Hot Topic

Highlights As bitcoin has developed into a fledgling form of money, the best valuation framework for it is the quantity theory of money. This states that the bitcoin money supply (in dollars) times bitcoin's velocity of circulation = the amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin. In the short term, excessive herding signals a likely countertrend reversal, and implies that the bitcoin price will retest $12,750 at some point in the next 130 days. In the long term, the wholesale acceptance of cryptocurrencies in the global economy will be deflationary. Feature Bitcoin's near-vertical price ascent to $19,000 has left many commentators crying "bubble!" The problem with this is that you cannot define an asset bubble simply from the behaviour of a price. You need to assess fundamental value, and the extent of deviation above this fundamental value. Conceivably, bitcoin's near-vertical price ascent could be a correction from an "anti-bubble", in which the price was a long way below its fundamental value and rapidly corrected upwards. Which begs the question: what is the best way to assess the fundamental value of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Chart of the WeekCryptocurrencies Will Prevent Inflation, Just Like The Gold Standard Cryptocurrencies Will Prevent Inflation, Just Like The Gold Standard Cryptocurrencies Will Prevent Inflation, Just Like The Gold Standard A Valuation Framework For Bitcoin As bitcoin has developed into a fledgling form of money, one potential valuation framework is the quantity theory of money. This states that the money supply times its velocity of circulation equals nominal GDP. Given that the supply of bitcoin will not exceed an upper limit of 21 million coins, we can say that the bitcoin money supply (in dollars) is the bitcoin price times 21 million. We can then use the quantity theory to deduce: Bitcoin price times 21 million times bitcoin's velocity of circulation = Amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin. If we additionally assume that bitcoin's velocity is similar to that of the stock of broad fiat money, 1.5, then we can rearrange and simplify the equation to approximately: Bitcoin price = Amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin divided by 30 million So if the market was discounting that $0.5 trillion of world GDP would be carried out in bitcoin, then its price should be $16,700. Given the purported nefarious uses of cryptocurrencies at the moment, and an estimated size of the world's shadow economy at around $16 trillion, an assumption of $0.5 trillion of bitcoin use in the world economy does not seem excessive. On the other hand, nefarious use might make bitcoin's velocity of circulation a lot higher than conventional money. Which would pull bitcoin's fair price much lower. Suffice to say, the above assumptions are broad-brush and open to challenge. Nevertheless, despite the many caveats, the above framework is probably the most valid for valuing a cryptocurrency once it gains acceptance as a fledgling form of money. Putting Bitcoin Through Fractal Analysis The behaviour of price alone cannot gauge an asset bubble. But the behaviour of price alone can gauge a shortage of liquidity in the asset which implies a potential countertrend reversal. Liquidity is plentiful when the market is split between short-term momentum traders and longer-term value investors. This is because the two herds generally disagree with each other. If the price fluctuates up, the momentum trader wants to buy while the value investor wants to sell; and vice-versa. So the herds trade with each other with plentiful liquidity and little movement in price. This raises an obvious question. Can there really be any value investors in cryptocurrencies? The answer is potentially yes, if these investors believe that cryptocurrency acceptance will increase over time. And if they apply the aforementioned valuation framework from the quantity theory of money. Still, liquidity will periodically evaporate if too many value investors join the short-term momentum herd. Instead of dispassionately investing on the basis of a valuation framework, value investors get lured into participating in a strong rally, and their buy orders add fuel to the rally. A tipping point comes when all the value investors have joined the momentum herd. If a value investor then suddenly reverts to type and puts in a sell order, he will find that there are no buyers left. Liquidity has evaporated, and finding new liquidity might require a substantial reversal in the price to attract a buy order from an ultra-long-term deep value investor. As regular readers know, fractal analysis measures whether the herding behaviour in any financial instrument has reached its tipping point, signalling a likely end of its price trend. Today, the 130-day herding indicator for bitcoin is at a level which has indicated three previous countertrend reversals of at least one fifth of the preceding 130-day move (Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4). Chart I-2Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled A Reversal In 2015 Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled A Reversal In 2015 Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled A Reversal In 2015 Chart I-3Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled Two Reversals In 2017 Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled Two Reversals In 2017 Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled Two Reversals In 2017 Chart I-4Bitcoin: The 65 Day Fractal Dimension Also Signalled Two Previous Reversals Bitcoin: The 65 Day Fractal Dimension Also Signalled Two Previous Reversals Bitcoin: The 65 Day Fractal Dimension Also Signalled Two Previous Reversals If this herding indicator signals a fourth countertrend reversal, it implies that the bitcoin price will retest $12,750 at some point in the next 130 days. Are Cryptocurrencies Inflationary Or Deflationary? On the face of it, the emergence of cryptocurrencies sounds inflationary. After all, if the general acceptance of cryptocurrencies for commercial transactions increases, there will be new money supply. And this new money supply will increase the nominal demand for goods and services. However, the truth is more nuanced. Unlike fiat money supply - which can expand without limit - each cryptocurrency has a defined limit to its supply. Although new cryptocurrencies can emerge, there seems to be a limit to the aggregate amount of cryptocurrency supply. The limiting factor is that it takes energy to create cryptocurrency through so-called 'mining'. Miners must compete to validate transactions that occur in a cryptocurrency. The competition takes the form of solving a mathematical problem - for example, finding the prime factors of a very large number. And the computational demands are energy sapping. Furthermore, the computational demands - known as 'proof of work' - get progressively more difficult for each additional new coin mined. Given that the computational resources in the world are finite and growing at a gentle and predictable rate, the implication is that the growth in the total amount of cryptocurrency is also limited. So while the emergence of cryptocurrencies does increase the money supply in the near-term (Chart I-5), a large-scale rejection of fiat money would make it impossible for uncouth policymakers to spike the overall money supply over the longer-term. Chart I-5Cryptocurrencies: Market Cap Is Now Non-Trivial Bitcoins And Fractals Bitcoins And Fractals Here's a further thought. Imagine if the proof of work computations, instead of being random mathematical calculations, solved useful problems that expanded the envelope of knowledge. This could boost real productivity, which is ultimately just a function of the stock of human ingenuity. In which case, any increase in money supply would be matched by an increase in potential real output. Interestingly, a recent paper from the Bank of Canada proposes that a wholesale acceptance of cryptocurrencies in the global economy could act as a new gold standard, whose effect would be mildly deflationary1 (Chart of the Week) and Table I-1). We fully agree with the Bank of Canada analysis. Table I-1No Persistent Inflation For 700 Years! Bitcoins And Fractals Bitcoins And Fractals The sting in the tail is that the analysis describes prices denominated in cryptocurrency terms. In fiat currency terms, the quantity theory of money implies that prices would rise2 - unless central banks reacted to the emergence of cryptocurrencies by shrinking the supply of fiat money. Would they? Very likely yes. If they didn't, the demise of fiat money would accelerate as people voted with their wallets and switched to superior stores of purchasing power. Nevertheless, we suspect that any central bank response would just delay the inevitable. As Larry Summers puts it: I am much more confident that the world of payments will look very different 20 years from now than I am about how it will look. And with that observation, I am signing off for 2017. I do hope you have enjoyed our provocative and counterintuitive insights this year. In the vast majority of cases, these insights have led to highly profitable investment recommendations. We promise to continue the success in 2018! Early next year, we will also unveil a major enhancement to our proprietary fractal trading strategy. So stay tuned. It just remains for me to wish you all a very enjoyable Festive Season and a prosperous 2018. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, A Bitcoin Standard: Lessons from the Gold Standard https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2016/03/staff-working-paper-2016-14/ 2 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled "Bitcoin's Macro Impact", dated September 15, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com and Technology Sector Strategy Special Report titled "Cyber Currencies: Actual Currencies Or Just Speculative Assets?", dated December 12, 2017 available at tech.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* As discussed in the main body of this report, this week's trade is to expect a countertrend reversal in bitcoin. Go short with a profit target at $12750 and stop-loss at $28000. In other trades, long silver has had a strong 1-week bounce while long U.K. personal products / short U.K. food and beverages reached the end of its 65 day maximum holding period and closed with a small profit. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-6 Long Silver Long Silver The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Bitcoin and other virtual currencies have sold off sharply in recent days. However, as the turn of the millennium dotcom boom and bust illustrates, wild swings in asset prices can sometimes mask important structural changes that new technologies have unleashed on the global economy. If the proliferation of virtual currencies continues, it will have real macroeconomic effects. Globally, the volume of currency in circulation - the largest component of base money - has grown by 5.5% year-over-year. However, the growth rate would be 7% if virtual currencies were included in the tally. The indirect increase in global liquidity coming from virtual currencies should provide a modest boost to spending. This is somewhat bearish for bonds but bullish for equities. The implications for gold and the dollar are mixed. Governments derive significant "seigniorage revenue" from their ability to issue fiat currency. This is likely to impede the widespread adoption of virtual currencies, ultimately capping their prices. Feature Bitcoin And Beyond The price of bitcoin has been extremely volatile lately, falling by more than 10% last week after the Chinese government announced a ban on so-called Initial Coin Offerings. The downdraft continued into this week, spurred on by JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon's description of bitcoin as a "fraud." The recent selloff followed a dizzying ascent which saw the price of the upstart currency surpass $5000 earlier this month (Chart 1). Despite the pullback, one thousand dollars of bitcoin purchased in July 2010 would still be worth $58 million today. Such mind-boggling returns have caught the public's attention. There were more Google searches for "bitcoin" in August and September than for "Donald Trump" (Chart 2). Public appetite is so high that the Bitcoin Investment Trust, though officially an open-ended vehicle, has traded as high as twice its net asset value in recent months. Chart 1Bitcoin Prices: It's Been A Wild Ride So Far Bitcoin Prices: It's Been A Wild Ride So Far Bitcoin Prices: It's Been A Wild Ride So Far Chart 2President Trump: Bitcoin Is More Popular Than You! President Trump: Bitcoin Is More Popular Than You! President Trump: Bitcoin Is More Popular Than You! Other virtual currencies have also seen staggering returns. Ethereum is still up more than 3000% year-to-date, giving it a market cap of $23 billion. Dogecoin, a currency that was started "as a joke" according to its founders, commands a market cap of $114 million. Wider Effects? The run-up in bitcoin prices bears a close resemblance to classic bubbles (Chart 3). Yet, as the turn of the millennium dotcom boom and bust illustrates, wild swings in asset prices can sometimes mask important structural changes that new technologies have unleashed on the global economy. This raises the question of whether the explosion in virtual currencies is relevant for the broader investment community, including those investors who would never consider buying bitcoin. We would answer yes, albeit in a limited form thus far. The market capitalization of all virtual currencies currently stands at $120 billion (Chart 4). Globally, there is about $6 trillion in currency outstanding, so the value of virtual currencies is now 2% that of traditional cash and currency. That's not huge, but it's no longer trivial either. Chart 3Bitcoin Bubble? Bitcoin Bubble? Bitcoin Bubble? Chart 4Virtual Currencies: Market Cap Is Now Non-Trivial Bitcoin's Macro Impact Bitcoin's Macro Impact The importance of virtual currencies increases if we look at rates of change. The global stock of currency in circulation has risen by 5.5% over the past 12 months. However, if we add virtual currencies to the mix, the rate of growth jumps to 7%. The contribution of virtual currencies to the rate of growth of the broad money supply - which includes such items as bank deposits - is still fairly small. However, economists focus on currency in circulation for a reason: It is the largest component of base money (also known as "high-powered" money). The stock of base money helps determine the total money supply through the magic of the money multiplier and fractional reserve banking. The Monetary Hot Potato For the time being, the macro impact of virtual currencies has been constrained by the fact that most people are buying them as a store of value, rather than as a medium of exchange. It is no coincidence that up until recently, a disproportionately large amount of demand for virtual currencies has come out of China, an economy that suffers from a plethora of savings and a dearth of safe investable assets (Chart 5). In addition to squirrelling away their wealth in overpriced condos, the Chinese are now snapping up bitcoins. Chart 5Bitcoin Trading Volume By Top Three Currencies Bitcoin's Macro Impact Bitcoin's Macro Impact Over time, the public may begin to regard virtual currencies as legitimate substitutes for dollars, euros, yen, and yuan. This could lead people to want to hold fewer of these traditional currencies, causing them in turn to either spend their excess cash holdings or deposit them in commercial banks. The first outcome would obviously be inflationary, but so would the second if rising deposit inflows caused banks to increase lending. What would happen if people began transacting more in virtual currencies? At that point, the Fed and other central banks would need to decide whether to take some traditional paper money out of circulation in order to make room for the growing share of private virtual currencies. The merits of doing so would depend on the state of the business cycle.1 When inflation is low, as it is today in most of the world, central banks would gladly welcome anything that boosts spending and liquidity. Indeed, in some ways, the issuance of private currencies could have similar effects to helicopter drops of money. However, if inflation were to accelerate too rapidly, central banks would have to begin withdrawing their own currencies from circulation, or push for the withdrawal of private currencies. Governments Want Their Cut Chart 6U.S. Seigniorage Revenue U.S. Seigniorage Revenue U.S. Seigniorage Revenue The former outcome would not please the fiscal authorities. When the U.S. Treasury issues a $100 bill, it gains the ability to buy $100 of goods and services with it. The government's cost is whatever it pays to print the bill, which is close to zero. This so-called "seigniorage revenue" is quite large, averaging close to $70 billion per year for the U.S. government alone over the past decade (Chart 6). Why would the U.S. or any other country that issues its own currency want to part with this revenue? The answer is that it wouldn't. Instead, governments are likely to introduce their own competitors to bitcoin. The blockchain technology on which bitcoin is built is ingenious but completely within the public domain. Central banks are already thinking about how to issue their own virtual currencies. The creation of such parallel electronic currencies would allow people to send funds to one another and purchase goods and services without the need for an intermediary, a potentially negative development for banks and other financial institutions. These government-sponsored virtual currencies are unlikely to offer the full anonymity of bitcoin, but for most people, that may not be such a bad thing. As our Technology Sector Strategy service has emphasized, private virtual currencies suffer from numerous deficiencies which expose their users to fraud.2 When thieves stole 6% of all outstanding bitcoins from the Mt. Gox exchange in 2014, the victims had nothing to fall back on. A government-sponsored virtual currency could at least offer some protection to its holders, thereby making it more valuable to use. It would also allow central banks to fulfill their responsibilities as lenders of last resort. The Free Banking Era in the U.S., which at one point saw 8000 different currencies in circulation, experienced multiple banking crises. A world with myriad private currencies all competing with one another would be similarly unstable. Bitcoin: A Solution In Search Of A Problem? Chart 7The Boom In Cryptocurrencies Bitcoin's Macro Impact Bitcoin's Macro Impact This gets to a more fundamental issue, which is that bitcoin often comes across as a solution in need of a problem. People can already transfer money fairly easily when it is legal to do so. If the main practical advantage of bitcoin is to overcome capital controls and empower tax cheats, junkies, and hackers, it is hard to see how this does not beget a government crackdown. Ironically, the "mining" of additional bitcoins requires significant investment in specialized computers and dollops of electricity. Virtual currencies may exist in bits and bytes, but real resources must be expended to create them. In contrast, governments can create money with simply the stroke of a pen. Granted, if governments used this power to devalue the value of money - as they have periodically done from time to time - the virtues of bitcoin as a store of value would become more evident. The algorithms that power bitcoin limit the total number of coins that can ever be created to 21 million. Bitcoin is not the only game in town, however. Dozens of competitors have sprung up (Chart 7). While each may cap the number of coins in circulation, collectively they represent a potentially significant (and possibly unlimited) addition to the monetary base. Thus, it is not clear how well virtual currencies would perform as inflation hedges compared to more traditional instruments such as gold and land, let alone modern hedges such as inflation-linked securities. Investment Conclusions The role that money plays in modern economies is one of those things that people tend to tie themselves into pretzels thinking about. It's actually not that complicated. For the most part, inflation occurs when the demand for goods and services outstrips the supply of goods and services. Outside of extreme situations, the choice of monetary regime does not affect the supply-side of the economy (that's determined by productivity and the size of the labor force, neither of which central banks have much control over). Thus, it really is just a question of how the monetary regime affects aggregate demand. As noted above, there are reasons to think that the proliferation of virtual currencies will boost the demand for goods and services, either through the wealth effect channel (people who acquired bitcoin in its early days feel richer today), or via the currency substitution channel (if people start transacting in bitcoin, they may try to dispose of their excess dollars, euros, yen, and yuan either by spending them or depositing them in banks, leading to higher loan growth). Neither of these effects is terribly significant right now, but both have the potential to increase in importance over time. At some point, governments will take steps to rein in virtual currencies. However, until then, their existence is likely to spur inflation in the fiat currencies in which most prices are measured. That's bad for high-quality government bonds, but potentially good for stocks. The implications for gold are mixed. On the one hand, if the growth of virtual currencies translates into an increase in the global money supply and rising inflation, that is good for bullion. On the other hand, if people see bitcoin as a competitor to gold as a store of value, they may wish to hold less of the yellow metal. The dollar could lose out from the proliferation of virtual currencies if central banks allocate some of their USD reserves into these new currencies. However, it is doubtful this will happen to any significant degree since most central banks are likely to see virtual currencies as unwanted competitors to their own monies. In the meantime, stronger global demand growth could put disproportionately more upward pressure on U.S. inflation, given that the U.S. is closer to full employment than most economies. This could cause the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a firmer dollar. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 To appreciate this point, ponder the question of who suffers when someone goes shopping with counterfeit currency. If the economy is operating at full potential, the answer is that everyone else suffers because they have to pay higher prices for the things that they buy. However, if there are plenty of idle workers, the additional spending is unlikely to raise prices. Rather, it will translate into higher output and income. 2 Please see Technology Sector Strategy, "Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies," dated May 5, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Dear Client, I am on the road this week meeting clients. Instead of our regular Weekly Report, we are sending you a piece written by my colleague Brian Piccioni, head of our Technology Sector Strategy Service. In this Special Report Brian discusses how the limitations of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies make them extremely speculative investments. Furthermore he discusses the possibilities of blockchain technology for the financial service industry going forward. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Feature Summary Modern cryptocurrencies (virtual currencies based on cryptographic methods) originated with the introduction of blockchain technology and the simultaneous launch of Bitcoin. As we noted in our February 9, 2016 Special Report "Bitcoin and Blockchain Technology": Bitcoin has numerous deficiencies which expose its users to fraud; Governments are concerned with use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal activities; The market for Bitcoin is unregulated, liquidity is low, and there is good reason to be suspicious of market quotes for the currency; It is unlikely any virtual currency will become a form of legal tender absent government oversight; and Any investment in Bitcoin related activities should be viewed as highly speculative. In contrast, blockchain technology associated with Bitcoin: Can be applied by the financial services industry to reduce fraud and improve transaction times; Can reduce overhead associated with maintaining a trusted intermediary; Blockchain-related technologies are open and it is hard to imagine that any derivative technology would not be. Therefore, any unusual returns associated with knowledge of the mathematics or applications of blockchain are likely to be transient in nature. The technology itself, however, may lead to significant improvements in the velocity and security of certain types of transactions. Recent Developments Japan Legalizes Cryptocurrencies While we stand by our original analysis, it appears that Japan has allowed the use of virtual currencies effective April 1, 2017, albeit with significant oversight. Requirements include minimum capital levels and annual audits for exchanges. It is unclear to us why the Japanese government saw fit to introduce these changes, and it remains to be seen whether such oversight will be effective. Introduction Of Blockchain As Service Microsoft,1 IBM,2 and Deloitte3 have introduced blockchain services which should facilitate adoption by their traditional clients. We refer readers to the footnotes to explore the quickly changing nature of these firms' offering and we expect that other firms offering software and IT consulting for large enterprise clients will likely also introduce blockchain-related products. Although purists might observe that a centralized approach to blockchain removes the benefits of a distributed leger (see below), it also allows for the correction of many of blockchain's deficiencies (namely anonymity and irreversible transactions). This would make it more applicable in a regulated environment, assuming the implementation incorporates safeguards equivalent to a distributed ledger. Bitcoin Hype Appears To Be Subsiding While Enterprise Interest Is Growing Although we still see some coverage of the day-to-day moves in Bitcoin pricing, we get the sense that hype over cryptocurrencies is subsiding. Online discussions regarding speculating in cryptocurrencies appear to be less excited and neo-Libertarians appear to have moved on. Meanwhile, it seems that financial institutions are taking blockchain technology more seriously, and a large majority of financial services firms expect to deploy blockchain-related technologies over the next few years,4, 5 though some are more cautious on timing.6 Virtual Currencies And Bitcoin According to the ECB, a virtual currency: "... is defined as a digital representation of value, not issued by a central bank, credit institution or e-money institution, which in some circumstances can be used as an alternative to money"7 The IMF has produced Figure 1 which explains the differences between virtual, digital, and cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin was described in a 2008 paper "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System".8 The paper outlines a technique (see Figure 2) which does away with the need for a trusted intermediary in executing secure transactions through the use of public key encryption and timestamps. Figure 1Overview Of Virtual Currencies Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Figure 2Simplified Diagram Of Bitcoin And Blockchain Function Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Blockchain technology, on which Bitcoin relies, provides: Anonymity of source and destination (neither buyer nor seller need to know each other); Irreversibility, such that no transaction can be reversed without the consent of the parties; and Security, subject to certain limitations, through redundancy and a peer to peer network. The mathematics of blockchain technology creates a verifiable distributed ledger among many computers on a peer to peer network. Because there is no central ledger, costs with maintaining it, arbitrating disputes and compensating for fraudulent transfers are all eliminated. A distributed ledger also means an asset can exist in only one place: there is no chance of embezzlement where an asset is purportedly on one set of books while actually being somewhere else. Bitcoin and blockchain technologies are not synonymous: there are an unlimited number of virtual currencies which can be produced using blockchain-like technologies and blockchain technology can be used to in non-currency applications. Limitations Of Cryptocurrencies Cryptocurrencies present a challenge for governments as anti-money laundering regulations typically require enforcement and monitoring by trusted third parties to report suspicious transactions to authorities. A secure anonymous transaction system such as Bitcoin provides a ready workaround for money laundering and tax evasion, characteristics quickly embraced by the underworld. A complete analysis of the challenges posed by virtual currencies in general and cryptocurrencies in particular can be found in the IMF Staff Discussion Note "Virtual Currencies and Beyond: Initial Considerations".9 Where Theft Isn't Quite Illegal There are three ways to obtain Bitcoin: Exchange "real" money for Bitcoin via an online virtual currency exchange; Exchange good or services for Bitcoin; or "Mine" them using a computer to solve the cryptographic problems. Typically there are more consumers than sellers (i.e. more drug users than drug dealers), so most users convert money to and from Bitcoin via exchanges. Mining still goes on but as the cryptographic hashes become more difficult to solve, and the computing resources and electricity now needed to "mine" Bitcoin require a significant investment.10 Transaction Costs Are Not Insignificant Although blockchain removes the need for a trusted intermediary, introduction of an exchange creates an intermediary. A staggering number of Bitcoin exchanges have been "hacked", most likely by the operators themselves. Lack of regulatory oversight and the anonymous nature of the transactions, including theft, mean that such hacks are rarely solved and victims do not get their Bitcoin back even when they are. It is not clear whether theft of a virtual currency is, in fact, illegal: the question of whether theft of virtual property is theft is a subject of debate,11, 12 suggesting there is no clear answer. Even courts treat the matter differently when there is no issue of criminality besides the alleged theft.13, 14 Besides the money lost to users from fraud, high exchange rates associated with converting Bitcoin to and from "real" currency further add to costs, suggesting that for many users untraceable transactions is more important than transaction costs. Cryptocurrency Can Be Irrevocably Destroyed Or Lost One other feature of Bitcoin which presents a challenge is that it requires a private key or password to transfer it. This means that one can imagine a scenario where an embezzler steals money from a business and immediately converts it into Bitcoin. If caught the embezzler might threaten to destroy the private key, and therefore the money is lost forever. Similarly, the heirs of someone who placed his trust in Bitcoin rather than a bank may discover their inheritance is lost forever unless care was taken to ensure the private key is accessible to the estate after death.15 These issues might arise with any asset secured by a blockchain system unless there are built in safeguards against it. Illiquidity And Unregulated Markets Virtual currency markets have two important characteristics: they are extremely illiquid and unregulated making market manipulation relatively straightforward. Bitcoin, currently has a market cap of about $30B16 but has average daily volume in the range of about 3.4% of the market cap. Note that since transaction costs (though not the exchange rates) associated with Bitcoin are small and optional,17 and since the market is unregulated and anonymous, there is nothing to prevent individuals from wash trading or other forms of market manipulation.18 Chinese Yuan trading volume has rapidly increased since 2013, and up until January 2017 accounted for the overwhelming majority of Bitcoin trading (Chart 1). Although other factors may have influenced the rise in Chinese bitcoin trading, zero-fee trade structures (which lead to wash trading) contributed as well. Chinese Bitcoin trading volume collapsed in January 2017, after exchanges began charging trading fees, likely due to regulatory pressure from the government.19 This had a dramatic impact on the volume of Bitcoins traded globally (Chart 2), although the price has stayed high, indicating that marginal demand from Bitcoin bulls remains high enough to keep them in charge of this market for now. As has happened before in 2013, prices will likely drop once these bulls capitulate. Chart 1Bitcoin Trading Volume* Breakdown##br## (Top 3 Currencies) Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Chart 2Bitcoin Trading Volumes Collapsed ##br##After Chinese Exchanges Introduced Transaction Fees Bitcoin Trading Volumes Collapsed After Chinese Exchanges Introduced Transaction Fees Bitcoin Trading Volumes Collapsed After Chinese Exchanges Introduced Transaction Fees Unregulated financial systems devolve to fraud, and there is no reason to believe a market dominated by unsophisticated, anonymous, participants trading an intangible asset with uncertain liquidity where fraud or theft is not necessarily illegal is, in any way, an efficient market. Sadly, even mainstream media appear to ignore these realities when covering Bitcoin and related price moves. Distributed Legers And Their Application One of the most significant innovations associated with cryptocurrencies is the concept of a secure, distributed ledger (Figure 3, left panel) in lieu of a centralized ledger maintained by a trusted authority such as a bank or brokerage (Figure 3, right panel). Although the application of distributed ledgers has been with cryptocurrencies, there are many potential applications in traditional financial markets since assets such as stocks and bonds are held by a dealer while ownership can change frequently. Adoption of a distributed ledger system can20 and has been used to "facilitate the issuance, cataloging and recording of transfers of shares of privately-held companies on The NASDAQ Private Market". According to NASDAQ, "Blockchain technology has the potential to assist in expediting trade clearing and settlement from the current equity market standards of three days to as little as ten minutes".21 Aspects of Bitcoin which permit its criminal use are not inherent characteristics of blockchain, or distributed ledger technologies in general. The technology will almost certainly be improved in order to eliminate those problems by incorporating an audit trail (to reduce its use for tax evasion or money laundering), reversibility (to allow for the reversal of trading errors), and so on. Figure 3 Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies Investment Summary And Implications For Currency Markets The long term investment impact of Bitcoin will likely be insignificant as exchanges and mining operations disappear into the dark net (i.e. the part of the Internet used by criminals). Investors should consider a position in Bitcoin, whether the currency or related services such as exchanges or mining, to be highly speculative. Blockchain Technology Is Open To Anyone The profusion of cryptocurrencies shows that blockchain technology can be adapted by anyone with the requisite understanding the mathematics involved. Time and again we find investor interest in certain emerging technologies rapidly dissipates once expertise becomes commonplace, regardless of the broader impact on society. We suspect a similar thing will happen with blockchain technology namely that it will become broadly used in a number of applications, however, besides the few companies which are acquired, few will become significant or profitable and most such acquisitions will be written down not long after they are consummated. Blockchain Technology Will Be Broadly Adopted Blockchain technology has broad implications for the financial services industry as a mechanism to reduce costs and transaction times. These are all unequivocal positives for the industry and society in general, but can be construed as deflationary and not conducive to sustainable profit gains. What Does This All Mean For Currency Investors? The progress in blockchain-related technology is a promising development for the future ease of transaction processing. However, due to the limitation embedded in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, fiat currencies are not yet at risk. For the time being, BTC and co. are still very speculative and volatile instruments that do not qualify as stores of value. In fact, the concerns of global governments with the use of cryptocurrencies for illicit purposes, as well as all the security risks still associated with their ownership, continue to be handicaps. This suggests that when it comes to the need for safety, these cryptocurrencies are not yet alternatives to the dollar, Swiss franc, and government bonds issued by the German and U.S. governments. Instead, gold and precious metals should remain the vehicle of choice for investors concerned with safety and the debasing of fiat currencies that may result from the large debt loads of the advanced economies' governments. As a result, we continue to think of these crypto currencies as high beta plays on the dollar and Chinese capital flows. Since BCA's view is that the dollar bull market is about to resume in full force, this implies that investors should fade the recent BTC rally. Moreover, the capital controls put in place by the Chinese authorities are working, and China is raising the cost of transacting in BTC. With BTC now expensive, and expected returns fading, this combination is likely to prove poisonous for Bitcoin. Another big selloff is thus likely. Final Thoughts A significant barrier to entry in technology markets is Intellectual Property (IP). Blockchain is an open technology, though is likely that extensions to blockchain could be made which the inventors hope will remain proprietary. However, there are several barriers to this happening: Any blockchain system is based on mathematics, and it is not clear when mathematics can be patented22, 23 Distributed ledgers work best when there are many users; and Any blockchain system would have to be open and understood to be trusted. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Paul Kantorovich, Research Analyst paulk@bcaresearch.com 1 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-ca/solutions/blockchain/ 2 https://www.ibm.com/blockchain/ 3 http://rubixbydeloitte.com/ 4 http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/blockchain-in-financial-markets-how-to-gain-an-edge.aspx 5 https://www.ethnews.com/deutsche-bundesbank-optimistic-about-blockchain-for-financial-markets 6 https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/blockchain-for-finance-is-10-years-away-20170410 7 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemesen.pdf 8 https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf 9 http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1603.pdf 10 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable 11 www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/CanterLawRw/2011/21.pdf 12 https://virtualcrimlaw.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/alls-fair-in-love-and-wow-virtual-theft-may-elude-real-life-prosecution/ 13 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328922/Teenager-dragged-court-giving-away-friends-VIRTUAL-gold-coins-online-fantasy-game.html 14 http://www.virtualpolicy.net/runescape-theft-dutch-supreme-court-decision.html 15 http://www.dailydot.com/business/what-happens-bitcoin-when-you-die/ 16 http://coinmarketcap.com/ 17 https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees 18 http://cointelegraph.com/news/115382/bitcoin-price-analysis-wash-trading-and-rising-volume 19 http://www.coindesk.com/chinas-big-three-bitcoin-exchanges-end-no-fee-policy/ 20 http://ir.nasdaq.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=938667 21 http://ir.nasdaq.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=948326 22 http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/28/judge-says-mathematical-algorithms-cant-be-patented-dismisses-uniloc-claim-against-rackspace/ 23 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Trump is adding stimulus and potential rigidities to the U.S. economy as the labor market slack vanishes. This evocates the 1970s and stagflation. This risk could resonate among investors as there are enough similarities with the late 1960s / early 1970s. But as well, crucial differences greatly reduce the likelihood of such a scenario. Ultimately, the Fed holds the key. If the Fed stays behind the curve for too long, inflation will emerge. Our bet is that the Fed will not fall behind the curve significantly. On a cyclical basis, the dollar will remain strong and the yen will underperform massively. Feature On November 11 we argued that the first round effect of a Trump victory would be to boost an already improving U.S. economy, giving the Fed more reason to increase interest rates faster than was priced in by markets.1 However, we did conclude our economic assessment of Trump by highlighting the potential for a dangerous outcome: "In the long-run, the Trump growth dividend is likely to require a payback, but this discussion is for another day." What will be the nature of this payback? Goosing up the economy as the U.S. approaches full employment evokes the inflationary policies of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Back then, the Vietnam War caused the Federal government deficit to increase while economic slack was limited. Stagflation ensued. While this parallel is appealing, it is also too simplistic. Trump's policies will be inflationary, but, key structural factors will prevent the fiery inflationary inferno that engulfed the 1970s. Policymakers will need to be careful, however, because while stagflation and the 1970s are only distant risks today, a Pandora's box is being opened. The Similarities The first similarity between the late 1960s / early 1970s is that Trump promises to inject stimulus exactly as the economy hits full employment. When President Johnson increased the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. output gap was already closed. The result of this fiscal stimulus was to create excess demand. This excess demand not only put upward pressure on wages and prices, but also caused the U.S. current account deficit to balloon. Trump wants to cut taxes by US$6.2 trillion, as expected by the Tax Policy Institute. Before November 8, the labor market had already tightened and wage growth was already accelerating (Chart 1). Stimulating in this context could unleash potent inflationary forces. The second similarity to Vietnam-era stagflation is that Trump's fiscal stimulus will materialize as monetary policy remains easy. By 1969, U.S. real short rates were already hovering near 0%, and were negative for three years between 1974 and 1977 (Chart 2). Today, we are also experiencing deeply negative real rates. However, back then these easy monetary conditions were being felt at the tail end of a multi-decade boom. Today, they reflect the aftermath of a financial crisis that has greatly increased the demand for precautionary savings and depressed the private sector's appetite for credit. Chart 1Tightening Labor Market Tightening Labor Market Tightening Labor Market Chart 2Similarity: Low Real Rates Similarity: Low Real Rates Similarity: Low Real Rates The third parallel comes from the liquidity on bank balance sheets. Today, as was the case in the late 1960s and early 1970s, banks are flush with liquid assets (Chart 3). Thus, banks have the fuel to aggressively lend and create money. Outside of banking crises, the willingness of banks to lend is often closely correlated with the demand for loans.2 Both respond to the same economic shocks, whether positive or negative. After the 1970 recession, the Fed eased aggressively, and business investment rebounded quickly. Today, Trump's fiscal reflation could revive animal spirits in a similar fashion. In both instances, banks have the wherewithal to support growing capex and loan demand. Another troubling resemblance is the illiquid state of household balance sheets. Today, household liquidity represents as small a share of disposable income as it did in 1970 (Chart 4). In fact, compared to total liabilities, household liquidity remains in the lower end of the historical distribution. Why does this matter? Chart 3Similarity: Bank Liquidity Similarity: Bank Liquidity Similarity: Bank Liquidity Chart 4Similarity: Household Illiquidity Similarity: Household Illiquidity Similarity: Household Illiquidity Under this set of circumstances, households will have a higher political tolerance for inflation. Except for the rich, the average household has little to lose from inflation, especially if the rise in prices emanates from an over-stimulated labor market. Inflation does decrease the real value of household liquid assets, but it does the same thing to their much larger debt burdens. The large increase over the past 30 years in U.S. income inequality only reinforces these dynamics (Chart 5). Chart 5Growing Inequalities Trump: No Nixon Redux Trump: No Nixon Redux The last parallel is the potential for a return to pre-Reagan economic rigidities. Trump has talked about imposing tariffs on global exporters in order "to make America great again." He also mentioned limiting immigration in the U.S. Neither of these promises are clear, and like the fiscal stimulus, they could be greatly dialed back compared to the campaign-trail promises. What would be the impact of such a move away from globalization? Our Global Investment Strategy service argues that the growth impact would be limited. Academic models show that since 1990, only 5% of the increase in global GDP growth can be attributed to deeper trade linkages.3 However, the integration of China in the global supply chain and the expansion of the American labor force through immigration has depressed wages for less skilled U.S. workers. Yet, the emergence of new markets outside of the G10 has boosted profits for U.S. multinationals. This has accentuated income inequality. Meanwhile, the marginal propensity to save of rich households is around 60%, while that of the middle class and the poor sits much closer to zero. Thus, the change in the U.S. income distribution has depressed U.S. consumption by 3% since 1980 (Chart 6). This has created a strong deflationary impact on in the economy. Chart 6Unequal Income Depresses Consumption bca.fes_sr_2016_12_02_c6 bca.fes_sr_2016_12_02_c6 Therefore, if Trump does implement a protectionist and anti-immigration agenda, it would likely put upward pressure on prices by causing both a small inward shift in U.S. aggregate supply as well as from the increase in demand resulting from higher middle class wages (and therefore consumption). Bottom Line: Today, like in the late 1960s / early 1970s, five conditions are present to lift inflation: Trump is set to stimulate the economy as it is hitting full employment; Monetary policy is extremely accommodative; Banks have plenty of liquidity to fuel any resurgence in excess demand; household balance sheet make them politically friendly to inflationary dynamics; And by moving away from globalization and immigration, Trump may add further fuel to any inflationary developments The Differences While there are troubling parallels between Trump and the 1970s, key differences could prove to be just as important if not even more so than the similarities. The first difference between now and then is the structure of the labor market. Unionization rates have collapsed from 30% of employees in 1960 to 11% today. The accompanying fall in the weight of wages and salaries in national income demonstrates the decline in the power of labor (Chart 7). Without this power, it is much more difficult for household income to grow as fast as it did in the 1960s and 1970s. In conjunction, cost-of-living-adjustment clauses have vanished from U.S. labor contracts (Chart 8). Hence, the key mechanism that fed the vicious inflationary circle between wages and prices is now extinct. Chart 7Difference: Labor Has Lost Its Power Difference: Labor Has Lost Its Power Difference: Labor Has Lost Its Power Chart 8With No Bargaining Power, Concessions To Labor Ceased... Trump: No Nixon Redux Trump: No Nixon Redux Second, the broad capacity utilization picture could not be more different than in the 1970s. In 1970, the U.S was at the tail end of a decade of strong cyclical spending, which was powered by consumer durable-goods purchases, not by capex and capacity growth (Chart 9). In fact, the stock of fixed assets as a percent of GDP is much higher today than it was back then, pointing to excess capacity in the system, at least relative to the 1970s (Chart 10). Chart 9Difference: Cyclical Spending Difference: Cyclical Spending Difference: Cyclical Spending Chart 10Difference: Capital Stock Difference: Capital Stock Difference: Capital Stock Corroborating this image, capacity utilization remains quite low by historical standards. Interestingly, this series continues to hold good explanatory power for inflation (Chart 11). While a Trump stimulus would cause this measure to perk up, and for deflationary risk to vanish, we are nowhere near levels associated with a major inflation outbreak. Chart 11Difference: Capacity Utilization Difference: Capacity Utilization Difference: Capacity Utilization Even when we look at capacity in the labor market, the picture is once again markedly different. Today, unemployment is only beginning to flirt with its equilibrium after nearly nine years of deep labor market slack. In contrast, by the late 1960s, the unemployment gap had been negative for seven years. It barely moved into positive territory during the 1970 recession and only surged higher after 1974 (Chart 12). This was a very inflationary labor market. Mirroring the U.S., global capacity utilization is depressed and the rest of the world remains a deflationary anchor (Chart 13). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, non-U.S. inflation was just as high as U.S. inflation, as global capacity was tight and global money growth was strong. Today, heavy capex in EM means that despite a sharp slowdown in DM investment after 2000, global capex has remained at 25% or so of global GDP - a very high level compared to history - for 7 out of the last 10 years. Chart 12Difference: Labor Market Difference: Labor Market Difference: Labor Market Chart 13Global Capacity Utilization Is Low Global Capacity Utilization Is Low Global Capacity Utilization Is Low Third, in the 1960s and 1970s, animal spirits were running wild. Despite growing government deficits and rising borrowing costs, the crowding out of the private sector never materialized (Chart 14). This was a testament to the optimistic belief of the era, a belief fed by the resilience of the economy since 1950, as well as by the implicit support created by decades of Keynesian policies. Today, fiscal stimulus and rising consumer spending could resurrect animal spirits. However, this would be a nascent phenomenon, not a multi-decade one, implying a very different set of expectations for investors, consumers, and business than in the late 1960s / early 70s. Fourth, the monetary picture is very different. Today, both the money multiplier and money velocity are extremely depressed, a sign that monetary constipation still defines our age. In the 1960s and 1970s, money velocity and the money multiplier were both elevated or experiencing sharp upturns (Chart 15). This is why low real rates of that era did translate into accelerated economic activity and inflation, unlike the uninspiring effects of low rates or QE programs today. Chart 14Raging Animal Spirits Raging Animal Spirits Raging Animal Spirits Chart 15Difference: Monetary Backdrop Difference: Monetary Backdrop Difference: Monetary Backdrop Finally and most crucially, the rising inflation of the late 1960s only mutated into genuine stagflation after the economy was hit by a massive supply shock: the 1973 oil embargo. In the wake of the Yom Kippur War, OPEC tripled the price of oil - the commodity powering the modern economic machine. Global capacity utilization was already tight, but this shock created a massive inward shift in global aggregate supply, ratcheting aggregate price levels higher while hurting aggregate output (Chart 16). But the true coup de grace only emerged when fiscal and monetary authorities massively eased policy in response to this shock: The U.S. federal deficit skyrocketed from 2.3% of GDP in 1974 to 8% in 1975 and short rates fell from 8.9% in 1974 to 4.9% in 1976. This boosted aggregate demand back to its original level, but with sharply more elevated price levels (Chart 16). Chart 16Mechanics Of A Supply Shock Trump: No Nixon Redux Trump: No Nixon Redux Today, we have seen oil prices collapse by 56% since 2014 in response to a positive supply shock, and global capacity utilization is low. Thus, while fiscal stimulus could push aggregate price levels upward as it lifts aggregate demand, the effect on inflation should prove much more muted than when such policies are implemented in the face of a supply shock. Bottom Line: Important similarities exist between the potential effect of Trump's suggested policies and the economic environment of the late 1960s / early 1970s. However, five structural and cyclical differences suggest that Trump is not bound to recreate stagflation: The de-unionization of the labor force has removed its pricing power, capacity utilization is now infinitely more benign than back then, animal spirits are only recovering today while they were running wild in the late 1960s / early 1970s, the monetary environment backdrop is also much less inflationary, and finally, we are not experiencing the kind of supply shock and mistaken policy response that hit the world in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo. Question Marks Key to the outlook is the Fed itself. Trump's policies will put upward pressure on prices. However, the Fed continues to avoid committing to a tighter policy path beyond this December. The Fed has good reasons to do so: Trump has offered the world no clarity regarding his actual plans while in office. With little labor market slack, any stimulus is inflationary; how inflationary will be a function of the details. So should be the Fed's response. For inflation to truly emerge in the system, the Fed will need to keep policy easy even as Trump's plans become clearer. In the 1970s, a too-easy Fed spurred excess demand that lifted inflation and inflation expectations. Moreover, if the Fed had not cut rates as aggressively as it did in 1974 - a policy that boosted demand but that did nothing to compensate for the shortfall in aggregate supply - the inflationary shock from the oil embargo should have proven much more transitory. The Fed's recent talk of a "high-pressure" economy evokes a repeat of the 1970s mistake. However, there is no guarantee that this error will be repeated. For one, the references to a "high-pressure" economy predated the Trump victory. Second, fiscal stimulus is what the Fed has wanted for a long time. Trump is giving the FOMC the cover they have needed to do what they have tried to do since 2014: increase rates. Finally, inflation expectations are beginning to move upward. This is what the Fed needs to push interest rates higher. Moreover, this is happening as long-term inflation expectations begin decoupling from oil prices (Chart 17). This is important as it suggests that the economy is gaining traction and that markets are starting to anticipate a lift off from the zero lower bound. Thus, while we think a lagging Fed is a risk, it is not currently our base-case scenario. The second question mark is the dollar. One of the key factors that prompted the dis-anchoring of inflation and inflation expectations in the early 1970s was the suspension of the dollar's convertibility to gold in August 1971. This unleashed a period of weakness for the greenback that culminated in a 30% devaluation by 1980 (Chart 18). Moreover, a weak dollar fueled the commodity bull market. Chart 17The Fed Must Enjoy This The Fed Must Enjoy This The Fed Must Enjoy This Chart 18The Dollar Added To Inflation The Dollar Added To Inflation The Dollar Added To Inflation Today, the dollar is strong and expensive, creating a deflationary anchor in the U.S. economy. Our expectations that the Fed will not fall behind the curve once the nature of the Trump stimulus becomes clearer would re-inforce this trend. However, a failure by the Fed to tighten monetary policy appropriately, leaving the U.S. central bank behind the curve, would have a negative impact on the dollar. Not only would it put downward pressure on real rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world, but it would also depress the PPP fair value of the dollar by increasing domestic inflation. Bottom Line: The two key swing factors are the Fed's policy response and the dollar. In the late 1960s / early 1970s, the Fed kept policy too easy. Not only did this greatly fan the underlying inflationary dynamics that were already present in the economy, but it also created a very negative environment for the dollar, prompting the end of the dollar peg in August 1971. This further lifted inflation in the economy. The Endgame And Investment Conclusion Given all these conflicting forces, how will this experiment end? Pure stagflation with late 1970s-style inflation is out of the picture. However, inflation of 4% to 5% is very possible, but it could take time to show up in the data. In the 1960s, it took U.S. inflation until mid-1968 to hit 4%. By that time, the output gap had been positive for around 5 years, hitting 6% of GDP in 1966 (Chart 19). Unemployment had been below its equilibrium rate since 1963, and by 1968 was 2.5% below NAIRU. Chart 19No Slack In The 1960s No Slack In The 1960s No Slack In The 1960s This suggests that unless the Fed falls significantly behind the curve, even 4% inflation may take a long time to emerge this cycle. However, inflationary risks will grow considerably after the next recession. We do not know when this recession will happen, but we know what the result will be: more policy easing. It took until the 1970 recession and the associated policy boost to genuinely dis-anchor inflation expectations in the U.S. Today, an easing in policy and an associated fall in the dollar are likely to be the key criteria to generate real inflation risk in the U.S. As for currency implications, the lack of an inflationary outburst along with a responsible Fed will continue to support the dollar and hurt precious metals. In terms of exchange rates, USD/JPY should perform particularly well. The Japanese economy is near full employment and the Abe administration also is talking about additional stimulus. Yet, while the Fed will not stay behind the curve for long, the BoJ is explicitly aiming at staying behind the curve. This is a recipe for a higher dollar/yen on a 12-18 months basis. The euro is likely to continue to weaken as there remains more slack in the euro area than the U.S. However, this slack is diminishing and the ECB would respond to its disappearance, which implies that EUR/USD has less downside than the yen on a 12-18 months basis. Commodities are unlikely to repeat their amazing performance seen in the 1970s. Thus, commodity currencies should continue to suffer from dollar strength. The pound will be dominated by its own set of dynamics. While the probability of a soft Brexit has been growing ever since the High Court's ruling was issued, the appeal decision still needs to be made. Moreover, headline risk remains very elevated. Thus while valuation argues in favor of GBP, buying GBP today is a high-risk gamble. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Reaganomics 2.0?", dated November 11, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 William F. Bassett, Mary Beth Chosak, John C. Driscoll, and Egon Zakrajsek, "Changes In Bank Lending Standards And The Macroeconomy," Journal of Monetary Economics 62 (2014): pp. 23-40. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization", dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Trump's foreign policy proposals will exacerbate geopolitical risks. Sino-American relations are the chief risk - they will determine global stability. A Russian reset will benefit Europe, especially outside the Russian periphery. Trump will retain the gist of the Iran nuclear deal. Turkey and North Korea are wildcards. Feature Chart 1Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Financial markets rallied sharply after the election of Donald Trump and the resulting prospect of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater fiscal thrust (Chart 1). But is the euphoria justified in light of Trump's unorthodox views on U.S. foreign policy and trade? Is Trump's "normalization" amid the transition to the White House a reliable indicator that the geopolitical status quo will largely be preserved? We believe Trump's election marks a substantial increase in geopolitical risk that is being understated by markets.1 This is not because of his personality, though that is not particularly reassuring, but rather because of his policy proposals. If acted on, Trump's geopolitical agenda would exacerbate global trends that are already underway: Waning U.S. Dominance: American power, relative to other nations, has been declining in recent years as a result of the emergence of new economic and military powers like China and India (Chart 2). If Trump allows himself to be sucked into another conflict despite his campaign promises - say, by overturning the nuclear deal with Iran - he could embroil the U.S. at a time when it is relatively weak. Multipolarity: America's relative decline has emboldened various other nations to pursue their interests independently, increasing global friction and creating a world with multiple "poles" of influence.2 If Trump keeps his word on reducing foreign commitments he will speed along this historically dangerous process. Lesser powers like Russia and Turkey will try to fill vacuums created by the U.S. with their own ambitions, with competition for spheres of influence potentially sparking conflict. Multipolarity has already increased the incidence of global conflicts (Chart 3). De-Globalization: The greatest risk of the incoming administration is protectionism. Trump ran on an overtly protectionist platform. Democratic-leaning economic patriots in the American "Rust Belt" handed him the victory (Chart 4), and he will enact policies to maintain these pivotal supporters in 2018 and 2020 elections. This will hasten the decline of trade globalization, which we signaled was peaking back in 2014.3 It does not help that multipolarity and collapse of globalization have tended to go hand in hand in the past. And historically speaking, big reversals in global trade do not end well (Chart 5). Chart 2U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense Chart 3Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c3 bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c3 Chart 4 Chart 5Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars In what follows we assess what we think are likely to be the most important geopolitical effects of Trump's "America First" policies. We see Russia and Europe as the chief beneficiaries, and China and Iran as the chief risks. A tougher stance on China, in particular, will feed broader strategic distrust; the combination of internal and external pressures on China will ensure that the latter will not be as flexible as in the past. For the past five years, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that the deterioration in Sino-American cooperation is the greatest geopolitical risk for investors - and the world. Trump's election will accelerate this process. Trump And Eurasia Chart 6 Trump's election is clearly a boon for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. The purpose of Putin's assertiveness has been to defend the Russian sphere of influence (namely Ukraine and Belarus in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) from outside powers: the U.S. and NATO seemed eager to "move in for the kill" after Russia emerged from the ashes. Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public with "rally around the flag" operations. We view Ukraine and Syria through this analytical prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.4 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal with Russia if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the "democracy promotion" activities that Putin considers to be directly aimed at the Kremlin. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.5 That is because the U.S. lacks constraints. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia (Chart 6) and does not stand directly in the way of any retaliation, as Europe does. That is why we think Trump and Putin will manage to reset relations. The U.S. can step back and allow Russia to control its sphere of influence. Trump's team may be comfortable with the concept, unlike the Obama administration, whose Vice-President Joe Biden famously pronounced that America "will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence." We could even see the U.S. pledging not to expand NATO from this point onwards, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from avowed NATO allies Poland and Czech Republic merely one year after Russian troops invaded Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs. Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in a structural decline as a great power and is attempting to hold on to a very large sphere of influence whose denizens are not entirely willing participants.6 Because Moscow often must use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it renews tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, we would expect the cycle to continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure under Trump. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through the end of 2017, a rapprochement with Washington could ultimately thaw relations by the end of next year. Europe stands to benefit, being able to resume business as usual with Russia and face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East, like in Syria. The recent decline in refugee flows will be made permanent with Russia's cooperation. The losers will be states in the Russian periphery that will feel less secure about American, EU and NATO backing, particularly Ukraine, but also Turkey. Countries like Belarus, which enjoyed playing Moscow against the West in the past, will lose the ability to do so. Once the U.S. abandons plans to prop up pro-West regimes in the Russian sphere of influence, Europeans will drop their designs to do the same as well. Trump And The Middle East Trump's "America First" foreign policy promises to be Obama's "geopolitical deleveraging" on steroids. He is opposed to American adventurism and laser-focused on counter-terrorism and U.S. domestic security. He also wants to deregulate the U.S. energy sector aggressively to encourage even greater energy independence (Chart 7). The chief difference from Obama - and a major risk to global stability - is Iran, where Trump could overturn the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, potentially setting the two countries back onto the path of confrontation. Nevertheless, this deal never depended on Obama's preferences but was rooted in a strategic logic that still holds:7 Iraqi stability: The U.S. needed to withdraw troops from Iraq without creating a power vacuum that would open up a regional war or vast terrorist safe haven. With the advent of the Islamic State, this plan clearly failed. However, Iran did provide a Shia-led central government that has maintained security for investments and oil outflows (Chart 8). Iranian defenses: Bombing Iran is extremely difficult logistically, and the U.S. did not want to force the country into a corner where asymmetric warfare, like cutting off shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, seemed necessary. Despite growing American oil production, the U.S. will always care about the transit of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, as this impacts global oil prices.8 China's emergence: Strategic threats grew rapidly in Asia while the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has emerged as a more technologically advanced and assertive global power that threatens to establish hegemony in the region. The deal with Iran was therefore a crucial piece of President Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy. Chart 7U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent Chart 8U.S. Policy Boosts Iraqi And Iranian Oil bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c8 bca.gis_sr_2016_12_02_c8 None of the above will change with Obama's moving on. Nor will the other powers that participated in sanctioning Iran (Germany, France, the U.K., Russia, and China) be convinced to re-impose sanctions now, just as they gain access to Iranian resources and markets. It is also not clear why Trump would seek confrontation with Iran in light of his desire to improve relations with Russia and concentrate U.S. firepower on ISIS - both objectives make Iran the ideal and obvious partner. Trump will therefore begrudgingly agree to the détente with Iran, perhaps after tweaking some aspects of the deal to save face. Meanwhile, it will serve the hawks in both countries if they can go back to calling each other "Satan." Iran itself is comfortable with the current situation, so it does not have an incentive to reverse the deal. It controls almost half of Iraq (and specifically the portion of Iraq that produces oil), its ally Hezbollah is safe in Lebanon, its ally Bashar Assad will win in Syria (more so with Trump in charge!), and its allies in Yemen (Houthi rebels) are a status quo power secure in a mountain fortress in the north of the country. It is hard to see where Trump would dislodge Iranian influence if he sought to do so. The U.S. is a powerful country that could put a lot of resources into rolling back Iranian influence, but the logic for such a move simply does not exist. Trump will also maintain Obama's aloof policy toward Saudi Arabia, which keeps it constrained (Chart 9).9 The country is in some ways the stereotype of the "ungrateful ally" that Trump wants to downgrade. For instance, Trump supported the law allowing victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the kingdom (a law that Obama tried unsuccessfully to veto). He has blamed the Saudis for the rise of ISIS and the failure to take care of Syrian refugees. His primary focus is on preventing terrorists from striking the U.S., and to that end he wants to cooperate with Russia and stabilize the region's regimes. This entails the relative neglect of Sunni groups under Shia rule in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the few issues where the Saudis will welcome Trump - opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, support for Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and opposition to aggressive democracy promotion - are so far rhetorical, not concrete, commitments. Chart 9Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Will Trump get sucked into the region to intervene against ISIS? We do not think so. A bigger risk is Turkey.10 President Recep Erdogan may think that Trump will either be too complacent about Turkish interests in Syria, or that Trump is in fact a "kindred nationalist spirit" who will not prevent Turkey from pursuing its own sphere of influence in Syria and northern Iraq. Trump's foreign policy of "offshore balancing" would call for the U.S. to prevent Turkey from resurrecting any kind of regional empire, especially if it risks a war with Russia and Iran or comes at the cost of regional influence for American allies like the Kurds.11 Turkey will also be starkly at odds on Syria and ISIS. This means Turkey and the U.S. could see already tense relations get substantially worse in 2017. We would not be surprised to see President Trump threaten Erdogan with expulsion from NATO within his first term. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our view is that Trump rejects the consensus of the intelligence and defense establishment and pushes Iran too far, leading to conflict. We do not think this will happen, but his rhetoric on the nuclear deal has been consistently negative and he seems likely to favor "Middle East hands" for top cabinet positions. He could involve the country in new Middle East entanglements if he does not show discipline in adhering to his non-interventionist preferences - particularly if he overreacts to an attack. Nonetheless, we believe that America's policy of geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East will continue. Trump may have a mandate to be tough on terrorism from his voters, but he definitely does not have a free hand to commit military resources to the region. Trump And Asia Trump criticized China furiously during the campaign, declaring that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. However, there is a familiar pattern of China bashing in U.S. presidential elections that leads to no sharp changes in policy.12 Will Trump be different? Some would argue that relations may actually improve, given how bad they already are. First, Trump's chief concern is to fire up the U.S. economy's animal spirits, and that would support China's ailing economy as long as he does not couple his tax cuts and fiscal stimulus with aggressive protectionist measures (Chart 10). Proponents of this view would point out that Trump's tougher measures may be called off when he realizes that the Chinese current account surplus has fallen sharply in recent years (Chart 11), and that the PBoC is propping up the RMB, not suppressing it. Similarly, Trump's China-bashing trade advisor, the former steel executive Dan DiMicco, may not get much traction given that the U.S. has largely shifted to Brazilian steel imports (Chart 12). In short, the U.S. could take a somewhat tougher stance on specific trade spats without provoking a vicious spiral of discriminatory actions. The fact that the U.S. is more exposed than ever to trade with emerging markets only reinforces the idea that it does not want to spark a real trade war (Chart 13). Chart 10A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth Chart 11China's Economy Rebalancing China's Economy Rebalancing China's Economy Rebalancing Chart 12China Already Lost The China Already Lost The "Steel Wars" China Already Lost The "Steel Wars" Chart 13A Reason To Eschew Protectionism A Reason To Eschew Protectionism A Reason To Eschew Protectionism Second, the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" and attempts to undermine China's economic influence in the region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have aggravated China with little substantive gain. By contrast, Trump may emphasize American business access to China over Chinese citizens' freedoms - which could reduce the risk of conflict. He may not go beyond symbolic protectionist moves, like the currency manipulation charge, and meanwhile canceling the never-ratified TPP would be a net gain for China.13 In essence, Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, could prove both pragmatic and willing to inherit the traditional Republican stance of business-oriented positive engagement with China. Chart 14 This is a compelling argument and we take it seriously. But it is not our baseline case. Rather, we think Trump will eventually take concrete populist steps that will mark a departure from U.S. policy in recent memory. As mentioned, it was protectionist blue-collar voters in the Midwest who gave Trump the White House, and he will need to retain their loyalty in coming elections. Moreover, the secular flatlining of American wages and the growth of income inequality have moved the median U.S. voter to the left of the economic spectrum, as we have argued.14 Neo-liberal economic policy has fewer powerful proponents than in the recent past. Thus, in the long run, we expect the grand renegotiation with China to fall short of market hopes, and Sino-American tensions to resume their upward trajectory.15 Why are we so pessimistic? Three main reasons: The "Thucydides Trap": Sino-U.S. tensions are fundamentally driven not by trade disputes but by the U.S.'s fear of China's growing capability and ambition.16 Great conflicts in history have often occurred when a new economic and military power emerged and tried to alter the regional political arrangements set up by the dominant power. This was as true in late nineteenth-century Europe, with the rise of Germany vis-à-vis the U.K. and France (Chart 14), as it was in ancient Greece. The rise of Japan in the first half of the twentieth century had a similar effect in Asia (Chart 15). Trump could, of course, endorse Xi's idea of a "new type of great power relations," which is supposed to avoid this problem. But nobody knows what that would look like, and greater trade openness is the only conceivable foundation for it. Chart 15AThe Disruptive Rise Of Germany The Disruptive Rise Of Germany The Disruptive Rise Of Germany Chart 15BThe Disruptive Rise Of Japan The Disruptive Rise Of Japan The Disruptive Rise Of Japan China's economic imbalances: A caustic dose of trade remedies from the Trump administration will compound internal economic pressures in China resulting from rampant credit expansion, misallocation of capital, excessive money printing, and capital outflows (Chart 16).17 The combination of internal and external pressures is potentially fatal and China's leaders will fight it. Otherwise, they risk either the fate of the Soviets or of the Asian strongman regimes that succumbed to democracy after embracing capitalism fully. Instead, China will avoid rushing its structural reforms (it is, after all, currently closing its capital account), and protect its consumer market, which it hopes to be the growth engine going forward. This is not a strong basis for the "better deal" that Trump will demand. President Trump will want China to open up further to U.S. manufacturing, tech, and service exports. Economics and the security dilemma: China and the U.S. will not be able to prevent economic tensions from spilling over into broader strategic tensions. Compare the spike in trade tensions with Japan in the 1980s, when Japanese exports to the U.S. peaked and the U.S. strong-armed Japan into appreciating its currency (Chart 17). The U.S. had nurtured Japan and South Korea out of their post-war devastation by running large trade deficits and enabling them to focus on manufacturing exports while minimizing spending on defense. China joined this system in the 1980s and has largely resembled the formal U.S. allies (Chart 18). Given that China has largely followed Japan's path, it was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually lose patience and become more competitive with China. China has seized a greater share of the U.S. market than Japan had done at that time, and its exports are even more important to the U.S. as a share of GDP (Chart 19). Comparing the exchange rates then and now, the Trump administration will be able to argue that China's currency is overdue for appreciation (Chart 20). However, in the 1980s, the U.S. and Japan faced no risk of military conflict - their strategic hierarchy was entirely settled in 1945. The U.S. and China have no such understanding. There is no way of assuring China that U.S. economic pressure is not about strategic dominance. In fact, it is about that. So while China may be cajoled into promising faster reforms - given that its trade surplus with the U.S. is the only thing that stands between it and current account deficits (Chart 21) - nevertheless it will tend to dilute and postpone these reforms for the sake of its own security, putting Trump's resolve to the test. Chart 16Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Chart 17The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan Chart 18Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Chart 19The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 20China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation Chart 21A Reason For China To Kowtow A Reason For China To Kowtow A Reason For China To Kowtow Trump's victory may also heighten Beijing's fears that it is being surrounded by the U.S. and its partners. That is because Trump will make the following developments more likely: Better Russian relations: From a bird's eye view, Trump's thaw with Putin could mark an inversion of Nixon's thaw with Mao. China is the only power today that can stand a comparison with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. at least needs to make sure the Sino-Russian relationship does not become too warm (Chart 22).18 Russo-Japanese peace treaty: The two sides are already working on a treaty, never signed after World War II. Aside from their historic territorial dispute, the U.S. has been the main impediment by demanding Japan help penalize Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Yet negotiations have advanced regardless, and Japanese air force scrambles against Russia have fallen while those against China have continued to spike (Chart 23). The best chance for a deal since the 1950s is now, with Abe and Putin both solidly in power until 2018. This would reduce Russian dependency on China for energy markets and capital investment, and free up Japan's security establishment to focus on China and North Korea. American allies are not defecting: The United States armed forces are deeply embedded in the Asia Pacific region and setbacks to the "pivot" policy should not be mistaken for setbacks to U.S. power in the absolute.19 U.S. allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and (soon) South Korea are in the headlines for seeking to warm up ties with China, but there is no hard evidence that they will turn away from the U.S. security umbrella. Rather, the pivot reassured them of U.S. commitment, giving them the flexibility to focus on boosting their economies, which means sending emissaries to Beijing. The problem is that Beijing knows this and will therefore still suspect that a "containment" strategy is underfoot over time. Better Indian relations: The Bush administration made considerable progress in improving ties with India. Trump also seems India-friendly, which would be supported by better ties with Russia and Iran. India could therefore become a greater obstacle to China's influence in South and Southeast Asia. Chart 22Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Chart 23Japan's Strategic Predicament Japan's Strategic Predicament Japan's Strategic Predicament From the above, we can draw three main conclusions: The U.S. role in the Pacific will determine global geopolitical stability under the Trump administration. The primary question is whether China is willing and able to accede to enough of Trump's demands to ensure that the U.S. and China have at least "one more fling," a further extension to the post-1979 trade relationship. It is possible that China is simply unable to do so and in the face of any concrete sanctions by Trump, will batten down the hatches, rally people around the flag, and shore up the state-led economy. There may be a tactical U.S.-China "improvement" over the next year - relative to the worst fears of trade war under Trump - but it will not be durable. The year 2017 will be the year of Trump's "honeymoon," while Xi Jinping will be focused on internal politics ahead of the Communist Party's crucial National Party Congress in the fall.20 Thus, after Trump gives China a "shot across the bow," like charging it with currency manipulation, the two sides will likely settle down at the negotiating table and send positive signals to the world about their time-tried ability to manage tensions. Financial markets will see through Trump's initially symbolic actions and begin to behave as if nothing has changed in U.S.-China relations. However, this calm will be deceiving, since economic and security tensions will eventually rise to the surface again, likely in a more disruptive way than ever before. China's periphery will be decisive, especially the Korean peninsula. The Koreas could become the locus of East Asia tensions for two reasons. First, North Korea's nuclear weaponization has reached a level that is truly alarming to the U.S. and Japan.21 New sanctions, if enforced, have real teeth because they target commodity exports (Chart 24). The problem is that China is unlikely to enforce them and South Korean politics are likely to turn more China-friendly and more pacific toward the North with the impending change of ruling parties. This will leave the U.S. and Japan with legitimate security grievances but less of an ability to change the outcome through non-military means. That is an arrangement ripe for confrontation. Separately, China's worsening relations with Taiwan, Vietnam's resistance to China's power-grab in the South China Sea, and conflicts between India and Pakistan will be key barometers of regional stability vis-à-vis China. Chart 24Will China Cut Imports From Here? Will China Cut Imports From Here? Will China Cut Imports From Here? The risk to this view, again, is that a Middle East crisis could distract the Trump administration. This would mark an excellent opportunity for China to build on its growing regional sway, and it would delay our baseline view that the Asia Pacific is now the chief source of geopolitical risk in the world. Investment Conclusions There is no geopolitical risk premium associated with Sino-American tensions. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the industry are at a loss when we ask how one should hedge tensions in the region. This is a major risk for investors as the market will have to price emerging tensions quickly. Broadly speaking, Sino-American tensions will reinforce the ongoing de-globalization. If the top two global economies are at geopolitical loggerheads, they are more likely to see their geopolitical tensions spill over to the economic sphere. Unwinding globalization implies that inflation will make a comeback, as the reduction in flows of goods, services, capital, and people gradually increases supply constraints. This is primarily bad for bonds, which have enjoyed a bull market for the past three decades that we see reversing.22 At the same time, these trends suggest that investors should favor consumer-oriented sectors and countries relative to their export-reliant counterparts, and small-to-medium sized businesses over externally-exposed multinationals. BCA Geopolitical Strategy's long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 trade is up 7.4% since inceptionon November 9. Finally, these trends, combined with the associated geopolitical risks of various powers struggling for elbow room, warrant a continuation of the Geopolitical Strategy theme of favoring Developed Markets over Emerging Markets, which has made a 45.5% return since inception in November 2012. The centrality of China risk only reinforces this view. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see our initial discussion of Trump's foreign policy, "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and, more recently, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "In Focus - Cold War Redux?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "It's A Long Way Down From The 'Wall Of Worry,'" dated March 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," dated April 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Turkey: Strategy After The Attempted Coup," dated July 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see John J. Meirsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016, available at www.foreignaffairs.com. 12 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 One of his foreign policy advisors, former CIA head James Woolsey, has floated the idea that the U.S. could turn positive about Chinese initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt One Road program to link Eurasian economies. Please see Woolsey, "Under Donald Trump, the US will accept China's rise - as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo," South China Morning Post, dated November 10, 2016, available at www.scmp.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 17 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors continue to overstate the constraints the Trump administration faces; Tax reform will happen, likely much sooner than the markets appreciate; Infrastructure spending will be modest, but will also face no constraints; Trump's de-globalization agenda - on both immigration and trade - faces few, if any, constraints; Book gains on long S&P 500 / short gold, long Japanese equities, long USD/JPY, and close long European versus global equities for a small loss. Maintain a long SMEs / short MNCs strategic outlook as a play on de-globalization. Feature "It used to be cars were made in Flint, and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint." - President-Elect Donald J. Trump, Flint, Michigan, September 14, 2016 Regular readers of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy know that our methodology emphasizes policymakers' constraints over their preferences. We abide by the simple maxim that preferences are optional and subject to constraints, while constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. President-elect Donald J. Trump is not unique. In the long term, his preferences will be cajoled and imprisoned by his constraints. However, investors may be overstating the impact of constraints in the short term. This is because Trump is a transformational - rather than merely transactional - leader whose election is a product of the yearning for significant change by the U.S. electorate.1 The key difference between the two leadership styles is that transformational leaders seek change by influencing and motivating their followers to break with convention. They make an appeal on normative and ideological grounds. Meanwhile, transactional leaders seek to maintain the status quo by satisfying their followers' basic needs. The latter use sticks and carrots, the former inspire. In the long term, even transformational leaders like Trump will be whipsawed by their material and constitutional constraints into the narrow tunnel of available options. But as we discuss in this Special Report, President-elect Trump will have a lot more room to maneuver than investors may think. That will be good for some assets, bad for others. Trump's Blue-Collar Base To understand the priorities of the Trump administration - as well his lack of political constraints - investors need to respect Trump's shock victory on November 8. Trump won the election because he was able to extend his "White Hype" strategy to the Midwest states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and came close to winning Minnesota) (Map 1).2 Map 1Electoral College Vote, Nov. 29, 2016 Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency To extend the Republican voting base into these traditionally "blue" states, Trump appealed to white blue-collar workers, many of whom voted for President Obama in 2012. Though he squeaked by with narrow vote-margins, he was not expected to be competitive in these states at all: Hillary Clinton did not visit Wisconsin once during her campaign (Chart 1). Trade was a chief concern of these disenchanted "Rust Belt" voters. Exit polls show that they agreed with Trump's message that globalization and neoliberal trade policies have sapped the U.S. of jobs, wages, and job security (Chart 2). Chart 1Hillary Failed To##br## Ride Obama's Coattails Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 2Trump's Winning Constituency##br## Angry About Trade Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Infrastructure, and government spending more broadly, were also major concerns - Trump's election was effectively an "anti-austerity" vote. Throughout the campaign Trump showed himself to be indifferent to budget deficits and debt, at least relative to the GOP leadership of the past six years. Instead he shattered GOP orthodoxy by promising to avoid any cuts to entitlement spending and contravened the party's fiscal hawks by promising to spend $1 trillion (later $550 billion) on infrastructure, e.g. the "bad drinking water" problem referred to in the quote at the start of this report. By contrast, Trump paid less attention to tax reform. Yes, he promised to slash taxes, even after reducing the scope of his extravagant September 2015 tax cut proposal. But no, this was not the focus of his campaign and did not get him elected. Instead, it is an area of common ground between himself and the GOP, and it has been the party's main pursuit in recent years. No one knows what Trump is going to do when he takes office. His statements are famously all over the place and he often positions himself at the opposite sides of a policy issue at the same time, prompting us to label him America's first "Quantum Politician."3 His cabinet is only beginning to take shape. Therefore, his main agenda and priorities - traditionally outlined in the upcoming Inaugural Address on January 20 - remain inchoate at best. Nevertheless, trade protections and better infrastructure were core demands of Trump's blue-collar electoral coalition and we expect him to follow through with actions, not least because he needs these states for upcoming elections in 2018 and 2020. Bottom Line: Trump's personal policy preferences are shrouded in mystery. However, investors should assume that he will take the preferences of the Midwest blue-collar voters seriously. They delivered him the presidency. Tax Reform The main reason for the market's exuberance since the election - aside from a "relief rally" given that the sky has not fallen4 - has been the prospect of substantial tax cuts. With Republicans holding all levels of government - and Democrats unable to filibuster tax reform in the Senate due to the "reconciliation procedure"5 - investors are rightly optimistic that the U.S. will finally see significant reforms. We review the plan, investigate its constraints, and assess the impact below. The Plan Trump is asking for much bigger tax cuts than the Republican Party's major alternative, House Speaker Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" plan.6 Trump would slash the corporate tax rate to 15% for all businesses, with flow-through businesses (80% of all U.S. businesses) eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under the individual income tax rate (as currently).7 The GOP, by contrast, would set the corporate rate at 20% and the flow-through business rate at 25%. Trump and the GOP agree that the individual income tax should be reduced from seven to three brackets, with the marginal rates at 12%, 25%, and 33%. This would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.8 Where Trump and the GOP differ is on how to handle deductions, the flow-through businesses, child tax credits, and other issues - with Trump generally more inclined toward government largesse. Another element of tax reform is the proposed repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings. An estimated $2.6-$3 trillion is stashed "abroad" (often only in a legal sense), which enables companies to defer paying the corporate tax rate due upon repatriation. Trump is following in the footsteps of President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in attempting to collect these taxes - with the Republicans also broadly on board.9 Overall, Trump's plan would cut taxes and tax revenues much more aggressively than the GOP plan. Trump would see $1.3 trillion more in personal tax cuts and $1.7 trillion more in corporate taxes than the GOP plan over the coming decade (Chart 3). The country's debt-GDP ratio would grow by 25%, well above the GOP's 10-12% increase (Chart 4). Chart 3Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Tax Cuts Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 4Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Debt Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency The Constraints We see no significant political or constitutional constraints facing the GOP and Trump. If we had to pick, we would assume that the ultimate deal will look a lot more like the GOP plan. The two sides will be able to hammer out a compromise for the following reasons: Given the reconciliation rules in the Senate, the Democrats cannot filibuster tax-cutting legislation. Both the Reagan and Bush administrations passed tax cuts in their first year in office - Reagan signed them into law in August, Bush in June. Trump, like Bush, has the advantage of GOP control of both houses of Congress. He and his party would have to fumble the ball very badly to fail on comprehensive tax reform in 2017. Republicans have been demanding tax reform since 2010 and have several "off-the-shelf" plans to draw from, including Ryan's plan. Staffers know the issues. Trump has also already reduced his original ambitions to meet them halfway. Since Trump's campaign did not focus on tax reform, he can afford to let the GOP take the lead on it - he will still get credit for the resulting deal and will expect GOP support on infrastructure, immigration, and trade in turn. The first constraint that does exist is complexity. Comprehensive tax reform has not occurred since 1986, under Reagan, because it is fiendishly tricky. This means the timing could be delayed - perhaps as late as the third quarter of 2017, despite the eagerness of both Congress and the White House for reform. The second constraint is one of priorities. Trump and the GOP have a busy agenda for the first half of 2017, with taxes, Obamacare, and Trump's infrastructure plan. Rumors suggest that Congress will use its first reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare. But since they do not know what will replace the current law yet, it would make more sense to reverse the order and do tax reform first. This will be easier, again, because tax reform has been a major issue for Republicans for a decade. Third is the problem of permanence. Assuming the Republicans use reconciliation to pass their tax reform, they will not be allowed to increase the federal budget deficit beyond the ten-year time frame of the budget resolution. They will have to include a "sunset" clause on the tax cuts, as occurred with the Bush tax cuts in 2001, leaving them vulnerable to expiration under the next administration.10 The Impact What will a sweeping tax reform plan mean? Headline U.S. corporate taxes are higher than every other country in the OECD, so the U.S. corporate sector will ostensibly gain competitiveness (Chart 5). This factor, combined with repatriation and threats of protectionism against outsourcing multi-national corporates (MNCs), should lift corporate investment in the U.S. Chart 5U.S. Companies Will Get Competitive Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Reducing loopholes would broaden the corporate tax base, the key value of the reform from the perspective of revenues and the country's economic structure. Multinational corporations already pay a lower effective tax rate than the official 35% corporate rate, so the impact will depend on their current effective rate as well as the new rate. Trump's plan would only increase effective taxes for firms in the utilities sector, while the GOP plan could increase effective taxes for firms in finance, electronics, transportation, and leasing. In both cases, companies in construction, retail, agriculture, refining, and non-durable manufacturing stand to benefit the most (Chart 6). Chart 6Tax Cuts Benefit Some Sectors More Than Others Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency A key question is how flow-through businesses are treated: whether they get Trump's 15% or the GOP's 25%. In the latter case they would see a tax hike (from an average rate of 19%) and thereafter be punished relative to more capital-heavy "C" corporations. Trump is a "populist" insofar as his plan would support flow-through businesses. Bottom Line: The quickest and biggest impact of Trump's fiscal policies on GDP growth will come from his tax cuts. With the Republicans long preparing for tax reform, and fully controlling Congress, tax reform is all but a done deal - and probably by Q3 2017 at latest. The outstanding question is whether Trump's infrastructure spending will be included in tax reform and thus compound the positive fiscal impact in 2017, or be pushed off into 2018. Fiscal Spending Trump's proposed $550 billion in new infrastructure investment is as nebulous as many of his other promises. However, as outlined above, we believe that Trump's victory partly depended on this issue and investors should not ignore Trump's commitment to it. Constraints are overstated. The Plan Trump's first clear infrastructure proposal came from two of his special advisers, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro.11 They propose government tax credits for private entities who invest in infrastructure projects. They argue that $1 trillion in new infrastructure investment - the same number cited on Trump's campaign website as the country's estimated needs over the next decade - would require $167 billion in equity investment, which could then be leveraged. To raise these sums, they propose the government offer a tax credit equal to 82% of the equity amount. They contend that the plan would be deficit-neutral because payments for the government tax credit would be matched with tax revenues from the labor involved in construction and the corporate profits flowing from the projects, charged at Trump's 15% corporate rate. The other component of the Ross-Navarro plan consists in combining infrastructure financing with the tax repatriation plan - a common proposal in Washington. Companies that are repatriating their earnings at the lower 10% rate could thus invest in infrastructure projects and use the 82% tax credit on that investment to cover the cost of their repatriation taxes. If the Trump administration sticks with this proposal, it will require the GOP to include the infrastructure plan in the tax reform bill. Or, given the bipartisan support for both a new repatriation tax and building infrastructure, Trump could turn to the Democrats for a separate bill covering these two policies. However, the specifics of the Ross-Navarro plan can be chucked out the window at will. They were designed to win the election, not to bind the administration's hands. Already, Trump has reversed his stance on the possibility of a state-run infrastructure bank (one of Clinton's proposals) as a way of financing new projects. What matters is that Trump and his top advisors are enthralled by the idea of a populist or "big government"-style conservatism that takes advantage of historically low interest rates - the post-financial crisis "Keynesian" moment - to stimulate the economy and improve U.S. productivity in the long run.12 Trump's emphasis on this issue in his November 8 victory speech says it all. Thus Trump's infrastructure ambitions are likely to be prioritized and will certainly not be abandoned. Unless Trump drastically alters his handling of the issue on January 20 - which we consider highly unlikely - it should be considered a top priority. The Constraints What are the constraints? President Obama's stimulus plan passed in February 2009, immediately after taking office, but that was in the midst of a financial crisis. Now conditions are different. Infrastructure is popular, but the timing with the economic cycle is not perfect, and the fiscal hawks in the GOP will try to water down Trump's proposals. Our clients are particularly concerned that the Tea Party-linked Republicans in Congress will be a major political hurdle. We disagree. On the issue of funding, what is important for legislative passage is not whether the plan ends up being "deficit neutral" as promised, but whether it can be marketed as such. Key Republicans like Kevin Brady, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, have already admitted that some of the revenues from repatriated earnings will go toward infrastructure. Public-private partnerships will give Republicans a way of presenting the project as deficit-friendly. And it is true that interest rates are low for borrowers (at least for now), including state and local authorities - which account for the clear majority of infrastructure spending in the U.S. Political constraints are few. Public support for infrastructure is a no-brainer, opinion polls show that the public wants better infrastructure (Chart 7). It is also one of the least polarizing issues of all the issues in a recent Pew survey (Chart 8). Chart 7The 'Right' Kind Of ##br##Government Spending: Infrastructure Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 8Infrastructure Is Not##br## A Partisan Issue Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Moreover, there is no reason to believe that modern Republican presidents are particularly fiscally austere - Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes were not (Chart 9). And Republican voters are not so fearful of big government when their party is at the helm as when they are in opposition (Chart 10). Election results show that voters consistently approve of about 70% of local transportation funding initiatives, which means they vote in favor of higher taxes to receive better infrastructure (Chart 11). Chart 9Fact: Republicans Run Bigger Budget Deficits bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c9 bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c9 Chart 10No Ruling Party Fears Big Government bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c10 bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c10 What about the Tea Party? It is true that fiscal conservatives in the GOP are skeptical of Trump's infrastructure ambitions. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus make up about 60 combined votes. However, Trump's combination of Eisenhower big-spending Republicanism and populism won the election and has therefore written austerity's obituary. Furthermore, voters identifying with the Tea Party voted for Trump in the Republican primaries, according to exit polls (Chart 12). Hesitancy to support Trump on ideological grounds even caused the former Chairman of the Tea Party Caucus, Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), to lose his primary election to a more Trump-friendly challenger. Given that all members of the House of Representatives must run for re-election in 2018 - with campaigning starting in merely 18 months - they will dare not oppose Trump for fear of being Huelskamped themselves. Chart 11The 'Right' Kind Of Tax Hike: Paying For Roads Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 12Trump Won The Tea Party Vote Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency The political winds against austerity were shifting even before Trump. In January 2015, the GOP-controlled Congress approved of "dynamic scoring," an accounting method that considers the holistic impact of budget measures - spending and/or tax cuts - on revenue and thus deficits.13 The GOP has also recently come close to readmitting "earmarks," legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks were done away with in 2011, but they have crept back in different guises (Chart 13). Republican members of Congress can hear the gravy train and are scrambling to ensure they get on board. They want to be able to ride the new wave of spending all the way back to re-election in their home districts. Chart 13Pork-Barrel Prohibition Is Ending Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Finally, if Congress takes up an infrastructure-repatriation tax bill separately from the more partisan tax cuts, Trump may be able to offset any holdout fiscal hawks with support from Democrats. In late 2015, Democrats and Republicans voted together on the first highway funding bill in ten years, with large margins in both houses, easily overwhelming dissent from the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus. Vulnerable Democrats in the now "Trump Blue" states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will be particularly interested in crossing the aisle on any infrastructure spending legislation. The Impact What will be the size and impact of Trump's infrastructure spending? Currently his transition team says he will oversee $550 billion in new investments, albeit offering no details or timeframe. This would be 72% of Obama's 2009 five-year stimulus at a time when there is little or no output or unemployment gap. In other words, the plan is pro-cyclical stimulus that will likely end up generating "too much" growth at a time when inflation expectations are already rising and the output gap is closing. The downside could be a rate-hike induced recession in 12-18 months. In terms of its impact on debt levels, infrastructure spending is less of a concern. The federal share of that $550 billion - i.e. the size of the tax credit for private participants - is going to be much smaller. During the campaign Trump implied $1 trillion in new investments over ten years, but the federal tax credit would have been a "deficit neutral" $137 billion. Applying the same ratio, back of envelope, Trump now aims for a $75 billion tax credit for the $550 billion worth of projects. But there will also likely be other components to the plan, such as federal support for state and local debt-financed infrastructure. Thus the headline size of Trump's infrastructure plan is far bigger than the federal commitment. Still, investors should appreciate that despite its modest size, the plan marks a break from the austerity-focused past. Bottom Line: Trump's election signals an anti-austerity turn in U.S. politics from which the fiscal hawks in the GOP cannot hide. Trump will ultimately receive congressional support on infrastructure spending, possibly bipartisan, and this "Return of G" will mark an important inflection point in U.S. economic policy.14 Immigration Globalization is, broadly defined, the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. Trump began his campaign in June 2015 with a blistering speech opposing illegal immigration. His anti-immigrant rhetoric ratcheted up from that point, but while the media focused on the alleged xenophobia of his comments, Trump's message was consistently focused on the economic downside of an "open borders" policy. Since the election, Trump's rhetoric on immigration has dramatically softened. The Plan There are two components of Trump's immigration plan as far as we can tell: deportation and border enforcement. On the first, Trump's primary goal is to terminate Obama's "two illegal executive amnesties," i.e. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).15 This means he opposes two programs that are already frozen. In addition, he has pledged to deport 2-3 million undocumented immigrants, emphasizing criminals and drug offenders. This is comparable to Obama's 2.5 million deportations from 2009-15, the highest clip on record. We expect Trump to accelerate the pace of deportations, but it is by no means clear that he will do so, or do so dramatically. There is as yet no clear plan to deal with high-skilled immigrants, especially those arriving on H-1B non-immigrant visas authorizing temporary employment. Trump has made conflicting statements regarding the H-1B program, saying he wanted to keep attracting highly skilled workers to the U.S. but also criticizing the program specifically during a debate. Trump's pick for the attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, is a big opponent of the program. There is considerable evidence that the H-1B program hurts the wages of domestic workers, particularly in the tech sector.16 As for Trump's notorious "border wall," it is shaping up to be a change in degree, not kind. The Clinton administration's "deterrence through prevention" policy, beginning in 1994, and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, have led to extensive fencing and wall construction along the border over the past two decades. Trump will seek to fill gaps, reinforce border barriers, and probably erect better fences near population centers as more visible signs of his achievements. But he will not be building a Great Wall of Trump. The Constraints There are no major constitutional constraints on any of the proposals, since Trump is reversing the Obama administration's illegal non-enforcement of existing immigration law.17 The chief constraint Trump faces when it comes to increasing the pace of deportations and building enhanced walling and fencing is the cost. The threat to make Mexico provide all the funds is going to be watered down in negotiations.18 Trump could increase the Department of Homeland Security's budget, which slowed from 12% annual growth under Bush to 2.7% under Obama. Presumably congressional opposition would not be too virulent given the purpose. But spending on immigration enforcement already outpaces that of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined. A bigger constraint is whether, after the border is "normalized," Trump will follow through on his promise to make a "determination" on what to do with the non-criminal illegal immigrants. This language implies that he is ultimately amenable to comprehensive immigration reform and even a path to citizenship - a proposal that has already passed the Senate in an earlier form. To pass such a comprehensive reform bill, however, Trump will need to work with the Democrats in the Senate as they can and will filibuster any immigration reform bill that does not have a path towards some form of amnesty for the immigrants in the country. What of the timing? Deportations can begin promptly upon taking office - the agencies are already capable. Increasing border enforcement and structures will likely go into his first fiscal 2018 budget request - we expect the GOP Congress to be receptive. As for broader immigration reform, these will be the slowest to materialize, if ever. Previous GOP immigration reform laws passed after the midterm elections in 1986 and 1990, so 2018 may be a useful marker. The Impact On the margin, less immigration into the U.S. should raise domestic wages, particularly for the two sectors where low-skilled immigrants are most likely to be employed: agriculture and construction. Bottom Line: Trump's immigration policy is hardly revolutionary, despite his campaign focus on the issue. He has few constraints to his announced policies, but they are likely to be unimpressive in scope. There are three potential risks to our sanguine view. First, Trump decides to deport all the 11 million illegal migrants in the country, causing considerable political and social unrest. Second, he actually means what he says about Mexico paying for the wall. Third, he tries to end the H-B1 high-skilled temporary workers program. Reforming the overall immigration process - including a possible pathway to citizenship - is constrained by Democrats' control of the Senate and will therefore likely proceed on a longer timeframe (perhaps even after 2020). Trade Trump's trade protectionism is the main risk to markets and global risk assets. His victory represents a true break with the past seventy years of ever-greater globalization (Chart 14). We have expected the trend of de-globalization since, at least, 2014. However, we are surprised how quickly the issue became the electoral issue. Chart 14Globalization Peaked Before Trump Globalization Peaked Before Trump Globalization Peaked Before Trump Investors now have to re-price numerous assets for the de-globalization premium. The Plan Trump has threatened to name China a currency manipulator on day one in office, impose a 45% across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods, and a 35% tariff on Mexican goods. He has committed to canceling the U.S.'s biggest trade initiative in the twenty-first century, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and he has threatened to renegotiate NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO, leaving U.S. tariffs with nothing but Smoot-Hawley to keep them tethered to earth. Thus Trump's victory threatens to become not only the chief symptom of "peak globalization"19 but also a great aggravator of it and cause of further de-globalization going forward (Chart 15). Chart 15De-Globalization To Continue bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c15 bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c15 There are signs that Trump may act on his rhetoric and enact a radical change in U.S. trade policy. Two of his top advisers, Dan DiMicco and Robert Lighthizer, are outspoken economic nationalists and "China bashers." DiMicco has dedicated his life to fighting Chinese mercantilism and believes that the U.S. and China are "already in a trade war; we [the U.S.] just haven't shown up yet."20 Yet there are also signs that Trump intends only to drive a hard bargain, not start a trade war. For instance, he says his first action will be to rip up the TPP, but this deal has not been ratified and was internationally controversial because it excluded China (as well as U.S. allies Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines). Moreover, while Trump says he will deem China a currency manipulator on day one in office, this is largely a symbolic act that entails no automatic, concrete punitive measures.21 Therefore Trump could take these two actions alone, or other symbolic ones, to prove that he is an economic patriot, and then settle down to "renegotiate" key trade relationships along the lines of the status quo. It is too soon to draw conclusions, but we do not think things will turn out as peachy as the best-case scenario. This is in large part due to the fact that the U.S. president has tremendous leeway on trade. The Constraints The U.S. president has few constraints when it comes to trade policy, for the following reasons:22 Delegated powers from Congress: Congress is the constitutional power that governs trade with foreign states. However, Congress passes laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies. Even when Congress approves a trade deal like NAFTA, it is the president who is empowered to lower tariffs - and therefore the president can issue a new proclamation raising them. The past century has produced a series of laws that give Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Table 1).23 A president's legal advisors are only too happy to use their imaginations. Nixon invoked the Korean War, which ended in 1952, as a justification for a 10% surcharge tariff on all dutiable goods in 1971, simply because the Korean state of emergency had never officially ended! Table 1Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Executive power over foreign policy: The executive branch is the constitutional power that governs foreign relations. Since international economics are inseparable from foreign relations and national security, the president has prerogative over matters even remotely touching trade. Both Congress and the judicial branch will tend to defer to a president in exercising these powers as well - at least until a gross subversion of national interest occurs. And even then, it is not clear how the constitutional struggle would play out - the courts always bow to the executive on matters of national security. Wars do not have to be declared for wartime trade powers, so all the U.S.'s various military operations across the world provide fodder for Trump to invoke the Trading With The Enemy Act, giving him power to regulate all forms of trade and seize foreign assets. Time is on the executive's side: Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court move to oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliation from abroad. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress.24 As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. The Impact Trump is deeply committed to a tougher trade stance, has few constraints, and his protectionism deeply resonated with key swing voters. We doubt he will settle for cosmetic changes and the establishment Republican "business as usual." This means China relations are a major risk, especially in the long run. We will expand on these tensions, which will become geopolitical, in an upcoming report. What happens if Trump pursues protectionism wholeheartedly? First, the good. On the margin, some trade protections could attract foreign companies to relocate to the U.S. and discourage American companies from outsourcing - boosting investment and wages. It could also help slow the decline of American manufacturing employment. A simple comparison with Europe and Japan shows that the decrease of manufacturing jobs has been more dramatic in the U.S., so policy may be able to conserve what is left (Chart 16). Second, the bad. All the developed countries have seen manufacturing jobs decrease, and not only because of globalization. Technological advancement has played a major role as well. You can block off foreign goods, but you cannot roll back the march of the automatons (Chart 17), as our colleagues at U.S. Investment Strategy recently pointed out.25 Trump's blue collar workers may realize, after four years of protectionism that jobs are not coming back while the WalMart bills are getting pricier. Who will they vote for after that realization sets in? Chart 16U.S. Manufacturing Decline##br## Sharper Than In Other DM U.S. Manufacturing Decline Sharper Than In Other DM U.S. Manufacturing Decline Sharper Than In Other DM Chart 17Reasons For Robots##br## To Replace Workers Reasons For Robots To Replace Workers Reasons For Robots To Replace Workers Third, the ugly. If the U.S. goes protectionist, it will pull the rug out from neoliberalism globally and provide cover for similar protectionist realignments around the world - retaliatory as well as copy-cat. A falling tide lowers all boats. Worse than that, the decline in trade, insofar as it forces countries to rely on domestic markets, pursue spheres of influence, and protect access to vital commodities, could spark military conflict. Germany and Japan both started World War II precisely because their autarkic fantasies required expansion and pre-emptive warfare. This would be the mercantilist future that we warned clients of earlier this year.26 None of this is a foregone conclusion. There is simply too little information to judge which way the Trump administration will go - and how fast. But the fact remains that on trade, more so than anything else, Trump will be unconstrained. Bottom Line: De-globalization is the major risk of the Trump presidency.27 How Trump handles relations with China in 2017 will be the key indicator of whether he aims to revolutionize U.S. trade policy to the detriment of global exports and growth. If he blows past the rule of law and imposes steep "retribution" tariffs or quotas right away, then fasten your seat belt. Investment Conclusions For several years we have warned clients that austerity is kaput.28 It was never politically sustainable in the post-Debt Supercycle, low -growth environment that followed the 2008 Great Recession. The pendulum is swinging hard the opposite way, with Trump's heavy-handed, somewhat haphazard approach, adding momentum. Once the U.S. moves against austerity, we expect policymakers in other countries to follow. In the near term, the carnage in long-dated Treasury markets may pause as investors overthink the constraints to "G." Bond yields have already moved quite a bit. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over.29 We continue to recommend that clients play the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener, a position that is in the black by 11.2 basis points since November 1. In the long term, Trump's anti-globalization policies will impact investors the most. More protectionism, less immigration, and dollar-bullish fiscal policies will all be negative for America's MNCs. Meanwhile, fiscal spending, a stronger USD, and corporate tax reform that benefits small and medium enterprises (SMEs) paying the high marginal tax rate will benefit Main Street. As such, the way to play de-globalization in the U.S. is to go long SMEs / short MNCs, a view that we will expand upon in an upcoming collaborative report with BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy. Beyond the U.S., de-globalization will favor domestic consumer-oriented sectors and countries and will imperil international export-oriented sectors and countries. We particularly fear for export-heavy emerging markets, which depend on globalization for both capital and market access. Developed markets should have an easier time transitioning into a more protectionist world. As such, we continue to recommend a structural overweight in DM versus EM. For the time being, we are booking gains on our long S&P 500 / short gold trade, for a gain of 11.53% since November 8, due to our concern that equities may have already priced-in the lifting of animal spirits but not the negatives of de-globalization. Near term risk also abounds for our high-beta positions such as our long Japanese equities trade (gain of 3.99% since initiation on September 26) and long USD/JPY (gain of 3.57%, same initiation day). We will book gains and look to reinitiate both at a later date, given that our positive view on Japan remains the same. We will also close our long European versus global equities view, for a small loss of 1.34%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 In physics, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - fundamental to quantum mechanics - supposes that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known. Trump does not merely "flip flop" on policy issues - as his opponent Secretary Hillary Clinton was often accused of doing - but literally embodies two opposing policy views at the same time. 4 #TrumpisnotLucifer. 5 Reconciliation is a legislative process in the U.S. Senate that limits debate on a budget bill to twenty hours, thus preventing the minority from using the filibuster to veto the process. The procedure has also been used to enact tax cuts. In both 2001 and 2003, the Republican-held Senate used the procedure to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts. 6 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. For analysis, please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, September 16, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 7 A "flow-through" entity passes income on to the owners and/or investors. As such, the business can avoid double taxation, where both investors and the business are taxed. Only the investors and owners of a flow-through business are taxed on revenues. 8 Several groups would see no substantial tax cuts under the plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would see their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would see their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would see their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 9 A favorable rate of 10% (4% for non-cash assets) will be applied to accumulated earnings prior to 2017, while future overseas earnings will be subject to the corporate tax rate of 15%. The Tax Policy Center projects that $148 billion worth of unpaid tax revenue can be collected through the "deemed" (mandatory) repatriation. 10 The Bush tax cuts were extended in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, with some exceptions, like for the highest income groups. 11 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. The Trump campaign initially implied a decade-long total investment of $1 trillion "Trump Infrastructure Plan," with the government contributing a seed amount. The $1 trillion infrastructure-gap estimate comes from the National Association of Manufacturers, "Build to Win," dated 2016, available at www.donaldjtrump.com. The Trump team has reduced its total infrastructure investment goal to $550 billion, a number reaffirmed on Trump's White House transition website, www.greatagain.gov. 12 Please see Daniella Diaz, "Steve Bannon: 'Darkness is good,'" CNN, November 19, 2016, available at edition.cnn.com. Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, said: "Like (Andrew) Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ... It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." 13 Dynamic-scoring, also known as macroeconomic modeling, is a favorite tool of Republican legislators when passing tax cut legislation. It allows them to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. However, there is no reason why Republicans, under Trump, could not use the methodology for infrastructure spending as well. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 By these executive orders, the Obama administration sought to prioritize the deportation of "high-risk" illegal immigrants while delaying action on more sympathetic groups. However, only one program was actually implemented (DACA), and both ground to a halt when the Supreme Court ordered an injunction. The justices concurred with lower courts that halted the programs as a result of the burden they would place on state finances. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Immigration Wars: The Coming Battle For Skilled Migrants," dated March 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The courts have already done the heavy lifting. Moreover the nullification of DACA only makes illegal immigrant children eligible for deportation, it does not necessitate that Trump actually deport them - that would require increasing the budget and capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cope with an additional four million deportees, all "low risk" and politically sympathetic. We doubt Trump will do this. 18 If Trump acts on his promise to make Mexico pay for the wall - a claim notably missing from his transition website greatagain.gov - then he may need to precipitate a foreign policy crisis (not to mention court opposition) through his own series of controversial executive orders. Alternatively, he could try to get Congress to amend the Patriot Act to allow the U.S. to extract payments from remittances from the U.S. to Mexico, but he would be at risk of a Senate filibuster. Both pose significant constraints. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Lisa Reisman, "Nucor Provides Testimony To US House Ways And Means Committee On China Exchange Rate Policy," Metal Miner, September 16, 2010, available at www.agmetalminer.com. 21 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 In what follows we are indebted to an excellent paper by Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 23 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 24 A Federal District Court and the Supreme Court ruled against Harry Truman's executive orders to seize steel mills during the Korean War, but Truman's lawyers did not provide a statutory basis for his actions - they simply argued that the constitution did not limit the president's powers! 25 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Easier Fiscal, Tighter Money?," dated November 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Austerity Is Kaput," dated May 8, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update The Meaning Of Trump Sudden large shocks in markets are rare. But the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President is one such. After a shock of this magnitude, markets tend initially to overreact, then correct, before settling on a new course. Market action since November 9th has caused many asset prices to overshoot short term. It is likely that U.S. bond yields, inflation expectations, the performance of bank and materials stocks, and the U.S. dollar (Chart 1) will correct over the next month or so, perhaps triggered by the Fed's likely rate hike on December 14th or simply by shifting expectations for Trump's economic policies. But what is the likely long-term course, which should set our asset allocation for the next 6 to 12 months? We think investors should take Trump at least partly at his word when he says he will enact tax cuts and increase infrastructure investment. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service sees few constraints on Trump from Congress in the short term.1 The OECD in its latest Economic Outlook has given its imprimatur, arguing that "a stronger fiscal policy response is needed," and estimating that U.S. fiscal stimulus could add 0.1 percentage point to global growth next year and 0.3 points in 2018.2 If such a policy boosted growth and inflation, it would be negative for bonds. The only question, with 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields having already risen by almost 100 bps since July, is how much of this is priced in. In the long run, government bond yields are broadly correlated with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). In H1 2016, U.S. nominal GDP growth was 2.7%, and for 2016 as a whole probably about 3.2%. If it picks up to 4-5% in 2017 (2.5-3% real, plus inflation of 1.5-2%), an additional rise of 50-100 bps in the 10-year yield would not be surprising (though ECB and BoJ asset purchases might somewhat limit the rise in yields). Moreover, growth was already accelerating before Trump's victory. The effects of 2015's commodity shock and industrial and profits recessions have passed, with U.S. Q3 GDP growth revised up to 3.2% and the Fed's NowCasting models suggesting 2.5%-3.6% for Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index has surprised on the upside in recent weeks both in the U.S. and Europe - though not in emerging markets (Chart 3). And the Q3 earnings season in the U.S. was well above expectations, with EPS coming in at +3.3% YoY (compared to a consensus forecast pre-results of -2.2%). Analysts' forecasts for 2017 EPS growth are a comparatively modest 11%. Chart 1Some Short-Term Overshoots bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c1 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c1 Chart 2Bond Yields Relate To Nominal Growth bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c2 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c2 Chart 3Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside But whether this new world will be positive for equities is harder to answer. Trump's unpredictability raises policy uncertainty: how much emphasis, for example, will he put on trade protectionism or confrontational foreign policy? This should raise the risk premium. The Fed's response will also be key. Futures have now priced in the rate hike in December and (almost) the two further rate hikes in the Fed's dots for 2017 (Chart 4). But the market still sees the long-term equilibrium rate (as expressed in five-year five-year forwards) as only just over 2%, compared to the Fed's 2.9%. And, although Janet Yellen has suggested that the Fed will act only after Trump's policies take effect ("We will be watching the decisions that Congress makes and updating our economic outlook as the policy landscape becomes clearer," she said), if core PCE inflation continues to pick up in 2017 beyond the current 1.7% and a strong stimulus package is implemented, the Fed might accelerate its rate hikes. More worryingly, Trump's fundamental views on monetary policy are unknown: does he, as a businessman, like low rates, or will he listen to his "hard money" advisers who believe the Fed has been too lax? Since he can appoint six FOMC governors in his first year in office, he will be able to influence monetary policy. Too fast a rise in Fed rates would be negative for equities. On balance, in this environment we see equities outperforming bonds over the next 12 months. It is unusual for the stock-to-bond ratio to decline outside of a global recession (Chart 5) - and, with the extra boost from fiscal policy (with Trump possibly joined by Japan, the U.K., China and others), a recession is unlikely over our forecast horizon. Chart 4Market Has Priced In 2017 Fed Hikes - ##br##But Not The Long-Term bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c4 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c4 Chart 5Stocks Don't Often ##br##Underperform Outside Recession bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c5 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c5 Accordingly, we are raising our recommendation for global equities to overweight, and lowering bonds to underweight. The problem is timing: we recognize that there may be a better entry point over the next couple of months. Some investors may, therefore, want to implement the change gradually. In addition, some recent market moves are not fundamentally justified: for example, we cannot see how the materials sector would be a significant beneficiary from a Trump fiscal stimulus. We plan to make further detailed adjustments to our equity country and sector recommendations and bond-class recommendations in the next Quarterly Portfolio Update, to be published on December 15th. Currencies: Stronger U.S. growth and tighter monetary policy suggest that the USD will continue to appreciate. The dollar looks somewhat expensive but is still well below the peak of overvaluation at the end of previous bouts of strength in 1985 and 2002. The Bank of Japan's policy of capping the 10-year JGB yield at 0% has worked well (pushing the yen down by 12% against the dollar in the past two months) and, as rates elsewhere rise, this implies further long-run yen weakness. The euro is likely to weaken less, with eurozone growth recently surprising on the upside and the ECB therefore likely to reconsider the amount of asset purchases at some point next year, though probably not at its meeting on December 8th. Emerging market currencies continue to look particularly vulnerable. Equities: In common currency terms, U.S. equities are more attractive than European ones. In local currency terms, however, the call is closer since the strong dollar will depress U.S. earnings relative to those in Europe, and an acceleration of global economic growth should help the more cyclical eurozone stock market. On the other hand, Europe faces structural issues, such as the chronically poor profitability of its banking system, and political risk from a series of upcoming elections (starting with the Italian referendum on December 4th). We continue to like Japan (on a currency hedged basis) and expect that the BoJ's policy will be bolstered by government fiscal and employment policies. We remain underweight on emerging markets. They have always been vulnerable during periods of dollar strength, and political side-effects from their bout of economic weakness in 2011-5 are starting to spread, recently to Turkey, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Korea and South Africa. Fixed Income: The risk of tighter Fed policy and higher yields suggest investors should remain underweight duration. We have liked U.S. TIPS over nominal bonds all year and, with 10-year breakeven inflation still only at 1.8%, they remain attractive in the current environment. We reduced high-yield bonds to neutral on September 30th, on the grounds that investors were no longer being sufficiently compensated for default risk: they have subsequently given -3% return, while equities rallied. We recommend investment grade credits for those investors who need to pick up yield (Chart 6). Commodities: After the OPEC agreement on production cuts, we expect the oil price to move towards $55 in the first few months of 2017 as inventories are drawn down. Over the longer run the risk is to the upside as a dearth of new projects, following cancellations last year, will tighten the supply/demand balance. Metals prices have strengthened since Trump's victory, with the CRB Raw Industrials Index up sharply (Chart 7). This makes little sense. Trump's stimulus will be centered on tax, not infrastructure. China remains a far more important factor: the U.S. represented only 7% of global steel consumption in 2015, for example, compared to 43% for China. And China's recent stimulus is running out of steam. Chart 6Yield On Investment Grade Credits ##br##Still Attractive Yield On Investment Grade Credits Still Attractive Yield On Investment Grade Credits Still Attractive Chart 7Trump Shouldn't Have ##br##This Much Effect On Metals Prices bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c7 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c7 Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report,"U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see OECD Global Economic Outlook, November 2016, available at http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/economicoutlook.htm. Recommended Asset Allocation

In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu.

Highlights Huge short-term moves have occurred in several markets in the wake of the U.S. election. From a tactical perspective, we believe the moves have gone too far, too fast. Beyond the tactical, the key question is whether or not the U.S. economy is at an inflection point. Will the incoming administration's policies boost activity enough to allow the U.S. to break free of the mushy growth that has characterized the post-crisis era? Key swing factors include the details of tax reform and spending proposals, revised regulatory measures and trade and immigration policy and their effects on consumption and capex. It is too early to tell if the U.S. is on the cusp of a durable inflection, but we list a range of indicators for investors to monitor as events unfold. Feature The hallmarks of president-elect Donald Trump's campaign promises - deregulation, de-globalization and aggressively reflationary fiscal policy - mark a sharp break with the post-crisis status quo and markets have responded in kind. Across asset classes and regions, prices have gone vertical (Chart 1). The policy proposals, and the market responses to them, have left investors facing two big questions: Have the markets gone too far in discounting the potential policy changes? Does the election herald an inflection point for the U.S. economy? The first question is tactical, the second is cyclical. Regarding the former, we are with the too-far, too-fast camp. Given the swiftness and the magnitude of the moves, it seems as if markets have brushed off any consideration of the uncertainties surrounding the details of the incoming administration's proposals and the compromises that will be required to implement them. Not since TARP has so much been assumed by so many on so few details. A reliable technical rule suggests that the biggest moves are unsustainable. Relative to their 40-week moving averages, USD/MXN, small-cap versus large-cap U.S. stocks, U.S. banks and 10-year Treasury yields are all two to two-and-a-half standard deviations from their post-crisis means (Chart 2). Our geopolitical strategists are more confident than the broad consensus that the new administration will get its policies through Congress, but even those who agree are advised to wait for a better entry point. Asset prices often retrace swiftly once they've been stretched two standard deviations from their 200-day moving average. Chart 1Awfully Far, Awfully Fast bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c1 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c1 Chart 2Stretched To Extremes bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c2 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c2 The GDP Equation The cyclical timeframe is BCA's sweet spot, however, and our main concern is whether or not the U.S. economy is poised to break out of the 2-2.25% growth range it's settled into (Table 1). GDP growth is no more than the sum of labor force growth and productivity growth, so any successful attempt to lift the trend rate of GDP will have to lift the trend rate of one or both of its components. These sorts of gains are not easily won. Labor force growth, for example, is mainly tied to the glacial pace of shifts in population growth, with shorter-cycle changes in labor force participation exerting a modest impact around the edges. The new administration's pledges to tighten America's borders and more stringently enforce existing immigration laws would curtail population growth if they were brought to fruition. The U.S. relies on new immigrants, especially those from Latin America, to maintain steady-state population growth1. While accelerating economic growth could bring some discouraged workers back into the labor force, the decline in participation is a secular phenomenon (Chart 3). The labor force is unlikely to grow enough to move the needle, and potential deportations and voluntary departures tilt the balance to the downside. Table 1The Mushy Post-Crisis Path Is The U.S. At An Inflection Point? Is The U.S. At An Inflection Point? Chart 3A Secular Decline bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c3 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c3 Capital expenditures are the best predictor of productivity growth, as efficiency gains occur when workers are supported by new tools, facilities and software. Investment per worker consistently leads productivity growth by about a year in the U.S. (Chart 4, top panel) and is a leading productivity indicator around the world (Chart 4, bottom panel). Capex has disappointed across the developed world following the crisis, and all three elements of U.S. non-residential investment have recently fallen well short of past expansions (Chart 5). Chart 4Capex Leads Productivity bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c4 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c4 Chart 5Falling Short bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c5 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c5 Immediate expensing (as opposed to capitalization and depreciation) will increase the after-tax net present values of all projects, encouraging investment. Even so, attempts to give investment a cyclical jolt will run up against the powerful secular drags of declining trend growth, the capital-lite economy and expanding income inequality. The link between trend growth and investment is readily apparent; demand for industrial, office, retail, and residential construction is directly related to the pace of aggregate income growth. Capital-lite may be a new term, but it describes an entrenched phenomenon. Capital-intensive manufacturing's share of employment has been falling since the fifties (Chart 6). On-shoring could partially roll back this trend, boosting capex as manufacturing facilities are built or refurbished. Dollar strength and stricter immigration enforcement will increase the cost of on-shoring, however. Chart 6A Long Decline In Capital-Intensive Activity Is The U.S. At An Inflection Point? Is The U.S. At An Inflection Point? Expanding inequality weighs on trend growth because it concentrates income in the hands of those least likely to spend it. Reducing the top marginal income tax rate and eliminating the estate tax could squeeze aggregate demand if Congress demands cuts in the social safety net to help pay for it. On the other hand, increased employment opportunities for the low-skilled could help boost demand. Populist policies would generally be expected to narrow inequality, but it remains to be seen if the populist campaign will translate to a populist presidency. Bottom Line: Shifting trend GDP growth higher is a tall order, and stimulus efforts are unlikely to reverse secular drags. The Trouble With The Long Run We acknowledge the truth of Keynes' beef with overly long-run analyses. Even investors with the longest timeframes need to pay attention to the intermediate term. The most relevant question for the broad sweep of institutional investors is what might the incoming administration achieve over the next couple of years? To answer that question, it helps to go back to the GDP equation framework and consider the complete self-reinforcing productivity chain: productivity gains from capex, capex from consumption, consumption from employment, income and spending/saving preferences. All Roads Lead To The Consumer Do corporations build capacity ahead of a ramp-up in demand, or do they wait for demand to emerge before they expand their ability to meet it? With all due respect to Monsieur Say2, the evidence suggests that consumption leads capex (Chart 7). This leaves open the possibility that a robust labor market generating real income gains, alongside a revival of C-suite animal spirits, could generate a self-reinforcing lift in activity over the next few years. A sizable fiscal impulse could energize both channels. All of the components of GDP have undershot past cycle averages at different points of this expansion, but government spending has consistently lagged since the stimulus act petered out at the end of 2010 (Chart 8). Viewed in terms of the year-over-year change in government outlays, the shortfall is especially sharp, as much as four or five percentage points below the typical pattern (Chart 9). Unfortunately, the optimal time for fiscal thrust has passed. As our U.S. Investment Strategy service has shown3, fiscal stimulus is more effective in recessions than in expansions. The mix of stimulus measures matters, too, and the CBO has estimated that tax cuts for high-income households - the central element of the incoming administration's fiscal package - have no more than a tepid impact. Chart 7First Consumption, Then Capex bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c7 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c7 Chart 8A Lack Of Fiscal Spending... bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c8 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c8 Chart 9...Has Held This Expansion Back bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c9 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c9 The state of the labor market is more encouraging for consumption. Wages have begun to rise as the pool of available workers has shrunk and solid real income gains may well be in store. Both the Atlanta Fed's Wage Tracker (Chart 10, top panel) and average hourly earnings (Chart 10, bottom panel) have inflected higher over the last two years. Richer compensation is not good for corporate margins, but an optimistic scenario would allow increased revenues to make up much of the difference. Chart 10Wage Growth Is Surging bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c10 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c10 Chart 11The Savings Rate Has Stabilized... bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c11 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c11 Just because households are earning doesn't mean they're consuming. The propensity to save or dis-save, via taking on debt, can exert a strong influence. With no pressing need to pay down debt, the savings rate appears to have stabilized around 6% (Chart 11), while the household debt-to-GDP ratio has ticked higher for three straight quarters after falling 20 points from its 2008 peak (Chart 12, top panel). The Debt Supercycle may have run its course, but with the debt-service burden lighter than it's been at any point since Ronald Reagan took office (Chart 12, bottom panel), households once again have unused borrowing capacity. Chart 12...And The Household Debt Burden Is Much Lighter bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c12 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c12 Bottom Line: With employment and wage growth already moving in the right direction, and households regaining the ability to add some debt, a pickup in consumption could amplify the effects of fiscal stimulus and give rise to two years of notably stronger growth. Potential Pitfalls Reflation efforts seven years into an expansion have more complicated consequences than reflation efforts undertaken near a cycle trough. They are much more likely to lead to overheating and monetary policy makers may be obliged to counteract them. With government debt-to-GDP at an already elevated level (Chart 13), the bond vigilantes may force yields sharply higher, subverting stimulus efforts and twisting reflation into something more like stagflation. Crowding out is a plausible threat. Chart 13Limited Capacity For Stimulus bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c13 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_23_c13 Infrastructure spending is difficult to get just right. There is not necessarily a correlation between a given project's shovel-readiness and its relative net present value. It is unclear just how many skilled workers are available to wield the shovels and operate the machinery to execute projects. Infrastructure is a comparatively small element of the proposed fiscal plan, but it is not likely to come on full blast in 2017. Mainstream economists unanimously agree that protectionist policies and immigration restrictions dampen growth. The U.S. economy is comparatively closed, but its multinational corporations are vulnerable to the imposition of new trade barriers. Limited access to foreign end-markets and disruptions to low-cost global supply chains would quickly show up in S&P 500 earnings. Continued dollar strength would be a headwind for many of the largest S&P 500 constituents as well. Our Reflation Checklist The incoming administration's discussions of its policy plans have so far been confined to generalities, making it difficult to assess their impact. Even if investors had a clearer outline of policy plans, there are too many moving parts to allow for much forecasting precision. Heeding our Geopolitical Strategy team's view, we are taking compliant Republican legislators as a given and assuming that the administration's signature objectives will not encounter much resistance. But even with legislative majorities, incoming administrations have short honeymoons, and the way the White House prioritizes its initiatives will be important. Investors will have to keep tabs on a wide range of factors to weigh reflation prospects. We are in the midst of building a checklist to track those factors, but are going to wait to finalize it with quantitative parameters until markets settle down to consolidate some of their initial moves. We expect to cull the final factors from the following preliminary list of questions. Fed Policy 1. Will the Fed feel confident enough to hike rates in December? 2. Will the Fed signal an increase in its expected pace of hikes, or an increase in the terminal rate, in its Summaries of Economic Projections? Market Signals 3. Will OIS rate-hike expectations continue to chase the FOMC dots higher? 4. How tight can monetary conditions get? 5. Where will dollar appreciation stop? 6. Are long rates pricing in higher real yields? 7. Are S&P 500 multiples expanding, contracting or holding steady? 8. Are credit spreads taking their cue from better growth prospects, or increased uncertainty? Economic Signals 9. How is the labor force participation rate responding to stronger growth and higher wages? 10. Is there upward pressure on wages? 11. Is the savings rate poised to break out in either direction? 12. Are households taking on more debt? 13. Are corporations using lower taxes to fund capex? 14. Are trade restrictions shaping up as cosmetic or substantive? 15. Is enforcement squeezing immigration and/or sparking reverse migration? Investment Implications The election results, and their promise of reflationary policy, were not friendly for our defensives-over-cyclicals tilt, or our income hybrids bucket. There is no guarantee, however, that policies will be enacted in their anticipated form. Even if they are, we view several moves as overdone. We will therefore wait two more weeks, until our scheduled model portfolio review on December 7, to make changes. We are contemplating pulling in our defensive horns by reducing our Consumer Staples positions. Our Staples overweights are our least favorite defensive positions given that they are an express play on a continued valuation overshoot. We are most likely to direct a reduced Staples allocation to Discretionaries. We are also considering increasing our exposure to spread product, most likely at the expense of the income hybrids bucket and/or Treasuries. Stronger growth, even if only on the order of 50 or 100 basis points, will make it easier to service debt, as will increased inflation, and the carry in spread product will help protect a fixed income portfolio better than Treasuries in a rising-rate environment. Doug Peta, Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 It takes a birthrate of 2.1 to keep the population at a steady state. Without immigration, the U.S. would look much more like its developed-world peers with mid-1-handle birthrates, as incumbent families tend to have fewer children than newly arrived families. 2 Say's Law, named for an early nineteenth-century French economist, posits that supply creates its own demand. 3 Please see the November 7, 2016 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability," available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. Since 2014, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected. This remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Fiscal stimulus will be a positive development and could dominate the investment landscape for some time. But investors should not view it as a panacea for growth headwinds. Feature Investors continue to digest the ramifications of the new configuration in Washington. In this week's report, we answer the most frequently asked queries that we have received from clients. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us with yours. 1. How Has Your Forecast For Markets Changed Since November 9? We had been cautious on risk assets, we had been dollar bulls, and we had been advocating slightly underweight/neutral bond duration positions prior to the elections, as highlighted in the November 7 Weekly Report. Our cautious stance on equities, particularly large-cap stocks, has not changed. Our main worry has been that corporations continue to lack pricing power and top-line growth will struggle to grow meaningfully in 2017. In other words, profit margins are a headwind - as they often are at this point of the cycle (Chart 1). But contrary to past recoveries, persistent low growth means that top-line growth will not provide the same offset to a margin squeeze driven by rising labor costs (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Market On Fire Equity Market On Fire Equity Market On Fire Chart 2Profit Margin Squeeze Intact For Now bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c2 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c2 Our expectations have been for earnings growth to be in the mid-single digits in 2017, with risks to the downside depending on the degree of dollar strength. True, although the above profit outlook is rather uninspiring, it does not justify an underweight allocation to equities. Monetary policy is still accommodative and a recession is unlikely. However, as the Fed drains the punchbowl, volatility will increase as the onus of equity price appreciation falls heavily on profit drivers. Leading up to the election, we made the case that any adverse reaction to a Trump win would be very short and was not the main event for financial markets on a 6-12 month time horizon. Since November 9, there has been a strong, emotional reaction to the Trump win. Our first read of potential policy outcomes is that the "new America" will be far less business-friendly than equity prices are currently suggesting. The headwinds to multinationals from trade reform and immigration constraints may well offset any positive developments from deregulation in the financial and energy sectors. Most importantly, fiscal spending is positive to the extent that new projects and spending will boost top-line growth. But as we discuss below, the violent Treasury sell-off risks crimping growth before any fiscal spending kicks in. Moreover, so far gauges of policy uncertainty have stayed subdued, but that may change quickly, given the number of unknowns ahead and potential negative reactions from other countries to the new U.S. government. Taken together, we see no reason to upgrade our view on equities. For bonds, we had been expecting that the Fed would raise rates in December, because the economic and inflation data have been sufficiently strong relative to policymakers' thresholds to proceed with a rate hike. The bond market had not been fully discounting this outcome; our view was that the 10-year Treasury could move to 2% or slightly higher, due to the re-pricing of the Fed. Our models suggested that fair value on the 10-year Treasury was around 2% and so once bond yields got that level, a trading range would be established. Treasuries were overvalued for most of this year, and a symmetric shift to undervaluation could now occur. However, we have doubts that we have entered a new bond bear market. Market expectations for U.S. interest rates are rapidly converging to the Fed's forecasts. The rise in yields should pause once the gap has closed. Finally, we have been cyclical dollar bulls for some time. Our principle reason is due to the favorable gap in interest rate differentials between the U.S. and most other major currencies. We see no reason to change our dollar bullish stance. 2. Is Fiscal Spending Really The New Panacea? Our view can be summarized as: Curb Your Enthusiasm. Fiscal stimulus is a positive development. Since the early days of the Great Recession, monetary policymakers have been working alone. Monetary policy has become ineffective at boosting growth, and currency depreciation only shifts growth between countries, it does not create more. Fiscal spending is an opportunity to increase the "GDP pie." But as we wrote two weeks ago, the type of fiscal spending matters, a lot. Income tax cuts on high income earners as well as corporate tax cuts tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Equally important is the interest rate regime that coincides with fiscal stimulus. When an economy is near full employment and there is a risk that above trend growth will create inflation, central banks tend to react, and thus dull the force of the initial stimulus. That is the current economic scenario. The bottom line is that fiscal spending will give a fillip to GDP growth for a few quarters in late in 2017 and perhaps in 2018, but investors should be careful in assuming that fiscal spending will meaningfully change the long-term U.S. growth trajectory as it is not a solution for structural headwinds, such as an aging population. Chart 3Can The Economy Handle Higher Yields? bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c3 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c3 3. What Can We Monitor To Understand The Direction Of Policy With Trump As President? Cabinet appointments will be a key area of interest for financial markets. These personnel will ultimately help shape Donald Trump's policy path. There will likely be many rumors about potential appointments, but we believe it is best to ignore near-term noise and focus on Trump's announcements in December and the Senate's official appointments in January. 4. How High Can Bond Yields Get Before The Sell-off Becomes Economically Damaging? The economic backdrop has improved over the past two years and is much closer to full employment. Thus, underlying economic growth is better positioned to withstand a rise in yields. For example, better job prospects and security will allow prospective homeowners to better absorb higher mortgage rates. Still, investors should note that some equity sectors have already responded to the tightening. Chart 3 shows that home improvement stocks are underperforming significantly. What has changed is the greater role of the currency in overall monetary condition tightening. Indeed, the tightening in monetary conditions over the past twelve months has been principally due to the dollar rise. Our U.S. fixed income team's model of fair value for government bonds is based on global PMIs as a proxy for growth, policy uncertainty, and sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. The current reading suggests that 10-year Treasuries are fairly valued when at around 2.25%. Note that fair value has been moving higher in recent weeks on the back of better global economic news. Since 2014, i.e. the start of the dollar rally, whenever the 10-year Treasury yield has reached 2.5%, equity prices have corrected (Chart 4). We think this remains an important marker for when investors should begin to worry that the level of yields are moving into restrictive territory. Chart 4How Long Can Equities Shrug Off Rising Bond Yields? How Long Can Equities Shrug Off Rising Bond Yields? How Long Can Equities Shrug Off Rising Bond Yields? 5. Deregulation And Other Pro-Business Reforms Will Surely Spur Improved Business Confidence And Investor Animal Spirits? We are unsure. History has shown that periods of deregulation (the 1980s and 1990s especially) were conducive to high equity market returns and strong business growth, so this is indeed a positive factor. But there is a lot that can go wrong. Allan Lichtman, a political historian who has correctly predicted all of the past eight Presidential elections, is now predicting that Trump will be impeached within the next four years, due to previous improper business dealings. If that were to occur, we would expect market sentiment to be negative, closely akin to the Worldcom and Enron accounting scandals, which shook faith in the role of the public company CEO. One important gauge will be the global uncertainty index (Chart 5). Uncertainty leads to an increase in risk aversion, and can spur a flight into the safety of government bonds. So far, readings are benign, but should be monitored closely. Chart 5Beware A Rise In Uncertainty bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c5 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c5 6. What Are The Prospects For Fed Rate Hikes? We don't expect a major shift in the message from the Fed (i.e. the Fed dot plots) until monetary policymakers have better visibility on what the fiscal landscape will look like (Chart 6). Chart 6Fed Will Wait And See bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c6 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c6 Janet Yellen's testimony last week indicates that a December rate hike is almost a certainty. However, there was no hint that the Fed is preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle thereafter. Her assessment of the economy was balanced, noting that growth improved to 3% in Q3 from 1% in H1, but downplayed the full extent of the rebound due to a rise inventories and a surge in soybean exports. She described consumer spending to be posting "moderate gains," business investment as "relatively soft," manufacturing to be "restrained" and housing construction as "subdued." There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its growth and inflation forecasts following last week's election. Yellen expects growth to continue at a "moderate pace" and inflation to return to 2% in the "next couple of years." Larger budget deficits would likely prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively, but for now, their bias is still to manage asymmetric downside risks. 7. Where Would You Deploy New Funds Today? Into cash. Recent market moves have been emotionally driven and speculative in nature. If the new American government succeeds in implementing a pro-business strategy of lower corporate taxes, increased infrastructure spending, a lighter regulatory burden for the financial services industry, while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform, foreign policy blunders, and general decline in economic and policy uncertainty, then perhaps the current risk-on market moves make some sense. However, that is a massive list, especially for a new President without political experience. In other words, markets have overshot and policy is likely to under-deliver. The risk is now that tighter monetary conditions risk crimping growth in the near term. 8. You Like Small Caps, But Are Cautious On High Yield Corporate Credit. These Two Markets Tend To Perform Similarly. Can You Comment? Historically, the absolute performance of small caps and high-yield corporate bond spreads have been tightly negatively correlated. This is because owning both investments tend to be considered a risk-on strategy. But over the past several years, this relationship has weakened and particularly, the correlation between high-yield corporate bond spreads and relative performance of small/large caps has loosened (Chart 7). This is in part because small cap sector weightings are now more closely aligned with large cap weightings. In other words, the S&P 600 index is no longer overly exposed to cyclical relative to the larger cap weightings. Chart 7Small Caps Are A Winner Small Caps Are A Winner Small Caps Are A Winner We expect small caps to outperform S&P 500 companies because they tend to have a domestic focus and will be more insulated from a rise in the dollar. As well, small caps, by virtue of being more geared to domestic growth, will benefit from ongoing better U.S. growth rates than global markets. Relative profit margins proxies favor small caps as well. 9. Is There A Structural Bear Market In Voter Turnout In The U.S.? A certain number of headlines have quoted a drastically lower turnout numbers for the 2016 election than in 2012. This has been reinforced by a theory of a structural downturn in voter participation. Both statements are incorrect. Early estimates for this year's election show that approximately 58.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, down from 58.6 percent in 2012.1 Note that these are just estimates. It is plausible that any decline in voter turnout in 2016 is due to the extreme unpopularity of both candidates (Chart 8). It is unlikely that this experience will be repeated in future elections. As for the longer-term picture, as Chart 9 shows that voter turnout had been, in fact, rising steadily since 2000. Chart 8Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History Q&A: The Top Ten Q&A: The Top Ten Chart 9Americans Like Voting, Just Not These Candidates bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c9 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_21_c9 10. What Are Your Expectations For Upcoming Elections In Europe? A narrative has emerged in the financial industry since Donald Trump's victory and the U.K.'s decision to leave the EU: there is a structural shift towards anti-establishment movements. But we feel this is overstated. France is a case in point as Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), is reportedly enjoying a tailwind. To be sure, she can win the 2017 Presidential election, but her probability of winning has been inappropriately inflated following the U.S. election and, according to our Geopolitical experts, is approximately only 10%.2 Because Marine Le Pen is going to face off against an "establishment" candidate, she offers the alternative to the status quo that the French are seeking. But she is trailing her likely second round opponent, Alain Juppé, by around 40% in the polls. Le Pen is sticking to her negative views on the EU and euro membership. That is a formidable obstacle, since 70% of the French support the euro. The bottom line is that we do not believe that the U.S. election has had a meaningful influence on European voters. Developed nations across the globe are struggling with the same structural issues such as low growth and income inequality. It should not be surprising that common reactions and responses are occurring in various countries. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please See "United States Elections Project," available at http://www.electproject.org/2016g. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?," dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.