Fiscal

Special Report

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

Highlights U.S. fiscal stimulus will be priced back into markets; Northeast Asia is consumed with domestic politics for now; China's financial crackdown raises risks, but so far looks contained; South Korea's relief rally will lead to buyer's remorse; Japan's constitutional reforms portend more reflation. Feature The market has lost faith in U.S. fiscal stimulus. The bond market has given back all of the expectations of faster growth and higher inflation (Chart 1). Hopes of populist, budget-busting tax cuts appear to have been dashed by the Putin-gate scandal and alleged White House obstruction of justice. As a result, the DXY has fallen to pre-election levels, while the Goldman Sachs high tax-rate basket of equities has fallen to its lowest level relative to the S&P 500 since February 2016 (Chart 2). We continue to believe that tax reform, or just tax cuts, will happen this year or early next year and that the market will have to re-price fiscal stimulus and budget profligacy at some point this year.1 As such, we are not ready to close our tactical recommendations of going long the high-tax rate basket relative to S&P 500 (down 1.62% since April 5) or playing the 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener (down 11.4 bps since November 1). Republicans in Congress will push through tax reforms or cuts for the sake of remaining competitive in the upcoming midterm elections. And we doubt their commitment to budget discipline. That said, it is not clear that the equity market needs tax reforms to continue its upward trajectory. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is predicting growth of 4.1% in the second quarter while the NY Fed's Nowcast is forecasting 2.3%. BCA U.S. Equity Strategy's earnings model continues to predict continued healthy profit growth for the remainder of the year both in the U.S. and abroad (Chart 3).2 In fact, if expectations of stimulus in the U.S. fully dissipate, the USD will take a breather - giving global stocks a boost - and the Fed will be able to take it easy on tightening U.S. rates, easing global monetary conditions. Chart 1Market No Longer##br## Believes In Trump Stimulus... Chart 2...Or Trump ##br##Tax Cuts Chart 3Corporate Profit ##br##Outlook Still Strong Perhaps far more important for global and U.S. risk assets is global growth. And the fulcrum of global growth has been China's economic performance. As the only country willing to run pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy, China has had a disproportionate impact on global growth since 2008. As such, we turn this week to the geopolitics and politics of Northeast Asia. China: How Far Will Deleveraging Go? Chinese financial policy tightening caught the market by surprise this year. The running assumption was that policy would be fully accommodative in order to ensure stability ahead of the all-important nineteenth National Party Congress in October or November.3 However, it is possible that the assumption is flawed. First, as we have pointed out in the past, China does not have a record of proactive economic stimulus ahead of party congresses (Chart 4). Second, President Xi Jinping may be far more secure in his position than is understood. Chart 4Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Mid-Term Party Congresses In China The crackdown on the financial sector in recent months suggests that Xi's administration has a greater appetite for risk ahead of the party congress than is generally believed: The administration is continuing to tamp down on the property sector. The PBoC has drained liquidity and allowed interbank rates to rise (Chart 5). The China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) has launched inspections and new regulations on wealth management products and the shadow lending sector. The China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) has imposed new restrictions, including preventing insurers from selling new policies. One can make a good case that these measures will be limited so as not to cause excessive disruption in the financial system. All of the key Communist Party statements, from Premier Li Keqiang's recent comments to those made by the economic leadership in December, at the beginning of this tightening cycle, have emphasized that stability remains the priority.4 The PBoC's measures have been marginal; other measures have mostly to do with supervision. Notable personnel changes affecting the top economic and financial government positions fall under preparations for the party congress and do not necessarily suggest a new ambitious policy initiative is under way.5 Moreover, the government has already stepped back a bit in the face of the liquidity squeeze. One of the signs of the PBoC's tighter stance was its discontinuation of its Medium-Term Lending Facility in January, but this has since been reinstated.6 And throughout May the PBoC has injected increasing amounts of liquidity into the interbank system, marking an apparent tactical shift (Chart 6). Furthermore, government spending is already growing again after a brief contraction. Chart 5People's Bank Tightens Marginally... Chart 6...But Keeps Interbank Rates On A Leash In light of these decisions, it seems policy tightening is intended not to be stringent but merely to keep the financial sector - especially the shadow banking sector - in check during a year in which the assumption is that regulators' hands are tied. After all, an unchecked expansion of leverage throughout the year could interfere with the stability imperative. There are two major risks to this view. First, there is the danger of unintended consequences: China is overleveraged: The fundamental problem for China is that there is too much leverage in the system and there has not been a bout of deleveraging for several years (Chart 7). Much of the leverage is off-balance sheet as a result of the rapid growth in shadow lending. There are complex and opaque webs of counterparty risk. When authorities crack down, they cannot be certain that their actions will not spiral out of control. Recently, heightened scrutiny of "mutual guarantees," a type of shadow lending between corporations, led to the default of a company in Shandong that prompted a local government bailout, and more such credit events have occured.7 Policymakers are human: It is a fallacy to assume that Chinese policymakers are omnipotent. The mishaps of 2015-16 put a point on this. A state-backed newspaper has recently reiterated that its "deleveraging" campaign is not finished - the government could accidentally push too far.8 The rise in bond yields has already inverted the yield curve, causing the five-year bond yield to rise higher than the ten-year (Chart 8). This is a red flag and warrants caution.9 Quick fixes have negative side-effects: China escaped the last round of financial jitters, in 2015-16, by using its time-tried technique of credit and fiscal spending to boost the property market and build infrastructure, while imposing draconian capital controls. The growth rebound came at the expense of more debt, less economic rebalancing, and less financial openness. Chart 7China Is Massively Overleveraged Chart 8China's Yield Curve Has Inverted Second, there is the risk that Xi Jinping's calculus ahead of the party congress is not knowable. It may well be the case that Xi's position in the party is strengthened by a disruptive financial crackdown. The party congress is already under way: The party congress runs all year; it is not merely a one-off event this fall. Senior party officials will come up with a list of candidates for promotion in June or July. Then the PSC and former PSC members will likely meet behind the scenes to hash out their final list, which the Central Committee will ratify in the fall. If financial jitters were supposed to be strictly avoided for the party congress, then the current crackdown would never have begun. The outcomes are uncertain: The negotiations for the Politburo and PSC are not a foregone conclusion no matter how well positioned Xi appears to be as the "core" of the Communist Party. A simple assessment of the current Politburo suggests that the factions are evenly balanced when it comes to the current Politburo members capable of filling the five positions on the new PSC. Two of these positions should go to President Xi's and Premier Li Keqiang's successors, likely to be of opposing factions, while there will probably be three remaining slots that will have to be divvied up among an equal number of candidates from the two main factions (Table 1). Xi may still need to win some battles for influence behind the scenes in order to stack the Central Committee, Politburo, and PSC with his people for 2017 and beyond.10 His anti-corruption campaign has slowed down but is not over (Chart 9). This is all the more imperative for him since his retirement could be rattled by future enemies, given that he has removed the longstanding impunity of former PSC members. Table 1Lineup Of New Politburo Standing Committee Yet To Take Shape - Factions Evenly Balanced Despite these risks, we still tend to think that for China, as for the world, political risks are overstated in 2017 and understated in 2018.11 If Xi deliberately courts instability this year, as opposed to merely staying vigilant over the financial sector, then it will mark a major break from the norms of Chinese politics. The true risk to China's stability - aside from the unintended consequences discussed above - arises after the party congress, when Xi's political capital is replenished and he can attempt to reboot his policy agenda. Previous presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin both launched reform pushes after their midterm congresses in 2007 and 1997, respectively. Hu's reform drive was cut short by the global financial crisis, while Jiang's was large-scale and disruptive and paved the way for a decade of higher potential GDP. Having consolidated power in the party, bureaucracy, and military, and tightened controls over the media, Xi Jinping will be in a position in 2018 to launch sweeping reforms should he choose to do so. Presumably these reforms would follow along the lines of those he outlined in the Third Plenum of the Eighteenth Central Committee back in 2013 - they would be pro-market reforms focused on raising productivity by transferring more wealth to households and SMEs at the expense of state-owned enterprises and local governments.12 To illustrate the process of structural reform, we have often used the notion of the "J-Curve" in Diagram 1. This shows that painful reforms deplete political capital, creating a "danger zone" for political leaders in which they lose popularity as economic pain hurts the public. Xi's work over the past five years to fight corruption and rebuild the party's public image have given him the ability to start the J-Curve process from a higher point than otherwise would have been the case. He will start at point D in the diagram, instead of point A, which means that the low point E may not embroil him as deeply in the danger zone of serious political instability as point B. Chart 9Embers Still Burning In ##br##Anti-Corruption Campaign Diagram 1The J-curve Of##br## Structural Reform But there is still no guarantee that he intends to expend his political capital in this way. The current round of financial tightening could be preliminaries for bigger moves next year - or it could be just another mini-cycle in the ongoing process of "managing" China's massive leverage. If China decides to execute a major deleveraging campaign, either now or next year, it will have a negative effect on global commodity demand (particularly base metals), on commodity exporters, on emerging markets in general, and ultimately on global growth. It would be beneficial for Chinese growth in the long run but negative in the short run, and in terms of Chinese domestic risk assets would open up opportunities for investors to favor "new (innovative) China" versus "old (industrial) China." Bottom Line: We remain long Chinese equities versus Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities for now, but are wary of any sign of doubling down on policy tightening in the face of more frequent and intense credit events. That would indicate that the Chinese leadership has a higher risk appetite than anyone expects and may be willing to induce serious financial disruption before the party congress. Korea: Drunk On Moonshine The Korean election is over and with it much of the heightened uncertainty that accompanied the impeachment and removal from office of President Park Geun-hye over the past year. The new president, Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party, performed right around the polled expectations at 41% of the vote (Table 2). His competitor on the right wing, Hong Jun-pyo, outperformed expectations, though he still trailed well behind at 24%, giving Moon a large margin of victory by Korean standards that will help provide him with political capital (Chart 10). Table 2South Korean Presidential Election Results Chart 10Moon Will Have A Honeymoon Moon's election will bring relief to markets on both the domestic and geopolitical front. On the domestic front, he is proposing a series of policies that will cumulatively boost fiscal thrust and growth. On the geopolitical front, he will revive the "Sunshine Policy" (now "Moonshine Policy") of engagement with North Korea, reducing the appearance that the peninsula is slipping into war.13 The power vacuum in South Korea was a key driver of North Korea's belligerence in 2016, as the lead-up to South Korean elections has been in the past (Chart 11). South Korean presidents typically enjoy a substantial honeymoon period in which they are able to drive policy. The fact that the election occurred seven months early, as a result of the impeachment, gives Moon a notable boost to this period - he has seven months longer than he would have had before he faces any potential check from voters in the 2020 legislative elections. That is not to say that Moon has free rein. Ahn Cheol-soo's People's Party holds 40 seats in the National Assembly and is therefore in a "kingmaker" position - able to provide either the ruling Democratic Party or the fractured right-wing opposition with a majority of seats (Diagram 2). The People's Party is already criticizing Moon's call for increasing government spending by around 0.7% of GDP to fulfill his campaign pledges. True, the People's Party leans to the left and rose to power as a result of the median voter's shift to the left in the 2016's legislative elections. This may limit its ability to obstruct Moon's agenda at first. Nevertheless, it poses a substantial constraint on Moon's agenda through 2020. Chart 11Bull Market For##br## North Korean Threats Diagram 2Center-Left People's Party##br## Is The Korean Kingmaker Markets are relieved but not ebullient. The impeachment rally is over and eventually markets will realize that while Moon's agenda is pro-growth, it is not necessarily pro-corporate profits (Chart 12). He is promising to introduce a higher minimum wage, to convert temporary labor contracts into permanent ones, to increase social spending, and to toughen up labor and environmental regulation (Table 3). He has also appointed the so-called "chaebol sniper" as his point man in leading the reform of the country's chaebol industrial giants. On one hand, South Korea definitely needs corporate governance reform; on the other, the process will add uncertainty and Moon's approach may not be market-positive.14 Chart 12Relief Rally Likely To Disappoint Table 3South Korean President's Campaign Proposals To get an indication of what kind of impact Moon's economic agenda may have, it is helpful to compare that of his mentor, Roh Moo-hyun, president from 2002-7. Roh gave a boost to consumption, both government and private, and saw a relative drop off in fixed capital accumulation, which fits with the broad agenda of supporting workers and households and removing privileges for Korea's traditional export-oriented industrial complex (Chart 13). Roh proved very beneficial for the financial sector, wholesale and retail trade, and health and social work. Education and public administration received some support but were flat overall (Chart 14 A & B). If Moon follows in Roh's footsteps, he will be beneficial for the domestic-oriented economy. Chart 13South Korea's Left Wing##br## Boosts Domestic Consumption Chart 14ASouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (I) Chart 14BSouth Korea's Left Wing Boosts Finance,##br## Domestic Trade, And Health Care (II) Abroad, the Moonshine Policy is likely to have some success, at least in the medium term. The Trump administration is pursuing a strategy comparable to the U.S.'s nuclear negotiations with Iran from 2011-15, in which it tries to rally a coalition to impose tougher sanctions on the rogue state with the purpose of entering into a new round of negotiations that will actually generate concrete results. The "arc of diplomacy" will take time to get going and could last several years - it is essentially a last-ditch effort to convince North Korea to pause its nuclear and missile advances. The tail risk of conflict on the Korean peninsula will be moved out to the end of this effort, perhaps around the end of Trump's term.15 Meanwhile, Moon is already patching up trade relations with China, according to reports, after the latter imposed sanctions on Korea for deploying the U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 15). He will also seek joint infrastructure projects with China and Russia to connect the peninsula. China has a vested interest in Moon's success because it is attempting to demonstrate to the Trump administration that it is cooperating on North Korean security. Chart 15China Likely To Ease##br## Sanctions On South Korea Chart 16South Korean Inflation##br## And Credit Impulse Weak The geopolitical risk to markets is, first, that North Korea miscalculates the threshold of other nations' patience, continues with provocations, and eventually causes an incident that derails the new negotiations. This is possible given the North's record of belligerent acts and the fact that both the Trump administration and the Abe administration could cut diplomacy short in the face of a truly disruptive provocation for domestic political reasons. Second, there is a risk that Trump decides to escalate North Korean tensions again, whether to distract from domestic scandals or to reinforce the military deterrent in the event that China and South Korea appear to be giving North Korea a free pass in another round of useless talks. If Moon pursues a unilateral détente with North Korea, without adequate coordination with the U.S., and pushes for the removal of THAAD missiles, then the U.S. and South Korea are headed for a period of higher-than-normal alliance tensions that could become market-relevant.16 Bottom Line: We remain short KRW/THB. Core inflation and domestic demand remain weak in Korea, which reinforces the central bank's recent decision to stick to an accommodative monetary policy. Credit growth is cyclically weak, which reinforces the fact that rate cuts are still on the table (including the possibility of a surprise rate cut like in mid-2016) (Chart 16). Finally, the KRW has been relatively strong compared to the currencies of Korea's competitors (Chart 17). Chart 17South Korean Won Has Outpaced The Yuan And Yen In terms of equities, the top six chaebol have come under scrutiny, but Samsung has rallied despite lying at the center of the corruption scandal. The others have not performed well amid the economic slowdown. We see no opportunity at present to short the chaebol in relation to the broader market. Broadly, however, Moon's policies will add burdens to large internationally competitive industrials while boosting small and medium-sized enterprises. We also remain short the Korean ten-year government bond versus the two-year (see Chart 12, panel three, above). Moon's policy bent will subtract from a 1% budget surplus (2016) and worsen the long-term trajectory of the country's relatively low public debt (39% of GDP). Insofar as his foreign policy succeeds, it entails a larger future debt burden as a result of efforts to integrate with North Korea, which is relevant to long-term bonds well before reunification appears anywhere on the horizon. At bottom, we are structurally bearish South Korea because of rising headwinds both to U.S.-China relations and to the broader globalization process that has benefited South Korea so much in the recent past. Japan: Is Militarism The Final Act Of Abenomics? Japan has reached peak political capital under Shinzo Abe. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party, with its New Komeito coalition partner, continues to play in a totally different league from its competitors - there is no political alternative at the moment (Chart 18). The ruling party has a de facto two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the Diet. Abe himself is more popular than any recent prime minister, and has retained that popularity over a longer period of time (Chart 19). He has secured permission from his party to stay on as its president until 2021, though he faces general elections in December 2018 to stay on as prime minister. Chart 18Japan: Liberal Democrats Still Supreme Chart 19Shinzo Abe Remains The Man Of The Hour Political capital is a fleeting thing, so Abe must use it or lose it. This is why we have insisted that he would press forward rapidly with attempts to revise Japan's constitution, his ultimate policy goal, which he has now confirmed he will do. His proposed deadline is July 2020 for the new provisions coming into force.17 Constitutional revision is not only about enshrining the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) so as to normalize the country's defense policy. It is also about Japan becoming an independent nation again, capable of forging its own destiny outside of the one foreseen by the American framers of the post-WWII constitution. Though Abe has specific constitutional aims, any change to the constitution will demonstrate that change is possible and break a taboo, advancing Abe's broader goal of nudging the Japanese public toward active rather than passive policies.18 Hence Japanese politics are about to heat up in a big way. Abe has already done a trial run in his passage of a new national security law in September 2015. This law allowed the government to reinterpret the constitution so as to achieve many of his chief military-strategic aims (e.g. allowing the JSDF to come to the aid of allies in "collective self-defense"). Over the course of that year, Abe's popularity flagged, as public opinion punished him for shifting attention away from the economic reflation agenda that got him elected so as to focus on his more controversial, hawkish security agenda (Chart 20). Nevertheless, Abe stuck to the security agenda, in the face of some of the largest protests in Japan's post-Occupation history, and managed to shift back to the economy in time to notch another big victory in the upper house elections of 2016. We expect a similar process to unfold this time, though with bigger stakes and far less of a chance that Abe can "pivot" again. Under no circumstances do we see him reversing the constitutional drive now that he has the rare gift of supermajorities in the Diet; rather, he is going to spend his political capital. After all, there is no telling what could happen in the 2018 election. What are the market implications of this agenda? There may be some hiccups in consumer and business sentiment as a result of the rise in activism, political opposition, and controversy that is already beginning and will intensify as the process gets under way. Abe will be accused of putting the economy on the backburner. Abenomics is already of questionable success (Chart 21) and it will come under greater criticism as Abe shifts attention elsewhere, especially if global headwinds gain strength. Chart 20Abe Loses Support When He Talks##br## Security Instead Of Economy Chart 21Abenomics: ##br##Progress Is Gradual However, we recommend investors fade this narrative and buy Japan. Abe's constitutional changes must receive a simple majority in a nationwide popular referendum in order to pass - and Abe does not clearly have what he needs at the moment (Chart 22). This means that he cannot, in reality, afford to put Abenomics on the back burner, but instead must err on the side of monetary dovishness, fiscal stimulus, and reflation in order to win support for the non-economic agenda. There has been virtually no talk of fiscal stimulus this year, yet the policy setting is conducive to increasing spending as necessary. The Bank of Japan has explicitly embraced a monetary regime designed to allow for greater "coordination" with fiscal policy (Chart 23).19 There is no reason whatsoever to believe Abe is backing away from this stance. (Incidentally, the next consumption tax hike is not slated until October 2019, and could be delayed again.) Geopolitics are also fairly supportive of the Abe administration. First, the Korean situation is currently alarming enough to help justify the constitutional changes yet not alarming enough to provoke outright conflict. Abe is also making headway toward a historic improvement of relations with Russia, allowing Japan's military to pivot from the north to the south and west (i.e. China and North Korea). The chief risk for Abe is if North Korea surprises on the dovish side and new international diplomatic efforts appear so fruitful as to reduce domestic support for remilitarization. China, South Korea, and possibly North Korea will encourage the latter dynamic, while drumming up global criticism of Japan for warmongering. Meanwhile Japan will try to remind the domestic public and the U.S. that North Korea remains a clear and present danger and tends to take advantage of negotiations. Given the relatively positive geopolitical backdrop for Abe, the biggest risk to his agenda is an exogenous economic shock. Even then, if that shock stems from China and causes Beijing to rattle-sabers as a domestic distraction, then it will benefit Abe's remilitarization agenda. What would hurt Abe is if global growth sags but China and North Korea lay low. It is too soon to say that they will do this, but it is unlikely. Trump is also a wild card whose threats of "tough" policy toward China and North Korea may reemerge in 2018, in time to help Japan make constitutional changes that the U.S. generally supports. Bottom Line: Go long Japan. While there is no correlation between Japan's defense-exposed equity sector performance and the current government's remilitarization efforts, there is a clear case to be made that nominal GDP and defense spending will both be going up as a result of constitutional and economic policies (Chart 24). Abe will double down on reflation for at least as long as is necessary to maintain popular approval of his government ahead of a historic constitutional referendum. Chart 22Revise The Constitution? Yes.##br## End Pacifism? Maybe. Chart 23Japanese Reflation ##br##Will Continue Chart 24Expect Higher Nominal##br## Growth And Defense Spending Housekeeping: Play Pound Strength Through USD, Not EUR We are closing our short EUR/GBP position, open since January 25, for a loss of 1.77%. This trade has largely been flat. We put it on as a way to articulate our view that Brexit political risks are overstated and that the pound bottomed on January 16. The political call was right, but the pound has largely moved sideways versus the euro since then. We maintain our short USD/GBP, which is up 4.63% since March 29, as a way to articulate the same view that Brexit (and the upcoming U.K. elections) are not a risk. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@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 Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump Thumps The Markets," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The party congress, which occurs every five years and marks the "midterm" of President Xi Jinping's administration, will see a sweeping rotation of Communist Party officials, including on the Central Committee, the Politburo, and the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC). 4 Please see "China able to keep its financial markets stable, Premier Li says," Reuters, May 14, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. For the December meeting, see "China's monetary policy to be prudent, neutral in 2017," Xinhua, December 16, 2016, available at www.chinadaily.com. 5 Finance Minister Xiao Jie, Commerce Minister Zhong Shan, NDRC Chairman He Lifeng, and China Banking Regulatory Commission Chairman Guo Shuqing have all recently been appointed, but they replaced leaders due to retire as part of the party congress reshuffle. Only the new China Insurance Regulatory Commission Chairman Xiang Junbo and the new Director o f the National Bureau of Statistics Wang Baoan were replaced for reasons other than retirement, having been stung by the anti-corruption campaign. By March 2018 the world should have a better sense of Xi's economic and financial "team" for 2018-22. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Zouping government, in Shandong, intervened into the case of Qixing aluminum company's insolvency in order to transfer control to Xiwang, a corn oil and steel producer that had given a mutual guarantee to Qixing. The Zouping authorities arrested the son of Qixing's chairman to force the transfer. Please see "Bond Buyers Blacklist Some Chinese Provinces After Run Of Defaults," Bloomberg, April 26, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see "China Deleveraging To Continue As Goals Not Yet Achieved: State Paper," Reuters, May 17, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Signs Of An EM/China Growth Reversal," dated April 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Signal From Commodities," dated May 19, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Xi may yet go after another big "tiger," Zeng Qinghong, the right-hand man of former President Jiang Zemin. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated in 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, and "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Tracking The Reform Progress," dated October 22, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 "Moonshine Policy" is a phrase we regrettably did not coin, but we discussed its coming in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "What About Emerging Markets?" dated May 3, 2017, and "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Moon has nominated Kim Sang-jo, a professor of economics at Hansung University in Seoul, to head his Fair Trade Commission. Kim is a long-time advocate for shareholders against the family-controlled chaebol and led a prominent law suit against Samsung. Past efforts at reforming the chaebol led by Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun focused on improving balance sheets, protecting minority shareholders' rights, limiting the total amount of investment, and improving corporate management and accountability. It remains to be seen how Moon (and Kim Sang-jo, assuming his nomination is confirmed) will proceed, but the effort will bring domestic challenges to the top industrial conglomerates' operating environment at least initially. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 South Korea's special envoy Hong Seok-hyun claims that Trump told him at the White House that he will work closely with Moon and is willing to try engagement with Pyongyang, conditions permitting, though he is not interested in talks for the sake of talks. This fits with our view that the U.S. saber-rattling this year was designed to make the military option more credible before pursuing a new round of diplomacy. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, and Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 So, for instance, if it should happen that, over the course of the coming debates, Abe is forced to drop his proposed revisions to the pacifist Article 9, he may still achieve changes to the amendment-making procedure in Article 96. The latter would be even more important for Japan's future, since it would make it easier for Japan to change the constitution for whatever reason in the coming decades. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights China's recent growth moderation is due to marginally tighter monetary conditions. There is no case for severe policy tightening that could lead to a material growth relapse. There are plenty of signs the economy could continue to run hotter on almost all fronts. The downside risk in the economy remains fairly low, even if annual growth rates of various macro variables do not continue to accelerate. Feature Chart 1Tighter Monetary Conditions ##br##Led To Growth Moderation Our team was in China over the past two weeks, talking to investors and exchanging views with our local contacts for some on-the-ground reconnaissance. Investors appeared more upbeat on China's cyclical outlook than during our recent past trips, but generally speaking conviction remained low, and concern on some structural issues - particularly credit and the housing market - remained deeply rooted. Investors' more upbeat sentiment on growth reflected China's cyclical recovery since early last year, but the rapidly-emerging consensus appeared to be that the growth acceleration peaked in the first quarter, and the economy is facing growing downward pressure, even though few investors seem worried about a chaotic "hard landing" at the moment. Collectively, investors appeared largely preoccupied with downside risks and mindful of negative surprises, while the upside risks were not really discussed. China's latest PMI numbers released this week seemed to validate the consensus view of an imminent growth top. Most major components of the PMI surveys in both the manufacturing and service sectors had setbacks, which were also reflected in softer commodities prices (Chart 1).1 A key reason for the growth moderation is likely the performance of the RMB. We have long argued that the RMB's depreciation has been a key reflationary force for China, which boosted producer prices, enhanced profit margins and reduced the real cost of funding.2 By the same token, the pace of RMB depreciation has moderated in recent months, removing some reflationary impulses within the economy. However, it is important to note that China's worsening growth deterioration in previous years was in part attributable to sharp RMB appreciation, a replay of which is highly unlikely going forward (Chart 2). The RMB appreciated by almost 30% between 2012 and 2015, a massive deflationary shock to the economy. Currently, the trade-weighted RMB is still depreciating, albeit at a slower pace, and real interest rates deflated by PPI are still negative. In other words, although tighter on the margin, monetary conditions are still fairly stimulative, which should continue to help the economy improve. On the fiscal front, the government significantly reduced fiscal stimulus toward the end of last year, but quickly reversed course (Chart 3).3 Both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment have picked up notably, and its impact will continue to ripple through the broader economy. Moreover, China's fiscal spending tends to be pro-cyclical: growth recovery typically boosts fiscal revenues, which gives the government more financial resources for fiscal expenditures, and vice versa. Unless the government steps on the brakes, there is no case for a sudden retrenchment in fiscal stimulus soon. Chart 2China: But Monetary Conditions ##br##Remain Fairly Stimulative Chart 3... Meets Waning Fiscal Stimulus China: ##br##Fiscal Retrenchment Has Been Reversed In short, China's policy setting remains expansionary, a major departure from previous years when the Chinese economy was under the heavy weight of policy tightening while external demand also weakened. Looking forward, there is little chance that the Chinese authorities will commit similar policy mistakes that could lead to a major growth downturn. Chart 4China: More Upside In Exports? Barring a major policy mistake of aggressive tightening, Chinese growth should remain buoyant. In fact, there are plenty of signs the economy could continue to run hotter on almost all fronts: Exports are likely to continue to accelerate, according to our model, barring disruptions from major external shocks such as election surprises in Europe and /or broad protectionist measures from the Trump administration (Chart 4). America's latest anti-dumping measures on some Chinese steel products are irrelevant from a big picture point of view, as U.S. steel imports from China only account for a mere 1% of Chinese steel output.4 The upturn in the profit cycle will likely boost investment, particularly among private industrial enterprises (Chart 5). Rising profits and higher output prices indicate tighter capacity utilization, which would in turn encourage capital spending. The prolonged downturn in China's capital spending cycle has likely come to an end. Domestic consumption may further benefit from improvement in the labor market, which is lifting both income and confidence. This is particularly important for large-ticket consumer durable goods such as automobiles and household appliances. Housing construction will likely continue to improve, driven by strong demand. The most recent central bank survey showed that households' home-buying intentions jumped to an all-time high in the last quarter, underscoring a massive increase in pent-up demand (Chart 6). Developers are also warming to increasing supply - and land purchases have resumed positive growth in recent months after a prolonged slump. Tighter housing policies in major cities will prevent a massive boom, but will not short-circuit the recovery. Chart 5China: Private Capex Should Have Bottomed Chart 6China: A Sharp Recovery In Housing Demand All in all, we reiterate our view that the downside risk in the Chinese economy is low from a cyclical perspective, even if annual growth rates of various macro variables do not continue to accelerate. Growth figures to be released in the coming weeks will become noisy, but we lean against being overly bearish. Overall, business activity will remain fairly robust, and a major relapse in growth is unlikely. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead" dated April 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "2016: A Choppy Bottoming" dated January 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening" dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflecting On The Trump-Xi Summit" dated April 13, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Financial markets have returned to 'risk on' in late April, after becoming overly gloomy on the growth, political and policy outlooks in recent months. There are also some worrying signs in our global forward-looking growth indicators for 2018, and Chinese policy is tightening. Nonetheless, investors read too much into the distorted U.S. first-quarter economic data. They also went too far in pricing out U.S. fiscal action. It is positive for risk assets that centrist candidate Macron is poised to win the French election and we do not see much risk for markets lurking in the German election. Italian elections could be troublesome, but that is a story for next year. The fact that China finally appears willing to apply pressure to Pyongyang is good news. North Korea might be persuaded to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a non-aggression pact from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. Disappointing U.S. Q1 real GDP growth largely reflects weather and seasonal adjustment factors. The deceleration in bank credit growth is also temporary. The window for reflation trades will remain open for most of this year because the underlying economic and profit fundamentals remain constructive. Importantly, signs of improving pricing power in the U.S. corporate sector are finally emerging, which should allow margins to expand somewhat in the coming quarters. The bond rally has depressed yields to a level that makes fixed-income instruments highly vulnerable to a reversal of the factors that sparked the rally. Market expectations for the fed funds rate are far too benign. The ECB will announce the next tapering step later this year, and may remove the negative deposit rate. But the central bank will not be in a position to lift the refi rate for some time. Yield spreads will shift in a way that allows one last upleg in the U.S. dollar. The recent pullback in oil prices will not last, as OPEC and Russia manage global stockpiles lower this year. Feature Chart I-1Reflation Trades Returning? Traders and investors gave up on the global reflation story in early April, sending the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield below the year's trading range. Missile strikes, European elections and U.S. saber rattling regarding North Korea lifted the allure of safe havens such as government bonds (Chart I-1). At the same time, the Fed was unwilling to revise up the 'dot plot', doubts grew over the ability of the Trump Administration to deliver any stimulus and U.S. data releases disappointed. The major equity indexes held up well against the onslaught of bad news, but looked increasingly vulnerable as April wore on. The market gloom was overdone in our view, and it appears that financial markets have now returned to a 'risk on' phase. It is difficult to forecast the ebb and flow of geopolitical news so we cannot rule out another bout of risk aversion. Nonetheless, the global economic backdrop remains upbeat and tensions regarding North Korea have eased. President Trump also unveiled his Administration's tax reform plan, raising hopes of a fiscal boost to the economy. Moreover, investors have read too much into the distorted U.S. first quarter data, and our corporate pricing power indicators support our constructive earnings view in 2017. There are clouds hanging over the outlook for 2018, but the backdrop will favor risk assets for most of this year. Investors should remain overweight equities versus bonds and cash, and bullish the dollar. Geopolitics Weigh On Risk Tolerance President Trump's military show of force in Asia and comments about "losing patience" with North Korea have the world on edge. The U.S. has acted tough with the regime before, but nothing beyond economic sanctions ever materialized. The balance of power vis-à-vis China and the military threat to South Korea made North Korea a stalemate. Nonetheless, our geopolitical team argues that the calculus of the standoff is changing. Most importantly, the rogue regime is getting closer to being capable of hitting the U.S. with long-range missiles. Second, China is unhappy with the increased U.S. military presence in its backyard that North Korea is inviting. China also sees North Korea's missile tests as a threat to its own security. Third, the U.S. is prepared to use the threat of trade sanctions as leverage with Beijing. It is demanding that China use its own economic leverage to convince North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile programs. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. But doing nothing is not an option either. Our base case is that the U.S. military's muscle-flexing is designed to force North Korea to the negotiating table. The fact that China finally appears willing to apply pressure to Pyongyang is good news. Over the next four years, the North might be persuaded to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a non-aggression pact from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. The safe-haven bid in the Treasury market will moderate if Kim Jong-un agrees to negotiations. That said, this is probably North Korea's last chance to show it can be pragmatic. A failure of negotiations would induce a real crisis in which the U.S. contemplates unilateral action. It would be a bad sign if North Korea's long-range missile tests continue, are successful, and show greater distances. Chart I-2Macron Appears Set For Victory Turning to Europe, investors breathed a sigh of relief following the first round of the French Presidential election. The pre-election polls turned out to be correct, and our Geopolitical Team has no reason to doubt the polls regarding the second round (Chart I-2). We expect Macron to sweep to victory on May 7 because Le Pen will struggle to get any voters from the candidates exiting the race. What should investors expect of a Macron presidency? A combination of President Macron and a right-leaning National Assembly should be able to accomplish some reforms. Several prominent center-right figures have already come out in support of Macron, perhaps to throw their name in the ring for the next prime minister. This is positive for the markets as it means that French economic policy will be run by the center-right, with an ultra-Europhile as president. Over in the U.K., the big news in April was Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to hold a snap election, which reduces the risk of a "hard Brexit". The current slim 12-seat majority that the Conservatives hold in Parliament has made May highly dependent on a small band of hardline Tories who would rather see negotiations break down than acquiesce to any of the EU's demands, including that the U.K. pay the remaining £60 billion portion of its contribution to the EU's 2014-20 budget. If the Conservatives are able to increase their seats in Parliament - as current opinion polls suggest is likely - May will have greater flexibility in reaching an agreement with Brussels and will face less of a risk that Parliament shoots down the final deal. U.S. Fiscal Policy: Positive For 2017, But Long-Term Negative Chart I-3Long-Term U.S. Budget Pressures The drama will be no less interesting in Washington in the coming weeks. As we go to press, Congress is struggling to pass a bill to keep the U.S. government running through the end of fiscal year 2017 (the deadline is the end of April). We expect a deal will get done, but a partial government shutdown lasting a few weeks could occur. Separately, Congress will need to approve an increase in the debt ceiling by July-September in order for the Treasury to avoid defaulting on payments. Both events could see temporary safe-haven flows into Treasurys. However, markets may have gone too far in pricing-out tax cuts or fiscal stimulus. For example, high tax-rate companies have given back all of their post-election equity gains. Even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. "Dynamic scoring" will be used to support the argument that the tax cuts will self-funding through faster growth. We also expect that Trump will get his way on at least a modest amount of infrastructure spending. The so-called Trump trades may wither again in 2018, but we see a window this year in which the stock-to-bond total return ratio lifts as growth expectations rebound. Looking further ahead, it seems likely that the U.S. budget deficit is headed significantly higher. Health care and pension cost pressures related to population aging are well known (Chart I-3). A recent Special Report by BCA's Martin Barnes highlighted that "it is not reasonable to believe that there can be tax cuts and increases in defense spending and domestic security, while protecting entitlement programs and preventing a massive rise in the budget deficit."1 There is simply not enough non-defense discretionary spending to cut. Larger U.S. Federal budget deficits could lead to a widening fiscal risk premium in Treasury yields, although that may take years to show up. Perhaps more importantly, the U.S. government sector will be a larger drain on the global pool of available savings in the coming years. We highlight in this month's Special Report, beginning on page 20, that there are several key macro inflection points under way that will temper the "global savings glut" and begin to place upward pressure on global bond yields. A Temporary Soft Patch Or Something Worse? The first quarter GDP report for the U.S. is due out as we go to press, and growth is widely expected to be quite weak. The retail sales and PCE consumer spending data have fed concerns that the U.S. economy is running out of gas, despite the surge in the survey data such as the ISM. We believe that growth fears are overdone. Financial markets should be accustomed to weak readings on first quarter GDP. Over the past 22 years, the first quarter has been the weakest of the four on 12 occasions, or 55% of the time. Second quarter GDP growth has been faster than Q1 growth 70% of the time. A large part of the depressed Q1 GDP growth rate and lackluster "hard data" readings likely reflect poor seasonal adjustment and weather distortions. The "soft" survey data are more consistent with the labor market. Aggregate hours worked managed to increase by 1.5% at an annualized rate in Q1. If GDP growth really was barely above zero, this would imply an outright decline in the level of labor productivity. Even in a world where structural productivity growth is lower than it was in the past, this strikes us as rather implausible. The March reading of the Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator provided no warning that underlying growth is about to trail off, although a couple of the regional Fed surveys have pulled back from their recent highs. With April shaping up to be warmer than usual across the U.S., we expect a bounce back in the weather-impacted "hard" data in May and June. What about the slowdown in commercial and industrial loan growth and corporate bond issuance late in 2016 and into early 2017? This is a worry, but it partly reflects the lagged effects of the contraction in capital spending in the energy patch. C&I loan growth is still responding to the surge in defaults that resulted from the energy sector's 2014 collapse. Now that the defaults have waned, this process will soon go into reverse. Higher profits more recently have permitted these firms to pay back old bank loans, while also enabling them to finance new capital expenditures using internally-generated funds. In addition, the rising appetite for corporate debt has allowed more companies to access the bond market. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. leveraged-loan market saw $434 bn in issuance in Q1, the highest level on record (Chart I-4). The rest we chalk up to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election. The recent spikes in the political uncertainty index correspond with the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union as well as the U.S. election in November. There has been a close correlation between these spikes and the deceleration in C&I loan growth. CEOs are also holding back on capex in anticipation of new tax breaks from Congress. The good news is that bond issuance has rebounded strongly in January and February of this year (Chart I-5). The soft March U.S. CPI release also appeared to be quirky, showing a rare decline in the core price level in March (Chart I-6). However, the March reading followed two months of extremely strong gains and it still appears as though measures of core inflation put in a cyclical bottom in early 2015. While our CPI diffusion index is still below zero, signaling that inflation is likely to remain soft during the next couple of months, it would be premature to suggest that the gradual uptrend in core inflation has reversed. Chart I-4U.S. Bank Credit Slowdown Is Temporary Chart I-5U.S. Corporate Bond Issuance Is Rebounding Chart I-6U.S. Inflation: Sogginess Won't Last Global Economic Data Still Upbeat For the major industrialized economies as a group, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. For example, retail sales growth continues to accelerate, reaching 4½% in February on a year-over-year basis (Chart I-7). This follows the sharp improvement in consumer confidence. Manufacturing production growth is also accelerating to the upside, in line with the PMIs. The global manufacturing sector is rebounding smartly after last year's recession that was driven by the collapse in oil prices and a global inventory correction. Readers may be excused for jumping to the conclusion that the rebound is largely in the energy space, but this is not true. Production growth in the energy sector is close to zero on a year-over-year basis, and is negative on a 3-month rate of change basis (Chart I-8). The growth pickup has been in the other major sectors, including consumer-related goods, capital goods and technology. In the U.S., non-energy production has boomed over the six months to March (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Global Pick-Up On Track Chart I-8Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Chart I-9U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging The weak spot on the global data front has been capital goods orders (Chart I-7). We only have data for the big three economies - the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone - but growth is near zero or slightly negative for all three. These data are perplexing because they are at odds with an acceleration in the production of capital goods (noted above) and a pickup in capital goods imports for 20 economies (Chart I-7, third panel). Improving CEO sentiment, accelerating profit growth and activity surveys all suggest that capital goods orders will catch up in the coming months. That said, one risk to our positive capex outlook in the U.S. is that the Republicans fail to deliver on their promises. This is not our base case, but current capex plans could be cancelled or put on indefinite hold were there to be no corporate tax cuts or immediate expensing of capital spending. As for China, the economic data are holding up well and deflationary pressures have eased. Fears of a debt crisis have also ebbed somewhat. That said, fiscal and monetary stimulus is fading and it is a worrying sign that money and credit growth have decelerated because they tend to lead production. Our China experts believe that growth will be solid in the first half of the year, but they would not be surprised to see a deceleration in real GDP growth in the second half that would weigh on commodity prices. Bond Market Vulnerable To Fed Re-Rating A rebound in the U.S. activity data in the coming months should keep the Fed on track to raise rates at least two more times in 2017. A May rate hike is unlikely, but we would not rule out June. The bond market is vulnerable to a re-rating of the path for the fed funds rate because only 45 basis points of tightening is priced for the next 12 months. This is far too low if growth rebounds as we expect. The FOMC also announced that it intends to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year by ceasing to reinvest both its MBS and Treasury holdings. Our bond strategists do not think this by itself will have much of an impact on Treasurys because yields will continue to be closely tied to realized inflation and the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months (Chart I-10). Fed policymakers are trying to de-emphasize the size of the balance sheet and would rather investors focus on the fed funds rate to assess the stance of monetary policy. It is a different story for mortgage-backed securities, however, where spreads will be pressured wider by the lack of Fed purchases. All four of our main forward-looking global economic indicators appear to have topped out, except the Global Leading Economic Indicator (GLEI), suggesting that the period of maximum growth acceleration has past (Chart I-11). Nonetheless, all four are still consistent with robust growth. They would have to weaken significantly before they warned of a sustained bond bull market. Chart I-10Shrinking Fed Balance Sheet: ##br##Bearish For Bonds? Chart I-11Leading Indicators: ##br##Some Worrying Signs The rapid decline in the diffusion index, based on the 22 countries that comprise our GLEI, is the most concerning at the moment. The LEIs for two major economies and two emerging economies dipped slightly in February, such that roughly half of the country LEIs rose and half fell in the month. While it is too early to hit the panic button, the diffusion index is worth watching closely; a decline below 50 for several months would indicate that a peak in the GLEI is approaching. The bottom line is that global bond yields have overshot on the downside: underlying U.S. growth is not as weak as the Q1 figures suggest; market expectations for the fed funds rate are too benign; the Republicans will push ahead with tax cuts and infrastructure spending; the global economy has healthy momentum, and the majority of the items on our Duration Checklist suggest that the bond bear market will resume; the ECB will announce another tapering of its asset purchase program this autumn, placing upward pressure on the term premium in bond yields across the major markets; and the Treasury and bund markets no longer appear as oversold as they did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. Large short positions have largely unwound. For the U.S., we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.3%-2.6% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.8%-3% area by year-end. We recommend keeping duration short of benchmarks within fixed-income portfolios. One Last Leg In The Dollar Bull Market Chart I-12ECB In No Hurry To Lift Rates While we see upside for the money market curve in the U.S., the same cannot be said in the Eurozone. The economic data have undoubtedly been robust. The composite PMI is booming and capital goods orders are in a clear uptrend. Led by gains in both manufacturing and services, the composite PMI rose from 56.4 in March to 56.7 in April, a six-year high. The current PMI reading is easily consistent with over 2.0% real GDP growth (Chart I-12). This compares favorably to the sub-1% estimates of trend growth in the euro area. Private sector credit growth reached 2½% earlier this year, the fastest pace since July 2009. Despite this good news, the ECB is in no rush to lift interest rates. The central bank will taper its asset purchase program further in 2018, but ECB President Draghi has made it clear that he will not raise the refi rate until well after all asset purchases have been completed, which probably will not be until late 2019 at the earliest (although the ECB could eliminate the negative deposit rate to ease the pressure on banks). Unemployment is still a problem in Spain and Italy, while core CPI inflation fell back to just 0.7% in March. The euro could strengthen further in the near term if Macron wins the second round of the French elections, easing euro break-up fears. Nonetheless, we expect the euro to trend lower on a medium-term horizon versus the dollar as rate expectations move further in favor of the greenback. Some real rate divergence is already priced into money and currency markets, but there is room for forward real spreads to widen further, possibly pushing the euro to parity versus the dollar before this cycle is over. We are also bullish the dollar versus the yen for similar reasons. On a broad trade-weighted basis, we still expect the dollar to rally by another 10%. Positive Signs For U.S. Corporate Pricing Power Chart I-13U.S. Corporations Gaining Pricing Power Turning to the equity market, it is still early days for Q1 U.S. earnings, but the results so far are positive for a pro-risk asset allocation. After a disappointing Q4, positive Q1 earnings surprises for the S&P 500 are on track to match their highest level in two years, with revenue surprises also materially higher than previous quarters. At the industry level, banks and capital goods companies stand out: the former registered an earnings beat of nearly 8%, and it was nearly 12% for the latter. We highlighted the positive 2017 outlook for U.S. corporate profits in our March 2017 Monthly Report. Earnings growth is in a catch-up phase following last year's profit recession, which was related to energy prices and a temporary slowdown in nominal GDP growth relative to aggregate labor costs. Proprietary indicators from our sister publication, the U.S. Equity Sectors Strategy service, confirm our thesis. First, deflation pressures appear to be abating. A modest revival in corporate pricing power is underway according to our Pricing Power Proxy (Chart I-13). It is constructed from proxies for selling prices in almost 50 industries. Importantly, the rise in the Proxy is broadly-based across industries (as shown by the diffusion index in the chart). As a side note, the Profit Proxy provides some evidence that recent softness in core CPI inflation will not last. Second, the upward march of wage growth appears to be taking a breather (Chart I-13). Average hourly earnings growth has softened in recent months. Broader measures, such as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, tell a similar story. We do not expect wage growth to decelerate much given tightness in the labor market. Nonetheless, the combination of firming pricing power and contained wage growth (for now) suggests that margins will continue to expand modestly in the first half of the year. Our model even suggests that U.S. EPS growth has a very good shot at matching perpetually-optimistic bottom-up estimates for 2017 (Chart I-14). Many companies have supported per share profits in this expansion via share buybacks, often funded through debt issuance. This has generated some angst that companies are sacrificing long-term earnings growth potential for short-term EPS growth. This appeared to be the case early in the expansion, but the story is less compelling today. Chart I-15 compares the cumulative dollar value of equity buybacks and dividends in this expansion with the previous three expansion phases. The cumulative dollar values are divided by cumulative nominal GDP to make the data comparable across cycles. By this metric, capital spending has lagged previous expansion, but not by much. While capital spending growth has been weak, the same is true for GDP. Chart I-14U.S. Profit Model Is Very Upbeat Chart I-15U.S. Corporate Finance Cycle Comparison Dividend payments have been stronger than the three previous expansions. Buyback activity was also more aggressive compared with the 1990s and 2000s, although repurchase activity has been roughly in line with the expansion that ended in 2007. Net equity issuance since 2009, which includes the impact of IPOs, share buybacks and M&A activity, has not been out of line with previous expansions (positive values shown in Chart I-15 represent net equity withdrawals). CFOs have not been radically different in this cycle in terms of apportioning funds between capital spending and returning cash to shareholders. Nonetheless, buybacks have boosted EPS growth by almost 2% over the past year according to our proxy (Chart I-16). We expect this tailwind to continue given the positive reading from our Capital Structure Preference Indicator (third panel). Firms have a financial incentive to issue debt and buy back shares when the indicator is above zero. Stronger global growth should continue to power an acceleration in corporate earnings outside the U.S. over the remainder of the year. Chart I-17 shows that the global earnings revision ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. Our profit indicators remain constructive for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. Chart I-16Incentive To Buy Back ##br##Stock Remains Strong Chart I-17Global Profit ##br##Growth On The Upswing It is disconcerting that the rally in oil prices has faltered in recent days as investors worry that increased U.S. shale production will thwart OPEC's plans to trim bloated inventories. A breakdown in oil prices could spark a major correction in the broader equity market. Indeed, commercial oil inventories finished the first quarter with a minimal draw. The aim of last year's agreement between OPEC and Russia to remove some 1.8mn b/d of oil production from the market in 2017 H1 was to get visible inventories down to five-year average levels. They are well short of that goal. Without trimming stockpiles to more normal levels, storage capacity remains too close to topping out, which raises the risk of another price collapse. This is an extremely high-risk scenario for states like Saudi Arabia, Russia and their allies, which are heavily dependent on oil-export revenues to fund government budgets and much of the private sector. This is the reason why our commodity strategists expect the OPEC/Russia production cuts to be extended when OPEC meets on May 25. This will significantly raise the odds that OECD commercial oil stocks will be drawn down to more normal levels. We expect WTI and Brent to trade on either side of $60/bbl by December, and to average $55/bbl to 2020. Investment Conclusions Financial markets have returned to 'risk on' in late April, after becoming overly gloomy on the growth, political and policy outlooks in recent months. Admittedly, some of the U.S. data have been disappointing given the extremely upbeat survey numbers. There are also some worrying signs in our global forward-looking growth indicators, and Chinese policy is tightening. Nonetheless, investors read too much into the distorted U.S. economic data in the first quarter. They also went too far in pricing out U.S. fiscal action. As for European political risk, centrist candidate Macron is poised to win the French election and we do not see much risk for markets lurking in the German election. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the economic and profit outlook in 2018. Nonetheless, we believe that the window for reflation trades will remain open for most of this year because the underlying economic and profit fundamentals are constructive. The passage of market-friendly fiscal policies in the U.S. later in 2017 will be icing on the cake. Perhaps more importantly, we are finally seeing signs that pricing power in the U.S. corporate sector is improving, allowing margins to expand somewhat in the coming quarters. Our profit models remain upbeat for the major advanced economies and for China. It has been frustrating for those investors looking for an equity buying opportunity. Despite the surge in defensive assets such as gold and Treasurys, the major equity bourses did not correct by much. Value remains stretched in all of the risk asset classes. Nonetheless, investors should stay positioned for another upleg in the stock-to-bond total return ratio in the coming months. Perhaps the largest risk lies in the bond market. The rally has depressed yields to a level that makes bonds highly vulnerable to a reversal of the factors that sparked the rally. Within an underweight allocation to fixed-income in balanced portfolios, investors should overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds in the U.S. and U.K. We are more cautious on Eurozone corporates as the ECB's support for that sector will moderate. Looking ahead to next year, our bond strategists foresee a shift to underweight credit given the advanced nature of the releveraging cycle in the U.S. corporate sector. Our other recommendations include: 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. in currency-hedged terms. Continue to favor defensive over cyclical equity sectors in the U.S. for now, but a shift may be required later this year. Overweight the dollar versus the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market. Recent underperformance is a buying opportunity. Value has improved and cyclical conditions favor small caps. Stay exposed to oil-related assets, and favor oil to base metals within commodity portfolios. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 27, 2017 Next Report: May 25, 2017 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Fiscal Policy: Facts, Fallacies and Fantasies," dated April 5, 207, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart II-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart II-1Global Disequilibria The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart II-2Global Shifts In The Saving ##br##And Investment Curves The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart II-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart II-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart II-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart II-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart II-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart II-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart II-5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart II-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart II-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart II-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart II-6Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart II-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart II-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart II-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart II-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart II-9Working-Age Population ##br##To Shrink In G7 And China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart II-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart II-10Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart II-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart II-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. Chart II-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart II-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart II-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart II-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart II-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Chart II-13Demographics And Capex Requirements Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart II-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too Chart II-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart II-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart II-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart II-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table II-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table II-1Key Secular Drivers No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Chart II-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart II-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 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 modest correction in April did not improve equity valuation by much in any of the major markets. Our U.S. valuation metric is still hovering just below the +1 sigma mark, above which would signal extreme overvaluation. Measures such as the Shiller P/E ratio are flashing red on valuation, but our indicator takes into consideration 11 different valuation measures. Technically, the U.S. equity market still has upward momentum, while our Monetary indicator is neutral for stocks. The Speculation index indicates some froth, although our Composite Sentiment indicator has cooled off, suggesting that fewer investors are bullish. The U.S. net revisions ratio is hovering near zero, but it is bullish that the earnings surprise index jumped over the past month. First-quarter earnings season in the U.S. has got off to a good start, while the global earnings revisions ratio has moved into positive territory for the first time in six years (see the Overview section). 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 power' 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. In contrast to the U.S., the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway and has some ways to go. We remain overweight both the Eurozone and Japanese markets relative to the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. April's rally in the U.S. bond market dragged valuation close to neutral. However, we believe that the market is underestimating the amount of Fed rate hikes that are likely over the next year. Now that oversold technical conditions have been absorbed, this opens the door the next upleg in yields. Bonds typically move into 'inexpensive' territory before the monetary cycle is over. The trade-weighted dollar remains quite overvalued on a PPP basis, although less so by other measures. Technically, the dollar has shifted down this year to meet support at the 200-day moving average and overbought conditions have largely, but not totally, been worked off. We still believe there is more upside for the dollar, despite lofty valuation readings, due to macro divergences. 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 TechnicalsChart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro TechnicalsChart 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

Highlights Markets will survive late spring and summer unscathed; Macron will win the French election; Trump's agenda is not going down in flames; U.K. snap polls support our sanguine view on Brexit; Fade the rally in Treasuries and bet against unwinding of Trump reflation; Stay tactically long EUR/USD, long the pound, and long French industrials vs. German. Feature One of the oldest adages of Wall Street is to "sell in May and go away." Data reinforce the conventional wisdom, with a strategy of staying on the sidelines during the summer months clearly outperforming the alternative of staying long every month (Chart 1). Chart 1Sell In May And Go Away Should investors adopt the same approach in 2017? Certainly the risks are skewed to the downside due to investor complacency and a busy political schedule: Complacency: Investor complacency has been spectacularly elevated ahead of Q2 this year. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, who has been flagging warning signs since early February, lists four measures of complacency that peaked in April (Chart 2).1 The SKEW index, controlled for by the VIX, rose above 12 early in April, warning that at least a tactical pullback is at hand. The Yale U.S. one year institutional confidence index hit an all-time high of 98.68% in February. Similarly, the Minneapolis Fed's market-based probability of a 20%+ correction in the S&P 500 dropped to below 10%, a level last seen during the peak of the previous bull market in 2007 (bottom panel).2 Political Schedule: April and May have an unusually high number of high-profile deadlines, meetings, and elections packed into a tight space: April 26: U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to announce key details of his long-awaited tax reform plan; April 28: The U.S. government's stopgap funding measure, the continuing resolution, will expire - leading to a government shutdown if no replacement is passed; April 29: The EU Council will hold its "Brexit Summit" to either approve, amend, or reject Council President Donald Tusk's proposed negotiation guidelines;3 May 7: The second round of the French presidential election will be held; May 9: An extraordinary presidential election will take place in South Korea; Mid-May: U.S. President Donald Trump will present his full budget proposal, including tax plans, spending cuts, and growth projections; May 19: Iran holds its presidential election; May 25: The OPEC meeting in Vienna will determine whether to extend the current production-cut agreement. In this Weekly Report, we focus on the three most immediate risks to the markets: the second-round of French presidential election, U.S. domestic politics, and the upcoming election in the U.K. We will also address downside risk to oil prices in an upcoming joint report, to publish tomorrow, with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy. Our conclusion is that while risks are indeed skewed to the downside by the mere combination of investor complacency and volume of potential tail-risks, the market will likely emerge from the summer doldrums unscathed. As such, any market downturns are an opportunity to buy on dips. As we recently warned, however, the real risks will emerge in 2018.4 France: Fin? Centrist Emmanuel Macron has won the first round of the French presidential election with a narrow victory over nationalist Marine Le Pen (Table 1). As expected, the two will now contest the second round on May 7. France will subsequently hold a two-round legislative election on June 11 and 18. Chart 2Complacency At A Peak Table 1France: First-Round Election Results Investors learned three things from the first round of the French presidential election: Polls are right: Repeat after us: polls are not wrong, pundits are.5 Neither the Brexit referendum nor the U.S. presidential election came as a huge surprise to those who read polls objectively. In both cases, the outcome was inside the margin of error. Hopefully, the first round of the French presidential election will set aside the notion that all polls are useless and therefore investors are better off interpreting chicken entrails for election forecasting. In fact, polls in France have not significantly underestimated Marine Le Pen's nationalist party - Front National - since the 2002 election (Chart 3). Le Pen has no momentum: Le Pen consistently polled in the high 20s throughout late 2016 and 2017, but ended with only 21.43% of the vote on April 23 (Chart 4). In fact, she only narrowly improved on her 2012 performance of 17.9%, which is astounding considering everything that has happened in France since then (terrorist attacks in particular). Macron has meanwhile nearly doubled his polling from late 2016. French voters are angry: Protest and anti-establishment candidates came away with 49.62% of the vote (Chart 5). Chart 3FN Rarely Outperforms Its Polling Chart 4Le Pen's Momentum Is Gone Chart 5French Voters Are Angry... What to make of these three lessons? First, if lessons A and B are correct, then Le Pen is toast on May 7 (Chart 6).6 According to a poll conducted from April 17 to 21, Le Pen will struggle to get any voters from Mélenchon and Socialist candidate Benoît Hamon (Chart 7). This should not be surprising to anyone who knows France and its history: the left and the right just do not get along. We construct a "Le Pen best case scenario" out of the data by giving her all the voters who said they would abstain in the second round. Let's say that they were lying and are secret Le Pen supporters. She still loses (Chart 8)! Chart 6...But Not That Angry Chart 7Most Voters Will Swing To Macron Chart 8The No-Shows Can't Win It For Le Pen But surely a major terrorist attack could turn it around for Le Pen, right? Wrong. Macron is not pro-terrorist. Why would the French turn to a Russian-financed nationalist with no clear plan on how to prevent terrorism or stop refugee flows into Europe other than to close French borders?7 (And that description is not fake news!)8 They wouldn't. And there is empirical evidence to prove that French voters see through Le Pen's empty rhetoric. We highly recommend our clients read our February report titled "The French Revolution" where we conducted a careful study of the 2015 December regional elections.9 These elections occurred only 23 days following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and at the height of that year's migration crisis. It was as if the fates conspired with Le Pen's Front National (FN) to create a perfect storm. And yet the election was a crushing loss for the nationalists who came away with nothing in the second round. Chart 9French Public Supports The EU And Euro But hold on a minute. Are the French really about to elect a former investment banker for president even though 50% of them are "angry," as suggested by our lesson C? Well, yes. The "anger" is complicated. Mélenchon received a lot of the disgruntled Socialist Party voters who jumped the Hamon ship after it sunk during the latter's woefully uninspiring debate performances. These are not hard-core Euroskeptic voters. In fact, both Mélenchon and Le Pen moderated their Euroskepticism in the run up to this election to broaden their base of support. Le Pen promised that she would abide by the results of a referendum on the EU even if it went against her will, as polls currently suggest it would (Chart 9). And Mélenchon suggested that exiting the EU would only be his "Plan B," in case his plan to renegotiate the Treaty of the EU failed. What should investors expect of a Macron presidency? While the "French Thatcherite" François Fillon may have been more welcome to the markets than Macron, we think that a combination of President Macron and right-leaning National Assembly could accomplish some reforms. Polling for the legislative elections in June is scarce, but Le Pen's party is highly unlikely to outperform Le Pen herself. Judging by the December 2015 regional elections and Fillon's pre-scandal polling, the center-right Les Républicains are likely to win at least a plurality of seats in the legislative elections. Several prominent center right figures have already come out in support of Macron, perhaps to throw their name in the ring for the next prime minister.10 This is highly positive for the markets as it means that French economic policy will be run by the center right, with an ultra-Europhile as president. Bottom Line: Nothing is over until it is over. Le Pen obviously still has a chance to win given that she is one of the two people running in the French election. However, given current polling, Macron is highly likely to become the next president of France. Hold tactical long EUR/USD and strategic long French industrial equities / short German industrial equities. But start thinking about closing long euro positions. The U.S.: From Math To Magic There are three reasons for global investors to worry about U.S. politics at the moment: Government shutdown: The U.S. government will face a shutdown on April 28 if the continuing resolution (CR) is not extended (via another CR) or if an omnibus funding bill is not passed. The risk for investors is that Senate Democrats could filibuster an omnibus bill that contains a conservative "poison pill" such as funding the wall on the border with Mexico or defunding Planned Parenthood. This would result in a partial government shutdown. Our view is that there is no time to find a long-term solution and the Republicans will have to extend current spending levels via short-term CRs, possibly until the end of the fiscal year on October 1. Given that the government has already been funded for half of the current fiscal year via short-term CRs, it may be the only way that Republicans can avoid a showdown with Democrats in the Senate. Obamacare repeal and replacement: The Senate and the House passed a budget resolution on January 13 that included "reconciliation instructions" allowing for the repeal of Obamacare in an eventual reconciliation bill.11 The reconciliation procedure allows measures that impact government spending and revenue - budgetary matters - to pass through Congress with a simple majority, i.e. without the need for 60 votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate.12 These instructions are believed to "expire" at the end of May or thereabouts, giving Republicans one more month to replace Obamacare without causing greater traffic jams down the road.13 There are two hurdles to this process. First, the Tea Party-linked "Freedom Caucus" opposed the original Obamacare proposal and needs to be placated with provisions that may put off centrist Republicans in the Senate. Second, both the original Paul Ryan plan and the soon-to-be-revealed alternative are likely to be challenged by the Democrats under the reconciliation rules.14 Trump at first appeared willing to walk away from repealing Obamacare - which seemed to make sense given that the bill he endorsed imposes a roughly $700 billion burden on U.S. households (Chart 10). However, he has since decided that he needs the bill's roughly $320 billion in savings over ten years in order to pay for the "hyuge" tax cuts he has promised.15 Tax reform: Also coming into focus in April and May is tax reform. The White House is set to release key tax-reform details as we go to publication. Further, Trump has to deliver his full FY2018 budget in mid-May. Unlike the budget Trump released in mid-March, the May edition will include the tax proposals, measures on "mandatory" or entitlement spending, and growth projections. Concurrently, Congress has to start working on its budget resolution for FY2018, which, as mentioned, will enable using reconciliation to pass the tax bill with a mere 51 votes in the Senate. Again, the Freedom Caucus is a potential hurdle. Investors fear they will demand that any tax bill be strictly revenue neutral and thus foul up the legislative process. Chart 10Obamacare Repeal Hits Households Confused yet? You are not alone! We have noticed from client meetings and the financial media a growing obsession with details of upcoming reforms and the arcane congressional rules that will govern the legislative process. This is a mistake. Investors should step back and focus on the big picture: Trump is an economic populist who wants to see a higher rate of nominal GDP growth; Republicans are a party that favors tax cuts; Legislative rules are meant to be broken. As such, the key question is whether President Trump can bend the will of the Freedom Caucus, which plays the role of the antagonist in his efforts to clear all three hurdles listed above. We have no reason to believe that he cannot. In fact, all signs are pointing to the Freedom Caucus playing ball with the White House: Rhetoric has changed: Mark Meadows (R- North Carolina), Chairman of the Freedom Caucus, has confirmed that he is not demanding revenue-neutral tax reform plan and that he is open to a compromise on Obamacare. The Freedom Caucus is reportedly getting closer to accepting a health-care bill that passes the deadly issues to the states, allowing state legislatures to make their own decision on whether to remove the most popular regulatory requirements of Obamacare. Politically, this is a brilliant move. It allows both the Tea Party and moderate Republicans to declare victory by claiming that they upheld "state rights" - a core conservative principle - while giving conservative governors and state legislatures the option of eroding Obamacare at a state level. Moderates in the Senate, the theory goes, will not have to shoot down the new health bill for fear of a popular backlash since they presumably reside in states that will opt to keep the Obamacare measures in question (essential health benefits, community ratings, etc). The bill is by no means guaranteed to pass, but the point is that the Freedom Caucus has changed its tune after having been blamed for failing to repeal Obamacare, when repeal was one of the main reasons they were elected in the first place. Trump retains political capital: President Trump's polling with Republican voters has improved since the strike against Syria (Chart 11). He retains political capital with GOP voters and is therefore still a threat to the Freedom Caucus if he should campaign against them in the 2018 midterm primaries. The electoral threat is real: The Tea Party-favored candidate in Georgia's special election on June 20, Bob Gray, came in third place with just over 10% of the vote.16 Notably, a Trump-linked super PAC fielded campaign ads against Gray, helping propel the moderate candidate - Karen Handel - to the run-off against the Democratic challenger. While the media has obsessed about the surprise performance by Jon Ossoff, the first Democrat to make the district competitive since 1978, we are certain that House Freedom Caucus members have taken notice of Gray's fate. The message from the White House is clear: don't mess with Donald Trump. Trump will use carrots as well as sticks with the Freedom Caucus. To that end, we wish to remind our clients of "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 loss of tax cuts fails to take into account the growth-generating consequences ("macroeconomic feedback") of the cuts, consequences that actually add to revenues. In other words, "tax cuts pay for themselves." Republican legislators have been using dynamic scoring to justify deficit-busting tax cuts for decades. And there is some truth to their claim that tax cuts generate revenue. For instance, while it is true that President Bush's White house vastly overestimated the U.S.'s long-term revenue when it oversaw major cuts in 2001-3, nevertheless revenues did ultimately go up over the ten-year period - contrary to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates at the time (Chart 12). Various studies suggest that Republicans could use a variety of growth models to write off about 10% of the cost of their tax cuts (Chart 13). And we are being conservative in those numbers. Chart 11Trump In Line With##br## GOP Predecessors Chart 12Bush Was Right,##br## CBO Was Wrong! Chart 13Dynamic Scoring Will Offset About 10% ##br##Of Revenues Lost To Tax Cuts Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was anything but conservative when he explicitly told investors to expect a tax reform plan paid for largely by dynamic scoring. Speaking on the sidelines of the IMF and World Bank spring meetings in Washington, Mnuchin said, Some of the lowering in (tax) rates is going to be offset by less deductions and simpler taxes, but the majority of it will be made up by what we believe is fundamentally growth and dynamic scoring. We have been arguing since November that investors should expect tax cuts that rely on dynamic scoring to justify their deficit-busting effects.17 Mnuchin's comments, after several hints from other legislators, confirm that this is indeed the plan. For the Freedom Caucus, dynamic scoring provides a defense against the accusation that their tax cuts increase the budget deficit. That said, data clearly shows that voters care less about deficits - their concerns have subsided with the deficits themselves (Chart 14).18 It remains to be seen whether Trump's team expects for dynamic scoring to do all the heavy lifting in justifying tax cuts or whether real tax reforms are still on the agenda. Even assuming Trump rejects the House GOP's border adjustment tax (which is apparently hanging onto life by a thread), he can offset revenue losses by repatriating companies' foreign earnings, moderating tax cuts for high-income earners, and closing loopholes. These offsets would add to whatever he saves from repealing Obamacare and cutting regulations.19 Chart 14Americans Not So Worried About Deficits Now Chart 15Trump Lags Average Predecessor Ultimately, Republicans of all stripes know that if they fail to produce some legislative "wins" then they will be left with nothing to campaign on in the midterm elections except for their affiliation with President Trump's very poor nationwide approval rating (Chart 15). The current polling foreshadows a 36-seat slaughter in the upcoming midterm elections for the Republicans in the House (Chart 16). This would give Democrats a majority. Several clients have asked us if this makes tax reform less likely. We do not think so. It simply means that Republicans have 18 months to pass their most treasured policies - and much less time if they want the economic growth spurt to help them get reelected. They may not have an opportunity like this for decades. Bottom Line: Investors should step back and focus on the big picture: Trump remains popular with GOP voters, the Freedom Caucus understands this threat, and - to quote Pink Floyd - magic makes the world go round. Investors should fade the rally in Treasurys, as our colleague Peter Berezin of BCA's Global Investment Strategy recently recommended. We are sticking with our "Trump reflation" 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener and initiating a recommendation that clients go short the January 2018 fed funds futures contract (Chart 17).20 Chart 16Republicans Heading For Huge Defeat In 2018 Chart 17Short Jan '18 Fed Funds Futures Brexit: Early Elections Reinforce Our GBP Call British Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to hold early elections vindicates our view that the political risks of Brexit peaked - and GBP bottomed - in mid-January when May declared that her country would leave the EU's common market (Chart 18).21 At that time, May frontloaded the worst expectations of negotiations while simultaneously removing the most contentious issue: common market access. With the U.K. decisively "out," i.e. not trying to take the EU's market while rejecting its people, the EU had less of a reason to make an example of the U.K. to other countries whose Euroskeptics might think they could pick and choose what they want from the bloc. Now May and the Tories are on track for a big electoral win that will not only confirm her government's strategy but also give her more maneuverability to handle the negotiations: May's Personal Mandate: May is a "takeover" prime minister - she emerged as leader in the party reshuffle after her predecessor David Cameron's resignation following the "Leave" outcome of the referendum. Takeover prime ministers are historically weaker than "elected" prime ministers and do not last as long in office - on average they rule for 3.3 years, as opposed to six for their elected peers (Chart 19). In other words, May's position was tenuous. This was especially likely to be the case as the country entered the rocky period of formal exit in 2019 and general elections in 2020. Her struggles in turn could have threatened the Brexit deal or her party's control. At the same time, May has received a bigger "bounce" in popular opinion after assuming office than other takeover prime ministers have done (Chart 20), partly as a result of the rally-around-the-flag effect after the referendum shock. Thus, it was eminently sensible to seek public approval of her leadership at this time. Chart 18GBP Bottomed When U.K. ##br##Forswore Common Market Chart 19Theresa May Faced##br## A Short Tenure Chart 20May Received ##br##A Brexit Boost A Thin Majority: The Conservative Party has also rallied post-referendum, especially in contrast with the divided Labour Party, under Jeremy Corbyn, that will hit its lowest point since 1918 if it performs according to current polling (Chart 21). Yet the government has a thin majority in parliament of only 17 seats, among the thinnest majorities in recent decades (Chart 22). This is a liability heading into the parliamentary vote on the final exit deal with the EU in 2019, raising the menace of a "Brexit cliff" in which the U.K.'s two-year negotiating period could expire without any EU deal at all. That would be an unmitigated disaster. With a greater majority, May will be able to cow the other parties further and whip her own party's backbenchers into shape. There was also a festering scandal about the Conservative Party's 2015 fundraising that could trigger a number of by-elections jeopardizing the thin majority.22 2022 is better than 2020: The Tories also faced the prospect of running for re-election in 2020, one year after Brexit actually occurs. By that time negative economic effects (not to mention any cyclical downturn) are more likely to be felt by the public than today. The Tories would also have to face the public immediately after any embarrassing compromises in the EU negotiations. Although Labour is currently in free fall - as illustrated by the astounding loss to the Tories in the by-election in Copeland in February23 - the next two years provide opportunities for revival. The negotiations may be messy, the economy will suffer as reality sets in,24 and the union itself may come under threat from a second Scottish referendum.25 Hence the new election timeline will suit the Tories better than the old, giving them till 2022 to cement Brexit itself and address some of the effects of the aftermath before facing voters. Chart 21Labour In The Doldrums Chart 22Tories Want A Bigger Majority To Manage Brexit Few doubt that May's timing is impeccable. There can be backlash from election opportunism and voter fatigue, but May's popular approval and the national atmosphere do not suggest it will be significant. Pollsters project from current opinion polls that she will secure a 100-seat majority or greater, and since 1997 party-preference polling has become more, not less, predictive of parliamentary seats after elections. Moreover our extremely conservative estimate based exclusively on opportunities that the Tories have to snatch seats from rivals at odds with the Brexit referendum suggests that they cannot do worse than to add 11 seats to their majority (Table 2). Table 2Minimal Scenario Gives Tories 11 New Seats For Their Majority In turn, a bigger majority more securely linked to Theresa May's leadership will bring greater maneuverability in the EU talks and assurance that she can get her final deal through parliament - even if it is an ugly one. How do the elections affect the EU? Contrary to the posturing on both sides, the early election will send a further electoral confirmation to the EU that the U.K. is dead-set on leaving and that the EU cannot deliberately negotiate a bad deal in hopes that the U.K. will change its mind. It could hardly hope to overturn domestic politics and elicit a reversal on Brexit after a third national electoral outcome in favor of leaving the union. Yet the EU saw the writing on the wall already. EU Council President Tusk's negotiating guidelines are not vindictive.26 The EU is opening the possibility of a multi-year transition period after the formal 2019 exit date and acknowledging the need under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to take account of the future relationship, i.e. to provide a framework for a trade deal. The City of London stands to lose the most, but the guidelines are so far fairly tame outside of the financial sector. Moreover, we do not expect a harder line to emerge from the EU Council meeting on April 29. Already the Dutch, Irish, and Danish have called for negotiations on a trade agreement to begin promptly, essentially agreeing with Britain's urgent timeline.27 True, the probability that Macron will be the next French president - along with a likely shift toward a more outspoken Europhile stance in Germany after elections in September - presents the prospect of a "clash" with May's triumphant Tories. Macron has called for a "strict approach" to negotiations, has threatened to model his pro-market reforms in France in such a way as to steal "banks, talents, researchers, academics" from the U.K., and has suggested that the U.K. can at best hope for a deal comparable to Canada's Free Trade Agreement with the EU. That would set a low bar for the U.K.'s all-important services exports (Chart 23). However, Macron is an establishment player who will not significantly change France's position in the negotiations from what it would have been otherwise. (A Le Pen presidency obviously would mark a change by throwing the EU into chaos, but it is highly unlikely.) France is going to demand with the rest of the EU that the U.K. pay its dues (namely a 60 billion-euro budget contribution), but it is not in the interest of France or the EU to impose, effectively, a British recession - not while they seek to cultivate their own economic recoveries. Moreover, wreaking vengeance would not necessarily discourage Euroskeptics on the continent. With Le Pen mortally wounded, the significant Euroskeptic threat lies in Italy, where an imperious approach to Brexit from Germany and France may not be well received (Chart 24). Chart 23Services Are Key For The U.K. Chart 24Punishing The U.K. May Not Dissuade Italy Bottom Line: May's early election helps remove additional political risk by giving her party more maneuverability in negotiations and a greater ability to "make do" with what the Europeans give. Though this is highly unlikely to lead to a "soft Brexit" (common market access, customs union membership, subordination to the European Court of Justice), it is much more likely to prevent Britain from sailing off into a "no deal" abyss. To be clear, we can still see scenarios in which a reversal of Brexit is possible, as discussed previously,28 but they are very low probability. The snap election enables May's government to be flexible in the negotiations and accept some difficult truths in the final deal, which will reinforce the existing tendency of the EU to avoid causing a destabilizing "punitive" break. Both sides of the Channel are positioning for a relatively market-friendly outcome. We maintain our view that the pound has bottomed. Our short USD/GBP recommendation is up 2.85% since March 29 and short EUR/GBP is up 0.14% since January 25. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Eerie Calm," dated February 10, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Caveat Emptor," dated March 24, 2017, 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 Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 French toast in fact... we'll be here all night folks! 7 The reason this plan does not make sense is because most perpetrators of terrorist attacks in France have been French or European citizens. Le Pen's plan amounts to closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. 8 Please see Bloomberg, "Le Pen Struggling to Fund French Race as Russian Bank Fails," dated December 22, 2016, available at bloomberg.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Former conservative prime ministers Jean-Pierre Raffarin and Alain Juppé, as well as other prominent members of Les Républicains have already announced that they would support Macron in the second round. 11 Please see "S. Con. Res. 3 - A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2017," United States Congress, available at www.congress.gov. 12 For a great summary of the arcane procedure, please see "Introduction to Budget 'Reconciliation,'" dated November 9, 2016, available at cbpp.org. 13 If Republicans choose to delay beyond May, they will have to delay producing the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution. This is possible but introduces problems for next year's budget appropriations and the tax reform measures which will depend on the yet-to-be-written FY2018 budget resolution's reconciliation instructions. "The reconciliation legislation that the GOP is using to partially repeal and replace the ACA has a half-life. It will expire when Congress begins drafting the fiscal 2018 budget blueprint, which will likely be sometime in May. So if Republicans want to resurrect the AHCA and avoid the need for bipartisan votes in the Senate, they will have to vote on the bill within the next several weeks." Please see Baker and Hostetler LLP, "GOP Struggles To Revive Health Bill," Lexology, April 7, 2017, available at www.lexology.com. 14 In short, reconciliation can only be used to pass bills that impact spending and revenue. As such, any changes to Obamacare that do not impact fiscal matters could be found inadmissible by the Senate parliamentarian and thus could defeat the entire bill. There is of course always the "nuclear option" of simply ignoring the ruling of the Senate parliamentarian, but it is not clear whether the Senate GOP would want to go "Kim Jong-Un" twice in the same year! 15 Please see Congressional Budget Office, "American Health Care Act," March 13, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 16 Georgia's sixth congressional district is holding this special election to fill the seat left vacant by Tom Price, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appointed by Trump. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Wouldn't dynamic scoring fail to pass the "smell test" with the CBO? Yes, it would. The CBO will likely ignore Republican "magic" and apply actual "math" to the tax proposal. However, this is not an impediment to passing tax reform as the reconciliation rules can still be used as long as the legislation expires after ten years. This is how President George W. Bush passed tax cuts in 2001. 19 A study by the conservative American Action Forum suggests that Trump's regulatory cuts may save $260 billion over ten years. This is a likely source of savings to justify tax cuts, and Trump is only getting warmed up when it comes to deregulation! For the study, please see Sam Batkins, "Fiscal Benefits Of The CRA, Regulatory Reform," April 20, 2017, available at www.americanactionforum.org. 20 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Rally In Treasurys," dated April 21, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see "Conservatives fined £70,000 over expenses by election watchdog," Channel 4 News, March 16, 2017, available at www.channel4.com. 23 The Conservatives won the Copeland seat for the first time since 1982 after the Labour MP Jamie Reed's resignation there. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see "Brexit Shouldn't Delay Trade Talks Too Long, Say Leaders," Bloomberg, April 21, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 28 See note 26 above. Geopolitical Calendar

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

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

Special Report

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

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

Highlights With the labor market near full employment and the economy growing modestly, the U.S. economy is not in dire need of a "shot in the arm" from fiscal stimulus. Stocks may dip temporarily out of disappointment, but the economy will be fine even if Congress fails to boost infrastructure spending and/or cut taxes. Our view is that the market will adjust up expectations toward the Fed's view for 2018. The timing of this convergence will depend critically on the path of realized inflation and inflation expectations. If the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate rises above a level that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. That would signal that investors fear the Fed is falling behind the inflation curve. Our view remains that U.S. equities will continue to outperform U.S. Treasury bond market in 2017, although that view is as much about the poor prospective returns in the bond market as it is about our bullish view on stocks. Much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years. Feature With the labor market near full employment and the economy growing modestly, the U.S. economy is not in dire need of a "shot in the arm" from fiscal stimulus (Chart 1). The situation is very different from the early 1980s, early 2000s and during the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008. In early 2009, when the Congress and President Obama passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the economy was in the midst of the Great Recession and was still reeling from the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the freezing up of credit markets. Chart 1Trump Inheriting Best Economy For A New President In Decades Similarly, the economy was still struggling from the aftermath of the bursting of the technology, telecom and media bubble in 2000, when President Bush and an all-Republican Congress passed the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) of 2001. When President Reagan and a split Congress passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) in August 1981, the economy had entered the second recession in as many years. While the economic expansion since the end of the Great Recession has been sluggish, and has not benefited all Americans the same way, the U.S. economy today is in much better shape than any of the three periods listed above. Monetary policy remains stimulative, financial conditions are easy and none of our forward-looking indicators warn of an economic downturn. Longer term, many of the policy proposals rattling around the Trump Administration may help to boost productivity and, ultimately, growth over the coming years. These include: simplifying the tax code; reducing regulation; and enacting legislation to enhance the nation's infrastructure. In the short term, however, some of those proposals may create uncertainty and thereby spark an economic soft patch (for example, the "border adjustment tax" or repealing Obama Care without immediately replacing it). Nonetheless, our main point is that the U.S. economy doesn't need a shot in the arm from fiscal policy to "rescue it" as was the case in decades past. The bottom line is that stocks may dip temporarily out of disappointment, but the economy will be fine even if Congress fails to boost infrastructure spending and/or cut taxes. Resetting The Stage The odds of a recession this year remain low, as there are few excesses in the system that typically lead to economic downturns. Just because the economic expansion that began in mid-2009 will turn eight years old later this quarter, that doesn't mean that a recession is imminent. We will continue to carefully monitor the economy for signs that excesses are building. But for now, our view remains that modest economic growth will continue, even without a boost from fiscal stimulus. The market has long questioned the pace of Fed rate hikes contained in the FOMC's 'dot plot'. Expectations for 2017 have converged on two more quarter-point hikes this year (Chart 2). It's a different story for 2018 and 2019, where the Fed sees 3 more hikes in 2018 and 4 more in 2019, but the market is pricing in just 2 and 1. Our view is that the market will adjust up expectations toward the Fed's view for 2018. The timing of this convergence will depend critically on the path of realized inflation and inflation expectations. A Tale Of Two Halves Headline inflation is likely to remain elevated and above the Fed's 2% target in 1H 2017, before fading modestly in the second half of the year as we pass the anniversary of the low in oil prices. That may cause markets to temporarily roll back the outlook for Fed tightening in 2018. Nonetheless, a continuing upward march in wage growth will keep pressure on core PCE inflation. The FOMC will likely 'look through' any softening in the headline rate that is simply due to oil prices. Notably, service sector inflation, which accounts for 2/3 of CPI, has been accelerating for 7 years and is above 3% (Chart 3). Chart 2Connected In 2017 And Disconnected After Chart 3Service Inflation Accelerating Rising short-term interest rates should not be a major headwind for the equity market to the extent that it is reflective of robust growth rather than surging inflation. Inflation expectations are only creeping higher at the moment according to market-based measures (Chart 4). Risk assets could run into trouble if the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate rises above a level that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, at 2.4-2.5%. That would signal that investors fear the Fed is falling behind the inflation curve and will have to crank up the pace of tightening. The so-called 'Trump trades' are under pressure following the failure to reform Obamacare, at a time when U.S. equity valuations are stretched and some measures of equity sentiment are elevated. Nonetheless, we do not believe it is time to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar. A lack of progress on a meaningful tax package and infrastructure plan may well end up being the catalyst for the first U.S. equity market correction of more than 5% in the Trump era. Nonetheless, the lack of excesses in the economy, general agreement between the Fed and the market on the path of rates for this year and rising, but still modest, inflation are likely to make any pullback in U.S. stocks a buying opportunity for investors. In fact, one could argue that fiscal stimulus at this point in the cycle would truncate the expansion because the Fed would have to respond more aggressively if the stimulus boosted inflation pressures. Fed Chair Yellen has made this point in recent public appearances. The failure to pass a tax reform package might undermine the long-term productivity story, but it could actually extend the length of this expansion and the equity bull market by delaying aggressive Fed rate hikes. Our view remains that U.S. equities will continue to outperform the U.S. Treasury bond market in 2017, although that view is as much about the poor prospective returns in the bond market as it is about our bullish view on stocks (Chart 5). Chart 4Inflation Expectations##br## Well Contained Chart 5Equities Continue To ##br##Outperform Bonds This Year The remainder of this week's publication focuses on the forces behind the continuing drop in risk asset correlations, and the implications for a mean-reversion in the equity risk premium. Correlation, ERP And Hurdle Rates Elevated financial market correlations have been a hallmark of this expansion, making life difficult for traders and for investors searching for diversification (Chart 6). Correlations have been higher than normal across assets, across regions and within asset classes. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. A drop in asset correlations is important for diversification reasons and because it provides a better backdrop for those seeking alpha. But the reasons behind the decline in correlations may have broader financial and economic implications. One can only speculate on the underlying cause of the surge in asset correlations in the first place. Our theory has been that the large global output gap lingered because of the sub-par recovery that followed the most damaging macroeconomic shock since the Great Depression. The growth headwinds were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged solely on the success or failure of radical monetary policy. Either policy would "work", the output gap will gradually close, the deflation threat would be extinguished and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail, and risk assets would be dragged down as the economy fell back into recession. Thus, risk assets fluctuated along with violent swings in investor sentiment in what appeared to be a binary economic environment. In the March 2017 Quarterly Review, the Bank for International Settlements described it this way: "In a global environment devoid of growth but plentiful in liquidity, central bank decisions appear to draw investors into common, successive phases of buying or selling risk." In previous research, we developed a model that helps to explain the historical movements in correlations. We chose to focus on the correlation of individual stocks within the S&P 500 (Chart 7). The two explanatory variables are: (1) the equity risk premium (ERP; the difference between the S&P 500 forward earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield); and (2) rolling 1-year realized downside volatility.1 The logic behind the model is that a higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. Conversely, a lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. Chart 6Market Correlations Are Shifting Chart 7Market Correlation And The ERP A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious include an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Volatility is included to explain the cyclical variation of correlations, but we use only below-average returns in the calculation because we are more concerned about the risk of equity market declines. It makes sense that perceptions of downside "tail risk" should affect investors' appetite for risk. The model almost completely explains the trend in stock price correlations over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the ERP in driving the structural change in correlations (Chart 8). But why was the ERP so elevated after 2007? The preceding moderation in risk premia in the 1990s was likely due to a decline in macroeconomic volatility, a phenomenon that began in the early 1980s and has since been dubbed "The Great Moderation". A waning in the volatility of global inflation and growth contributed to a decline in the volatility of interest rates, which are used to discount future cash flows. This also reduced the perceived riskiness of investing in securities that are leveraged to economic growth, thus causing investors to trim their required excess returns to equities. Unfortunately, the Great Moderation contributed to complacency and bubbles in tech stocks and, later, housing.2 The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble brought the Great Moderation to a crushing end, ushering in an era of rolling financial crises and monetary extremism. Our measure of downside volatility soon returned to normal levels after the recession-driven spike. However, the ERP continued to fluctuate at a higher average level, which helps to explain the strong correlation among risk asset prices in the years since the recession. The ERP And Capital Spending An elevated equity risk premium is consistent with the view that investors demanded a more generous premium to take risk in a post-Lehman world. This may also help to explain the disappointing rate of capital spending growth in the major countries in recent years. Firms demanded a fat "hurdle rate" when evaluating new investment projects. Sir John Cunliffe, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, recently cited survey evidence related to the dismal U.K. capital spending record since the recession.3 The main culprits were bank lending issues, the high cost of capital and elevated hurdle rates. Eighty percent of publically-owned firms in the survey agreed that financial market pressure for short-term returns to shareholders had been an obstacle to investment. This short-termism makes sense if investors feared that the recovery could turn to bust at any moment. The survey highlighted that market pressure, together with macro uncertainty among CEOs, kept the hurdle rate applied to new investment projects at close to 12%, despite the major drop in market interest rates. In other words, the gap between the required rate-of-return on new projects and the risk-free rate or corporate borrowing rates surged (Chart 9). Chart 8Modeling The Stock Price ##br##Correlation Within The S&P 500 Chart 9Capex Hurdle Rates ##br##Never Came Down J.P. Morgan concluded that hurdle rates have also been sticky at around 12% in the U.S.4 This study blamed uncertainty over the cash-flow outlook (macro risk) and the fact that CEOs believed that low borrowing rates are temporary. It is rational for a firm to hold cash and buy back stock if perceptions of downside tail risk remain lofty. The bottom line is that uncertainty and higher risk aversion related to macro volatility kept the ERP elevated, curtailing animal spirits and lifting correlation among risk asset prices. Chart 10Forward Multiple Scenarios The good news is that the situation appears to have changed since the U.S. election. Measures of market correlation have dropped sharply across asset classes, within asset classes and across regions. Animal spirits also appear to be reviving given the jump in consumer and business confidence in the major countries. We are not making the case that all risks have dissipated. The military situation in North Korea and upcoming European elections are just two on a long list. Our point is that, absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside tail risk and a binary economic future should wane further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can now focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Does The ERP Have More Downside? It is difficult to determine the equilibrium equity risk premium, but back-of-the-envelope estimates can provide a ballpark figure. Let us assume that the ERP is not going back into negative territory, as was the case from 1980-2000. A more reasonable assumption is that the ERP instead converges with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003 to 2007 (about +200 basis points). The ERP is currently 3.2, which is equal to the forward earnings yield of 5.6 minus the 10-year yield of 2.4% (Chart 10). The ERP would need to fall by 120 basis points to get back to the 2% average yield of 2003-2007. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or a higher bond yield. If the 10-year Treasury yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3%, then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 60 basis points. This would boost the earnings multiple from 17.8 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We lean to the latter scenario for bonds, although it will take some time for the bond bear phase to play out. In the meantime, an equity overshoot is possible. The bottom line is that much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years, although that will be much better than the (likely negative) returns in the bond market. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Downside volatility is calculated in a fashion similar to standard deviation, except only using below-average returns. 2 Of course, the Great Moderation was not the only factor that contributed to the financial market bubbles. 3 Are Firms Underinvesting - And If So Why? Speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability and Member of the Monetary Policy Committee. Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. February 8, 2017. 4 It's Time to Reassess Your Hurdle Rates. J.P. Morgan, November 2016.