Possible Political Scenarios ##br##Before Former President Rousseff Was Impeached Chart I-1Brazil's Fiscal Position The market has disagreed with us for a full year now. However, the rally based on political hopes was always unsustainable. First, investors have misunderstood the nature of political corruption in Brazilian politics and just how intrinsic the problem has been. In retrospect, Rousseff may have been the least corrupt major politician in Brazil! Second, investors have ignored the message of our J-Curve of structural reforms (Diagram I-1). Diagram I-1Structural Reforms Are Painful: ##br##Stylized Representation Reform is always and everywhere painful, otherwise it would be the form. Every government pursuing reforms has to get through the "danger zone" on our J-curve of structural reform. As reforms are passed and enacted, they begin to "bite." This is when the protests against reforms mount and the government loses its political capital. If the policymakers in charge of the reform effort are already starting with low political capital - as the Temer and his congressional coalition most certainly did in August 2016 - than the "danger zone" is essentially insurmountable. We have disagreed with the market as it has confused Rousseff's removal from power with widespread support for reforms that amount to economic austerity. As we often repeated in client meetings, "a vote for impeachment is not a vote for austerity." With general election only roughly one year away in October 2018, we doubted that the Temer administration would have the political capital to push through such reforms. After all, every government wants to be reelected and pursuing painful reforms ahead of the elections is not feasible election winning strategy. What has the Temer coalition managed to do thus far? It must have done a lot, given the positive market performance over the past 12 months? False. The market has rallied despite remarkably shoddy evidence of actual reforms. As we predicted in our analyses throughout 2016, the post-Rousseff Brazilian policymakers have been dogged by lack of political capital. Out of five major reform efforts, only two have passed - oil-auction legislation (Production Sharing Agreement Bill) and a fiscal-spending cap. We do not wish to claim that the latter is insignificant but as we discuss below they are insufficient to stabilize Brazil's public debt load. The main three reform efforts that would have significant long-term effect on Brazil's fiscal sustainability - social security reform, labor reform, and tax reform - have stalled and are now likely to fail (Table I-1). Table I-1President Temer's Proposed Structural Reforms & Their Status Brazilian Senator Ricardo Ferraço, of the centrist PSDB, in charge of drafting the labor reform report for the Senate, has already canceled the work on the proposal. Ferraço issued a statement that said, "the institutional crisis we are facing is devastating and we need to prioritize finding a solution. Everything else is secondary now." This is a major blow against labor reforms, which already passed the lower house in April. We suspect that it will largely be impossible to restart and, more importantly, pass the reforms without an election that gives a new government a political mandate. Alternatively, a technocratic government led by technocrats without political ambitions, could try to enact reforms until the next election. Without a new election or a technocratic government, members of centrist PSDB and center-left PMDB will start to distance themselves from the allegedly corrupt Temer administration. It makes no political sense for Congressmen like Ferraço to sacrifice their own political capital on the cross of austerity just a year from the start of the electoral campaign in the summer of 2018. Bottom Line: The results made clear by Figure I-1 are not surprising and were eminently forecastable. However, the market ignored the structural realities of Brazilian politics, as well as the theoretical foundation of successful structural reforms, and charged ahead regardless. Without fiscal reforms outlined in Table I-1, however, Brazil will likely end up in a debt trap very soon. A Perilous Fiscal Situation Brazil's fiscal position and public debt remain on an unsustainable trajectory. In fact, there has been limited fiscal improvement compared to what financial markets have priced in. In particular: The constitutional amendment by Brazilian President Michel Temer's government that introduced a cap on government spending was a dilution of the Fiscal Responsibility Law adopted in 2000 which stipulated that the government had to run primary fiscal surpluses. Capping government expenditure growth to the inflation rate de facto represents a relaxation of structural fiscal policy. Under the new fiscal rules, the government is targeting not the primary fiscal deficit (and, by extension, public debt), but only government expenditures. This implies that in a case where government revenues fall short of projections, the government is not obliged to rein in spending. On the whole, Temer's government has relaxed rather than tightened structural fiscal rules. While this makes sense because the economy is in a depression and needs fiscal relief, it has been bad news for government creditors. As a final point, the former President Dilma Rousseff was impeached for violating this exact same law that the current government has now relaxed. The fiscal balance has stabilized around 9% of GDP in the past year, but this has been due to one-off temporary measures. With nominal GDP growth at around 5%, the bulk of the 16% rise in collected income taxes from a year ago came from one-off measures such as the repayment of funds by the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) to the government, taxes on foreign asset repatriation and other temporary actions (Chart I-2). In short, Temer's government has resorted to one-off measures to improve the country's fiscal position. Unless the economy and tax collection recover strongly in the next 12 months, Brazil's fiscal position will worsen substantially, and public debt servicing will become unsustainable. Furthermore, the federal government's transfers to states have surged as the latter are facing their own fiscal crises due to revenue shortfalls. Local governments are reluctant to curb spending amid the ongoing depression, and will continue to pressure the federal government for more transfers. This will worsen public debt dynamics. Importantly, the social security deficit, presently at 2.4% of GDP, will continue to escalate without meaningful reforms (Chart I-3). According to IMF estimates,4 the social security deficit will reach 14% of GDP by 2021 if no reforms are implemented. This is assuming robust economic recovery this year and solid growth in the years ahead. Given social security reforms are unlikely to occur and economic growth will continue to underwhelm amid heightened political uncertainty, odds are that the impact of the social security deficit on the public debt dynamics will be worse than the IMF projections suggest. Moreover, the gap between local currency interest rates and nominal GDP growth remains extremely wide (Chart I-4). To offset this, the government has to run primary surpluses. The primary deficit is currently 2.3% of GDP. Chart I-2Income Tax Collection Has Been ##br##Boosted By One-Off Measures Chart I-3Brazil's Social Security System ##br##Is On Unsustainable Track Chart I-4An Untenable Gap That said, tightening fiscal policy amid the ongoing economic depression is politically suicidal. Finally, our public debt simulation suggests that unless economic growth recovers strongly, Brazil's public debt-to-GDP ratio will rise above 90% of GDP by the end of 2019 - in both our baseline and most pessimistic scenarios. Notably, our baseline scenario assumes nominal GDP growth of 5.5% in 2017, and 7% in both 2018 and 2019 (Table I-2). These are not bearish assumptions, but and could prove optimistic given the escalating political crisis. This debt simulation assumes that interest rates will stay above 10%, but it also assumes no bailout for public banks and state-owned companies, or a rise in transfers to state governments. Table I-2Brazil: Public Debt Sustainability Scenarios 2017-2019 Bottom Line: Odds are that Brazil's public debt load will continue to escalate, and that in two years or so the debt-to-GDP ratio will spiral out of control. The Economy, Corporate Profits And Markets There has been no recovery in either the economy or corporate profits (excluding commodities companies). Brazilian share prices have rallied massively in the past 17 months, yet profits in companies leveraged to the domestic business cycle have continued to shrink. Specifically, EPS for consumer staples companies and banks have dropped a lot in local currency terms, despite the equity market rally (Chart I-5). It is normal that share prices lead profits by six to 12 months, but the current rally in Brazil is already 16 months old. In short, the discrepancy between share prices and EPS is unprecedented and unsustainable. Ongoing profit weakness is consistent with a lack of recovery in domestic demand, which is corroborated by the macro data: retail sales volumes, manufacturing production and capital goods imports have not grown at all; their pace of contraction has simply moderated (Chart I-6). Chart I-5No Recovery In Corporate Profits ##br##In Non-Commodities Sectors Chart I-6No Recovery In Economy In Brazil, key to its financial markets is the exchange rate. If and when the currency appreciates, interest rates will decline and share prices will rally and the economy will eventually revive - and vice versa. In turn, the exchange rate is driven not by the interest rate differential versus the U.S., as shown in Chart I-7, but by commodities prices, with which it strongly correlates (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Interest Rate Differential And ##br##Exchange Rate: No Correlation Chart I-8BRL Is Sensitive To Commodities Prices BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team believes commodities prices have peaked and will decline in the months ahead. This, along with renewed political turmoil, warrants a bearish stance on the Brazilian currency. While the central bank has large foreign currency reserves and could sell U.S. dollars to support the real, this cannot preclude a selloff in the nation's financial markets. Selling foreign currency by a central bank entails withdrawing local currency from the banking system, tighter local liquidity and higher interest rates. Hence, a central bank can defend the exchange rate from depreciation if it tolerates higher interbank rates. Higher interest rates will, however, be devastating for Brazil. If the central bank of Brazil, having used its international reserves to defend the currency, decides to inject local currency liquidity into the system to bring down local rates, the outcome will be currency depreciation. In a nutshell, a central bank cannot control both the exchange rate and local interest rates if the nation has an open capital account structure. Remarkably, Chart I-9 contends that in Brazil, the exchange rate correlates with central bank lending to commercial banks. If the central bank lends to commercial banks, the currency depreciates, and vice versa. Facing the choice between currency depreciation and higher local rates, the Brazilian central bank will choose the former because of its perilous public debt situation as well as the imperative of a revival in credit growth. Hence, the Brazilian central bank is unlikely to defend the currency on a sustainable basis. If the currency depreciates, local bonds, sovereign and corporate U.S. dollar credit and share prices will sell off too. Bottom Line: Without structural reforms and higher commodities prices, Brazilian financial markets are looking into the abyss. Investment Recommendations Politics has fueled the rally in Brazilian assets since early 2016, and now politics taketh away. With the political tailwinds reversing, investors will have nothing left to base their decisions on but the terrible macroeconomic picture. We maintain our bearish stance on Brazilian financial markets: We continue to short the BRL versus both the U.S. dollar and the Mexican peso. The real is not cheap at all while the peso offers good value (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Central Bank's Liquidity Provision ##br##To Banks Vs. Exchange Rate Chart I-10BRL Is Not Cheap, MXN Is Dedicated EM equity and credit investors should continue underweighting Brazil in their respective portfolios. Finally, local rates will be under upward pressure as the currency depreciates. We remain offside this market. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Santiago E. Gomez, Consulting Editor santiago@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: Priced For Political Perfection," dated May 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Brazil: Impeachment Is No Panacea," dated April 26, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brazil's Political Honeymoon Is Over," dated August 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Cuevas et al., IMF Working Paper: Fiscal Challenges of Population Aging in Brazil, March 2017