Precious Metals

Highlights Gold volatility is trending lower, suggesting unresolved economic and political issues are diminishing, and investors' confidence in the global economy is improving. This is a false positive. Uncertainty is elevated. "Known unknowns" loom large: U.S. and Chinese fiscal policy, which drive USD dynamics and commodity supply and demand, are unresolved; The outcome of French and Italian elections could shock the euro zone; The reaction functions of systemically important central banks as they navigate these risks remain opaque. Given gold's exquisite sensitivity to political and policy nuances globally, our attention naturally turns to it when we look for ways to position in the face of this political and policy-related uncertainty. Our analysis suggests the low volatility in gold markets is the result of traders and investors being driven to the sidelines, where they await clarity re politics and policy. This is keeping trading volumes low: No one wants to be long or short lacking critical information necessary to take a view on the evolution of asset-price paths. Lower trading volumes, therefore, reflect a paucity of information in the price-discovery process, which, all else equal, will tend to keep commodity prices range bound until new information arrives to propel them in one direction or the other. With fewer prints going up across markets, realized and implied volatilities remain low ... for the moment. Energy: Overweight. We are taking profits basis today's close on our WTI Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 backwardation spread initiated February 9 at -$0.11/bbl. We also will be taking profits on our Dec/19 WTI vs. Brent spread, elected February 6 at +$0.07/bbl, after WTI traded premium to Brent in anticipation a U.S. border-adjusted tax would be enacted. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper remains well bid amid transitory supply outages. Workers resumed their strike at BHP's Escondida mine in Chile, while Anglo American temporarily suspended work at its El Soldado mine in a regulatory dispute, according to Metal Report. Freeport-McMoRan declared force majeure on Grasberg deliveries. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are withdrawing our gold buy-stop, and are recommending long gold options spreads to position for higher volatility (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. Corn and wheat came under selling pressure over the past week, but still are holding trend-line support from end-2016. We continue to monitor these markets for signs of a short-term rally. We remain strategically bearish, however. Feature While we believe the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) holds most of the time - at least in semi-strong form (i.e., all public information is fully reflected in prices) - traders and investors now find themselves in something of a quandary.1 Much of the information needed to assess future paths for asset prices and form expectations for returns has yet to be revealed. In other words, there are large parts of markets' information sets made up of "known unknowns," which, once resolved, will be of enormous consequence to the paths taken by different asset prices. This is particularly true for gold. Our analysis suggests this lack of information is keeping trading volumes in gold markets low. As a result, the price-discovery process is stymied, which, all else equal, tends to keep prices range bound until new information arrives to propel them in one direction or the other. With fewer prints going up across markets, realized and implied volatilities remain low. Investors accustomed to viewing low volatility as an indication unresolved economic and political issues are diminishing therefore have to adapt to a new reality, one in which low volatility actually is the product of heightened uncertainty (Chart of the Week). Granted, financial stress is low. This contributes to lower volatility, particularly in gold, which is highly sensitive to U.S. real rates and USD levels. However, we find low trading volumes in gold markets also are responsible for the lower-trending realized and implied volatility prevailing in in gold markets (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekVolatility Is Low, Despite Uncertainty Being High Volatility Is Low, Despite Uncertainty Being High Volatility Is Low, Despite Uncertainty Being High Chart 2Realized And Implied Gold Vols Are Trending Lower Realized And Implied Gold Vols Are Trending Lower Realized And Implied Gold Vols Are Trending Lower This suggests there is an opportunity to position ahead of the resolution of these "known unknowns" in the gold market, given the low volatility levels we see. This is driven largely by our view that there are numerous risks in near- and longer-term price distributions, which imply much fatter tails than markets are pricing in at the moment.3 Indeed, the CBOE Gold VIX is running at ~ 13.5% presently vs. a post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) average of 18.8% p.a.4 First, The Fat Left Tail There are a number of risks pumping up the left tails of many commodity price distributions - e.g., how long China will continue to tighten fiscal policy (Chart 3), and the effect this will have on the prices of base metals and bulk commodities like iron ore and steel. And, of course, markets will continue to hang on every utterance of Federal Reserve officials, attempting to discount rate-hike probabilities and their implications for the USD and real rates, the critical drivers of gold prices (Chart 4). Chart 3China Fiscal Stimulus Grinds To A Halt China Fiscal Stimulus Grinds To A Halt China Fiscal Stimulus Grinds To A Halt Near term, these risks will continue to loom large, but they are dwarfed by a possible border-adjusted tax (BAT) being imposed in the U.S. In our estimation, this is the largest left-tail risk we've identified for commodity markets over the near term. It is being championed by Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives - led by Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady.5 A BAT would raise the price of commodities subject to the tax in the U.S. Domestically, producers of commodities subject to the tax would benefit from this increase in prices, since it would boost their revenues and incentivize increased domestic production. This would be used to displace imports and take market share from exporters to the U.S. Once the domestic market has been saturated with the higher domestic output, U.S. producers would turn to export markets to sell their increased output. A BAT would shrink the U.S. trade deficit, which would, all else equal, raise the trade-weighted value of the USD. Our expectation is there is a 50:50 chance a BAT is enacted, but that it will exclude oil and apparel. We expect the USD would appreciate ~ 10% on the back of this scheme, on top of the 5% increase in the value of the dollar we already were expecting from the Fed's continued push to normalize monetary policy. On the back of this 15% appreciation in the USD over the next year or so, commodity prices ex U.S. would increase in local-currency terms, which would crimp demand in EM and DM economies. On the supply side, the cost of producing commodities ex U.S. would fall in local-currency terms, which would increase supply at the margin. Net, net: A BAT would cause global commodity demand to fall and supply to increase, which would, all else equal, send a deflationary impulse back to the U.S., and DM and EM economies. Fat Right Tails Permanent and transitory commodity supply losses constitute large right-tail risks for investors, in our estimation, as does stronger-than-expected demand. Chief among these are ongoing losses in copper markets in the near term, which we believe to be transitory. The massive $1 trillion+ capex cuts registered in the oil markets in the wake of the price collapse induced by OPEC's market share war leave us with low confidence our oil-price expectation of $55/bbl will prevail beyond 2018. Near term, however, the timing and type of infrastructure projects that will be funded under the Trump administration's forthcoming fiscal roadmap, and whether Congress will be supportive represent the largest right-tail risk for gold markets. Highly expansive fiscal stimulus could spur inflation in the U.S., given this stimulus will be hitting an economy that already is at or near full employment. Given the synchronized global economic recovery currently underway, we believe an inflationary impulse could percolate into near-term inflation realizations, and into inflation expectations longer term. Chart 4Markets Will Continue To Hang On Every Fed Utterance Market-Implied Rate Hike Probabilities: March Looks Too High Markets Will Continue To Hang On Every Fed Utterance Market-Implied Rate Hike Probabilities: March Looks Too High Markets Will Continue To Hang On Every Fed Utterance This elevated inflation risk will be bullish for gold, as we showed in recent research.6 Indeed, we noted, "All else equal, with the U.S. labor market at or close to full employment, and the Trump administration signaling its desire for stimulative fiscal policy, we would be inclined to look for inflation hedges within commodities that are highly sensitive to rising inflation." Topping that list is gold, in our estimation. Taking A View On Volatility Chart 5Gold Provides A Good Hedge For Equity Volatility Gold Provides A Good Hedge For Equity Volatility Gold Provides A Good Hedge For Equity Volatility Volatility is trading-market shorthand for the annualized standard deviation of expected returns for an underlying asset. It is a parameter used to price options. Options markets are unique in that they allow investors to take a view on the dispersion of the expected returns of the asset against which the option is written.7 Volatility is a calculated value, whereas the other components of an option's price - i.e., the underlying asset's price, the strike price, time to expiration, and interest rates - all are known inputs. Volatility, like the price of the underlying asset, therefore is "discovered" when a trade occurs. After an option trades and its premium becomes known, an option-pricing model - e.g., the Black-Scholes-Merton model - can be run backwards, so to speak, to see what level of volatility solves the pricing model for the value that cleared the market. This is known as the option's implied volatility, because it is the expected standard deviation of returns implied by the price at which the option clears the market. One reason investors and traders buy and sell options is to express a view on implied volatility. Option buyers who think the market is underestimating the likelihood of sharply higher or sharply lower returns can express this view by buying out-of-the-money options - calls or call spreads on the upside, puts or put spreads on the downside. This can arise for any number of reasons, but they all boil down to one essential point: Option buyers think there is a higher probability returns will be higher or lower during the life of an option than what is being priced in the options market presently.8 Option sellers, on the other hand, are expressing the opposite view. We believe the fat-tail risks we've discussed in this article are not being fully reflected in the options markets most sensitive to this information, among them the gold market. Our own assessment of these risks implies much fatter tails than we currently observe in the out-of-the-money gold options, as noted above. For this reason, we are recommending investors consider buying put spreads and call spreads against June-delivery gold. We will look to get long Jun/17 $1,200/oz puts vs. selling $1,150/oz puts, and getting long $1,275/oz calls vs. selling $1,325/oz calls, basis tonight's closing levels for the underlying contract. This is a low-risk strategic recommendation, with the put and call spreads roughly equidistant from where the Jun/17 gold contract is trading. The motivation for this recommendation is simple: We believe volatility is low, given the "known unknowns" and their associated fat tails, which are not being accounted for in options prices. This makes these options cheap. Gold Can Hedge Equity Risk As Well Our analysis reveals gold provides a good edge against rising equity volatility, as measured by the CBOE's equity volatility index (CBOE VIX).9 From 1995 to the present, gold's monthly percentage returns outperformed those of the S&P 500 61% of the time when the VIX was increasing, and 36% of the time when the VIX was decreasing (Chart 5). Over the entire sample, gold outperformed the S&P 500 in average by 2.25% in periods of increasing equity volatility as measured by the VIX. However, if we focus only on sub-sample periods where the VIX was increasing but from an already-elevated level (20% or above), gold returns outperformed S&P 500 returns by 4.57% on average. Given our assessment that current volatility is abnormally low, particularly for gold, we believe the gold options exposure recommended here will provide investors protection against increasing equity volatility, as well. Moreover, if market sentiment changes and volatility begins to increase significantly, our analysis provides evidence that gold's volatility-risk-mitigation properties increase even more when the VIX is already at a high level. Bottom Line: Markets lack sufficient information to fully price the risks in potential fat-tail events on the down- and up-side of commodity price distributions. We believe gold options - particularly put and call spreads - offer a low-risk way to position for the eventual resolution of this uncertainty. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 For an excellent discussion of the EMH, please see Timmermann, Allan, and Clive W.J. Granger (2004), "Efficient market hypothesis and forecasting," in the International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 20, pp. 15 - 27. 2 When we regress CBOE gold volatility on first-nearby gold futures volume using daily data over January 2016 to February 2017 using an error-correction model, we find trading volume explains ~ one-third of the CBOE implied gold volatility's level. 3 Many of these risks are geopolitical in nature, which our colleague Marko Papic considers at length in "A Fat-Tails World," published February 22, 2016, in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 We mark the post-GFC period as Jan/10 to present. 5 A BAT essentially would tax imports coming in to the U.S. and subsidize exports, using proceeds to reduce corporate taxes. We are not ready to pronounce the BAT dead, as some pundits already have. We think the market's 20% probability that such a tax becomes law is too low: We give it a 50:50 chance of passage, albeit in a watered down form likely calling for a 10% tax on imports, which likely will not include oil or apparel. Base metals and agricultural imports likely would be taxed under this scheme. We analyzed the commodity impacts of this proposed scheme in "Taking a BAT To Commodities," which was published in the January 26, 2017, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Gold Will Perform...," dated February 2, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Call options give the buyer the right to go long an underlying asset at the price at which an option contract is struck - i.e., the option's strike price. Puts give option buyers the right to go short the underlying asset at the price at which the contract is struck. While an option buyer is not required to ever exercise an option, option sellers must take the other side of the deal if the buyer chooses to exercise. Option buyers pay a premium for the put or call they purchase. 8 This probability also can be expressed in terms or price levels, which allows investors to take an explicit view on the likelihood of a particular price being realized during the life of the option being purchased. Please see Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009), "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty," published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, for a discussion of options markets and implied volatility. "Appendix II: Derivation of the Cumulative Normal Density for Futures Prices" beginning on p. 22 shows how to transform the returns distribution into a price distribution. It is available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/special/pdf/2009_sp_05.pdf. 9 Our results are similar to those reported in "Gold is still a good hedge when volatility rises," by Russ Koesterich, CFA, published by Blackrock on its Blackrock Blog September 9, 2016. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in

Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Overzealousness no longer exists, and a revival in market volatility and intensification in policy uncertainty have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. More recently, the yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month and may be signaling the start of another move up in gold shares. Importantly, sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower, reversing last summer's buying frenzy. Speculative positions have also been unwound. Against a positive structural backdrop for gold, we recommend reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details. Gold Shares: Moving Back To Overweight Gold Shares: Moving Back To Overweight

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Food price deflation bodes well for increased volumes, and by extension, packaging stocks. Upgrade to overweight. Prospects for intensifying market and economic volatility argue for reestablishing a portfolio hedge in gold shares. The tech sector underperforms when there is upward pressure on inflation, and the next twelve months is unlikely to prove an exception. Stay clear. Recent Changes S&P Containers & Packaging - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Gold Mining Shares - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Table 1 Bridging The Gap Bridging The Gap Feature Equity markets finally took a breather last week, as investors digested spotty earnings and began to discount the possible economic downside of U.S. isolationism. While profits should dictate the trend in stocks over the long haul, equity valuations have soared since the election, it is critical to consider the durability of this trend and other influences at this juncture. The recent string of positive economic surprises raises the risk that monetary conditions will tighten further, especially amidst rising inflation pressures and a tight labor market. As such, the broad market remains in a dangerous overshoot phase, predicated on hopes for a sustained non-inflationary global economic mini-boom. The risk is that these hopes are dashed by nationalistic policy blunders (i.e. protectionism and trade barriers) or a more muted and drawn out improvement in global economic growth than double-digit earnings growth forecasts would imply. There appears to be full buy-in to a durable bullish economic/profit outcome. We have constructed a 'Complacency-Anxiety' Indicator (CAI), using a number of variables that gauge investor positioning, sentiment and risk on/off biases (Chart 1). The CAI is at its highest level ever, signaling extreme confidence/conviction in the outlook for equities. While timing market peaks is difficult, because momentum can persist for longer than seems rational, the level of investor complacency is disturbingly high given that policy uncertainty is such a large economic threat. Global economic growth has never accelerated when global economic policy uncertainty has been this high (Chart 2, shown inverted). Chart 1Complacency Reigns Complacency Reigns Complacency Reigns Chart 2Uncertainty Is A Growth Impediment Uncertainty Is A Growth Impediment Uncertainty Is A Growth Impediment If rhetoric about anti-globalization measures turns into reality, that will deal a serious blow to burgeoning economic confidence before it translates into actual economic growth. Thus, the risk of sudden market downdrafts has risen to its highest level of this bull market. Chart 3 shows that positive economic surprises remain primarily sentiment/confidence driven, rather than from upside in hard economic data. To be sure, the stock market trades off of 'soft data' given its leading properties, but the size of the current gap is unusually large and reinforces that a big jump in 'hard data' surprises is already discounted. This gap represents a latent risk, as it did in the spring of 2011 just before the summertime equity market swoon. Chart 3A Big Gap Means Big Shoes To Fill A Big Gap Means Big Shoes To Fill A Big Gap Means Big Shoes To Fill Worryingly, the behavior of corporate insiders suggests that their confidence does not match their share price valuations. According to Barron's1, the insider sell/buy ratio has soared to an extremely bearish level for markets. For context, their gauge is close to 60; anything over 20 is deemed bearish while less than 12 falls into the bullish zone. Chart 4An Increasing Supply Of Stock An Increasing Supply Of Stock An Increasing Supply Of Stock The spike in secondary issuance corroborates insider selling (Chart 4). Insiders would not be unloading their shares if they felt earnings prospects would outperform what is discounted in current valuations. Even the pace of share buybacks has slowed considerably, to the point where the number of shares outstanding (excluding financials) has moved higher for the first time in 6 years (Chart 4). An increase in the supply of shares, from sources that have incentive to sell when the reward/risk tradeoff is unattractive, is a yellow flag. All of this argues for maintaining a capital preservation mindset rather than chasing market euphoria in the near run. Elevated complacency suggests that the consensus is focused solely on return rather than risk. It will be more constructive to put money to work when anxiety levels are higher than at present. This week we recommend adding a defensive materials sector gem, buying some portfolio insurance and we update our tech sector views. Packaging Stocks Are Gift Wrapped While our materials sector Cyclical Macro Indicator is hitting new lows, this is often a sign that the countercyclical S&P containers & packaging index deserves a second look. We have shown in past research that its strongest relative performance phases often occur when the overall materials sector is struggling. This group offers a more attractively valued alternative to play a transportation recovery than either rails or air freight, as discussed in last week's Report. From a macro perspective, deflation in global export prices should provide a strong tailwind. Why? Low prices spur volume growth. Global export volumes have begun to rebound, consistent with the increase in U.S. port traffic and intermodal (consumer) goods shipments (Chart 5). Any increase in global trade would bolster sentiment toward this high volume industry. Companies in this index are also highly exposed to the food and beverage business since the bulk of consumable non-durable goods products require packaging materials. As such, its fortunes rise and fall with swings in food prices. When food inflation is rising, consumers spend less in real terms, undermining the volume of food packaging demand. The opposite is also true. The current contraction in the food CPI has spawned a boom in food consumption, as measured by the surge in real (volumes) personal outlays on food & beverage products (Chart 6). This phenomenon is also true on a global basis, as food exports are booming (Chart 6, bottom panel), a remarkable development given U.S. dollar appreciation. Chart 5Stealth Play On Volume Growth Stealth Play On Volume Growth Stealth Play On Volume Growth Chart 6Booming Food Demand... Booming Food Demand... Booming Food Demand... Chart 7... Should Drive Up Multiples ... Should Drive Up Multiples ... Should Drive Up Multiples If food and beverage consumption stays robust, then the relative valuation expansion in packaging stocks will persist (food demand shown advanced, Chart 7). Increased demand for packaging products has become evident in the budding rebound in pricing power (Chart 8). The producer price index for containers has picked up nicely on a 6-month rate of change basis, albeit it is still low in annual growth terms. Nevertheless, any increase in pricing power would support profit margins if volume expansion persists, given the industry's disciplined productivity focus. Headcount remains in check, likely reflecting automation and investment, and is falling decisively relative to overall employment (Chart 8). The implication is that profit margins have a chance to outperform, particularly if energy prices stay range-bound (Chart 8). U.S. protectionism, and/or a continued rise in bond yields on the back of improving global economic momentum constitute relative performance risks to this position. Chart 9 shows that relative performance is mostly inversely correlated with global bond yields, given that it is a disinflationary winner. Chart 8Productivity Gains Productivity Gains Productivity Gains Chart 9A Risk Factor A Risk Factor A Risk Factor However, the global economy has already been through a phase of upside surprises. Moreover, now that China has moved to cool housing, investors should temper expectations for more stimulus to cause Chinese growth to accelerate. Conversely, economic disappointment could materialize before midyear if financial conditions tighten further. In sum, packaging stocks offer attractive exposure within an otherwise unattractive S&P materials sector. Bottom Line: Raise the S&P containers & packaging index to overweight. Gold: Back To Overweight As A Portfolio Hedge Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Thereafter, the equity risk premium melted, dimming appetite for portfolio insurance (Chart 10). Moreover, bond yields rose in response to firming economic expectations, increasing the opportunity cost of holding an income-free asset like gold. However, in the absence of a global economic boom, which seems unlikely, and if trade barriers are erected and policy uncertainty continues to escalate, there is a limit to how high real rates can rise. Potential GDP growth remains low throughout the world, weighed down by excessive debt, weak productivity and deflationary demographics (Chart 11, second panel). Chart 10End Of Correction? End Of Correction? End Of Correction? Chart 11Structurally Bullish Structurally Bullish Structurally Bullish A revival in market volatility and an unwinding of previously frothy technical conditions have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month (Chart 12). The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. If the yield curve does not steepen anew, and interest rate expectations move laterally, then the U.S. dollar is less likely to be a barrier to gold price gains. Sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower in recent months, reversing last summer's buying frenzy (Chart 12). Speculative positions have also been unwound (Chart 12). Netting it out, the surge in U.S. policy uncertainty, prospects for economic disappointment relative to increasingly elevated expectations and any pause in the U.S. dollar rally support reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge, especially now that overbought conditions have been unwound (Chart 13). Chart 12No Longer Frothy No Longer Frothy No Longer Frothy Chart 13Time To Buy Hedges Time To Buy Hedges Time To Buy Hedges Bottom Line: Return to an overweight position in gold mining shares, using the GDX as a proxy. A Tec(h)tonic Shift Our Special Report published in early-December showed that the tech sector underperforms when inflation pressures accelerate. Companies in the S&P technology sector are typically mature and have shifted from reinvesting for growth to paying dividends and buying back stock. Thus, the rise in bond yields and headline inflation imply higher discount rates and by extension, lower valuations, all other things equal, for the long duration tech sector (Chart 14). Tech companies exist in a deflationary business model mindset. While relative pricing power had been in an uptrend since 2011, it has recently relapsed into the deflationary zone (Chart 15, middle panel). As shown in last Monday's Weekly Report, the tech sector is one of the few suffering from deteriorating pricing power. Chart 14Stiff Headwinds Stiff Headwinds Stiff Headwinds Chart 15Pricing Power Disadvantage Pricing Power Disadvantage Pricing Power Disadvantage Among the broad eleven sectors, tech stocks have the highest international sales exposure, so a higher dollar is also a net negative for exports, revenues and by extension profit growth, relative to the broad market. Industry sales growth is nil, significantly trailing the S&P 500's recent pick up in top line growth rate. History shows that tech relative performance is negatively correlated with the U.S. dollar in the latter stages of a currency bull market. While the temptation to position for an increase in capital spending via the tech sector is high, data do not show any demand improvement. Tech new order growth is decelerating. The tech new orders-to-inventories ratio is on the verge of contracting, and further weakness would herald downward pressure on forward earnings estimates (Chart 16). Net earnings revisions have swung violently downward recently. Any prolonged de-rating would warn of negative share price momentum given the tight correlation between the two (Chart 16). Meanwhile, the loss of tech sector competitiveness and a retreat from globalization via protectionism de-globalization pose serious headwinds to the industry's longer-term prospects. Return on equity is already ebbing, reflecting more intense profit margin pressure from the surge in wage growth and a lack of revenue gains. As a result, EBITDA growth has been non-existent (Chart 17). Chart 16Momentum Is Fading Momentum Is Fading Momentum Is Fading Chart 17Growth Remains Elusive Growth Remains Elusive Growth Remains Elusive Chart 18Profits Set To Underperform Profits Set To Underperform Profits Set To Underperform All of these factors are encapsulated in our S&P technology operating profit model, which has an excellent record in forecasting tech earnings. Chart 18 shows that tech profits are likely to contract as the year progresses, a far cry from what is expected for the broad market and the 450bps of profit outperformance embedded in analyst forecasts in the coming 12 months. Bottom Line: Reducing tech exposure on price strength is a prudent strategy. Stay underweight. 1 http://www.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-instrans.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Highlights In line with our House view, we expect the USD will weaken near term, and are recommending a tactical long gold position if the metal trades to $1,180/oz. Longer term, the Trump administration's presumed fiscal-policy goals - e.g., lighter regulation, lower taxes - will be hitting an economy at or near full employment, and will run smack up against deflationary pressures if a border-adjusted tax (BAT) scheme is implemented. Expect higher volatility. Energy: Overweight. Fundamentals continue to point toward global oil storage drawing by ~ 300mm bbl by 3Q17. Brent was backwardated going to press in the Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 spread, while WTI is in contango.1 Our WTI backwardation trade (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) stopped out at -$0.05/bbl. Markets appear reluctant to take 2018 prices below 2017 levels, but we still like the position and will look to put it on again. Base Metals: Neutral. A weaker USD and marginally softer real rates will support base metals short term. We remain neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are going tactically long gold, and are bracing for more ambiguity in U.S. fiscal-policy. This will keep the Fed on hold till 2H17. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains and beans will remain under pressure with Argentine growing conditions improving. High stocks-to-use levels will remain a headwind. Feature Gold prices will get a short-term bounce from financial markets' recalibration of when fiscal stimulus in the U.S. actually will start contributing to growth. With nothing for the Fed to react to in terms of fiscal policy other than sundry indications the Trump administration favors lighter regulation, lower taxes and higher infrastructure spending, we believe the U.S. central bank will remain on the sidelines until mid-year before it starts guiding toward a rate hike. In the meantime, synchronized global growth (Chart of the Week) will continue to fan medium-term inflation expectations (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekSynchronized Global Growth... Synchronized Global Growth... Synchronized Global Growth... Chart 2...Is Lifting Inflation Expectations ...Is Lifting Inflation Expectations ...Is Lifting Inflation Expectations At this point in the cycle, it is unlikely the Fed or other systematically important central banks will tighten policy to arrest the emerging growth. Besides, the U.S. central bank is, for all intents and purposes, on hold until it sees the outlines of the fiscal policy to be proposed by the Trump administration, which has indicated strong preferences for lighter regulation, lower taxes and infrastructure spending. The market is putting the odds of a Fed rate hike by March at just over 20% (Chart 3). The odds of seeing a hike by June, on the other hand, increase to 64%. Chart 3Fed Most Likely On Hold Until June Fed Most Likely On Hold Until June Fed Most Likely On Hold Until June Given the constraints on the Fed for now, and indications of synchronized global growth, we expect some inflation pickup near term. This will lower real rates and weaken the USD over the short term, which will, in turn, support gold prices. Given this expectation, we are recommending a tactical long gold position if the spot contract trades to $1,180/oz. Because this is a tactical position, we will use a 5% stop-loss. Ambiguous Inflation Signals For 1H17, we expect inflation and inflation expectations to remain buoyant, given the synchronized global upturn we are seeing and the prospect - and so far it is only a prospect - for stimulative fiscal policy in the U.S. All else equal, with the U.S. labor market at or close to full employment, and the Trump administration signaling its desire for stimulative fiscal policy, we would be inclined to look for inflation hedges within commodities that are highly sensitive to rising inflation. The top candidates here would be gold and oil (WTI, in particular). But all else is not equal. President Trump and officials within the administration have floated the idea of a border-adjusted tax (BAT) scheme, which would tax imports into the U.S. and subsidize U.S. exports, and replace the existing corporate income tax. Our House view on the BAT is it has a 50% chance of becoming law. Even so, we believe there is a greater-than-50% chance apparel and energy products would be exempt from a BAT, if it became the law of the land, but we obviously cannot be sure this will occur. The first-round effects of a BAT would be felt domestically. U.S. inflation and inflation expectations would increase after it is rolled out, as prices on taxed imports rose by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate). As an indication, a 10% BAT would lift domestic prices of taxed items by ~ 11%. If the BAT were extended to oil, the domestic price lift there would incentivize higher domestic oil production, which also would find its way to export markets. Taken together, these domestic effects arising from the imposition of a BAT would cause the U.S. trade deficit to contract, which would rally the USD, in addition to lifting domestic inflation. As we noted last week, even under the assumption a somewhat watered down version of a BAT is passed, our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service anticipate the USD would rally another 10%.2 The second-round effects on the back of such an increase in the USD would be felt globally, particularly in oil markets and EM economies. In addition to the broad trade-weighted dollar rallying by 10%, we expected a 5% rise in the greenback prior to the discussion of the BAT. So, overall, we'd expect a 15% appreciation in toto following the implementation of a BAT in the U.S. This would stifle EM commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals, given the stronger USD would make these commodities more expensive in local-currency terms ex U.S. In addition, it would encourage higher commodity production in the U.S. (if a BAT were to be imposed on oil imports) and ex U.S., where local-currency drilling costs once again would fall, leading to increased supplies at the margin. The possibility of deflationary blowback to the U.S. is high in this scenario. Positioning In Ambiguous Markets Investors seeking to profit from rising inflation, which we would expect in the U.S. in the first round of adjustment to a BAT, or to hedge against it often turn to commodities expecting they will rally as inflation increases. They typically do this via index exposure or individual commodity exposure, e.g., going long gold or oil. In the current environment, we believe gold offers the best commodity alternative for participating in a rising inflation environment, or hedging against it, which is why we recommend a tactical long position if the market corrects to $1,180/oz. We compared the one-year return performance of gold and oil as inflation hedges by regressing annual returns of both commodities against annual core PCE and the broad trade-weighted USD returns (Chart 4).3 The R2 goodness-of-fit statistics for both were extremely close - 0.88 (oil) vs. 0.85 (gold), indicating core PCE and USD returns do a good job of explaining oil and gold returns. However, the volatility of the gold regression (its standard error) was half that of the oil regression (0.06 vs. 0.12), indicating gold's relationship is more stable vis-à-vis core PCE inflation and the USD (i.e., subject to less dispersion). This would indicate returns for an inflation hedge using gold would be less volatile than a hedge employing oil futures.4 These tests indicate both gold and oil are well suited to hedging inflation, and that gold hedges will perform as well as an oil hedge with far less volatility in the returns. Longer term, we're concerned with the second-round effects attending a stronger USD on the back of the BAT discussed above - i.e., lower commodity demand and higher commodity supply. Over the medium to longer term, the above dynamic suggests oil and gold volatility will increase (Chart 5). Chart 4Gold Hedges Inflation And USD Risk ##br##As Well As Oil, With Lower Volatility Gold Hedges Inflation And USD Risk As Well As Oil, With Lower Volatility Gold Hedges Inflation And USD Risk As Well As Oil, With Lower Volatility Chart 5Oil And Gold Vol Likely Rise Oil And Gold Vol Likely Rise Oil And Gold Vol Likely Rise Besides being an inflation hedge, gold, unlike oil, also functions as a store of value. In the event of deflationary blowback arising from the imposition of a BAT, we believe gold also would hedge investor portfolios against the possibility of currency debasement. That is to say, it would hold its value while central banks and governments rolled out fiscal and monetary policy responses to deflation. It is worthwhile recalling nominal gold prices held fairly steady during the Great Depression, while real gold prices appreciated. We believe the optimal vehicle for such a hedge would be call options, but we await clarity the likelihood of a BAT and its provisions before recommending such a position. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Backwardation and contango are terms describing the shape of commodity forward curves. When a curve is backwardated, prompt-delivery prices (e.g., oil delivered next week) exceed deferred-delivery prices (e.g., oil delivered next year), indicating supplies are tight. A contango curve describes a market in which deferred-delivery prices exceed prompt-delivery prices, which indicates supplies are relatively more abundant. 2 We discussed the implications of a possible border-adjusted tax scheme in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, in an article entitled "Taking A Bat To Commodities", dated January 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. See also BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017" dated January 20, 2017, which examined the BAT in depth, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 We ran a simple regression of the percent returns of gold and oil against core PCE and USD annual returns over the 2001 - 2016 interval to assess the performance of each as inflation hedges. By using one-year returns, we were able to regress stationary variables and use an AR(1) model. 4 Along similar lines, the sum of squared residuals for the oil returns was almost 4x that of the gold returns, indicating far less dispersion in the errors and a tighter fit with gold vs. core PCE once again. The Durbin-Watson statistic measuring the degree of autocorrelation in the errors is was slightly > 2.0 for the gold regression, for the oil regression the DW statistic was < 2.0. This suggests the gold regression is better behaved in that the error terms more closely conform to the assumptions for them in the type of regression we're running. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Gold Will Perform... Gold Will Perform...

Highlights The tactical environment is dynamic, chaotic and unpredictable. ...Chaos also brings opportunity. We must recognize and exploit opportunities when chance presents them. Look for recurring patterns to exploit.1 Feature Highlights Strategically, major commodity markets are balanced with the exception of ags, where we remain underweight on the back of record grain harvests and high stock-to-use ratios. Otherwise, broad exposure to the asset class is warranted. However, within the larger investment context, we believe tactical positioning once again will produce higher returns than strategic index exposure to commodities. Chart of the WeekTactical Positioning ##br##Rewarded In Oil Markets Tactical Positioning Rewarded In Oil Markets Tactical Positioning Rewarded In Oil Markets Supply-driven price volatility and erratic monetary policy presented commodity markets strategic and tactical opportunities in 2016, particularly in oil, where our recommendations returned an average of 95% (Chart of the Week). We remain overweight oil, expecting continued opportunities from volatile markets. Going forward, the contribution of demand-side risk to price volatility will increase. This will be evident in iron ore, steel and base metals, where the opacity of China's fiscal and monetary policy - especially re heavily indebted state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the banks that support them - in the lead-up to the Communist Party's Congress abounds. Continued adjustments by the U.S. Fed to random-walking data will again contribute to volatility, particularly in oil and gold markets. A stronger dollar resulting from continued Fed tightening will hit U.S. ag exports, and benefit competitors such as Argentina and the EU. However, uncertainty re the Trump administration's fiscal and trade policies could keep the Fed looser for longer, particularly if border-adjusted taxation favoring exports over imports is realized. Geopolitics - particularly vis-à-vis U.S. and China trade and military policy - will become more important if America tilts toward dirigisme, i.e., actively managing its economy by adjusting taxation and policy to support favored industries. Governments typically allocate resources inefficiently, which distorts fundamentals. If border-adjusted taxation becomes law in the U.S. we will look to get long volatility across commodity markets: Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand for commodities generally and lift supply by lowering local costs. This would run smack into higher U.S. inflation arising from the increasing cost of imported goods. This is a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Russia lurks in the background: U.S. sanctions in the wake of alleged interference in American presidential elections, and Russia's response, will keep oil markets on edge. 2017 Weightings Energy: Overweight. The OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to limit production could evolve into a durable modus operandi for managing oil supply. Markets will judge the pact effective if tanker chartering out of the Persian Gulf falls, and global inventories draw by mid- to end-February. Base Metals: Neutral. Bulks and base metals prices will remain rangebound, until greater clarity on China's fiscal and monetary policy emerges. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. will have a marginal effect on demand toward year-end. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will remain sensitive to shifts in U.S. fiscal and monetary policy expectations. The possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. Should it pass, the Fed could be forced to keep interest rates lower for longer to offset the massive tightening in financial conditions such a tax would impose. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We see limited downside for grains, despite record harvests. We favor wheat and rice over corn and beans. A stronger USD will be bearish for grain exports. Feature Commodities as an asset class remain attractive. However, constantly changing information flows affecting these markets compel us once again to favor tactical positioning over a broad strategic exposure to the asset class. Fundamentals - supply, demand, inventories - and financial variables remain in a state of flux. In the oil market, the durability of the OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to reduce oil production will be tested, following a year-end surge in global production. Markets will closely follow shipping activity - particularly out of the Persian Gulf - and global oil inventory levels for signs the production cuts engineered late last year by OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC producers, led by Russia, are taking hold. Uncertainty regarding the incoming Trump administration's tax and trade policies - and responses from states targeted by such policies (e.g., China and Mexico) - will keep decisions affecting supply and demand fluid. The incoming Trump administration's trade policies could alter global oil flows: e.g., a re-working of NAFTA that reduces U.S. refined-product exports to Latin America would result in lower demand for crude at American refineries, and present an opening to Chinese refiners. In addition, as mentioned above, legislation authorizing border-adjusted taxes favoring exports and penalizing imports likely will be taken up this year in the U.S. Congress. If we did see tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports, we believe it would prompt a USD rally via reducing America's current account deficit. This would, all else equal, send commodity prices sharply lower, as EM commodity demand will contract, owing to higher USD prices for commodities, and production ex U.S. will increase, due to lower local costs. That said, border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. also would increase the price of imports, and lift realized and expected inflation. How this plays out is highly uncertain at present. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session. If it passes, it would have major implications for pricing relationships globally - chiefly WTI vs. Brent, and Brent vs. Dubai crudes, along with product differentials that drive shipping economics. If such a bill looks like it will pass, we expect a sharp increase in commodity-price volatility globally. If the odds do favor such a tax regime shift, we would look to get long WTI and short Brent further out the curve, expecting higher U.S. exports and lower imports. In addition, we would look to get long gold volatility - buying puts and calls - as policy uncertainty effects resolve themselves. Heightened Uncertainty Means Tactical Positioning Once Again Trumps Passive Commodities Allocation The primacy of tactical positioning was demonstrated in 2016 in the oil market, when strategic positions quickly became tactical, either because they were stopped out or reached their P&L targets quicker than expected. Supply destruction dominated price formation last year, following OPEC's decision to abandon its strategy to support prices via production management in November 2014. This destruction occurred mostly in non-Gulf OPEC, which was down 7.0% yoy in 2016 (Chart 2), and non-OPEC producers, particularly the U.S. shale-oil fields, where yoy production was down 12.0% by year-end 2016 (Chart 3). Chart 2Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production... Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production ... Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production ... Chart 3...And U.S. Production ... and U.S. Production ... and U.S. Production Even in states where production increased - chiefly KSA and Russia (Chart 4) - domestic finances crumbled, leaving them in dire straits. By our estimates, between July 2014, just prior to its decision to launch OPEC's market-share war, and December 2016, KSA had burned through $220 billion of it foreign reserves, equivalent to 30% of its central-bank holdings. Russia had drawn down its official reserves by $77 billion over the same period, or 16% of its holdings; its burn rate was reduced by allowing its currency to depreciate, which lowered the local cost of producing oil and boosted profitability of exports priced in USD. This was the background that forced OPEC, led by KSA, and non-OPEC, led by Russia, to negotiate the year-end pact that resulted in an agreement to cut production by up to 1.8 mm b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 mm from OPEC, 300k b/d from Russia, and another 300 from other non-OPEC producers. The goal of this agreement is to reduce global oil inventories to more normal levels (Chart 5). Chart 4KSA, Russia Production Ramp ##br##Exacerbated Price Weakness KSA, Russia Production Ramp Exacerbated Price Weakness KSA, Russia Production Ramp Exacerbated Price Weakness Chart 5KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed ##br##At Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed at Lowering Inventories KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed at Lowering Inventories Throughout 2016, as the supply-destruction drama was unfolding, numerous opportunities opened up to investors to fade market overshoots, brought about by over-reactions to fast-moving news flows. Unrestrained output by OPEC and non-OPEC producers strained oil-storage facilities early in the year, taking markets to the brink of breaking down entirely. Unexpected shifts in U.S. monetary policy - driven by random-walking data - also contributed to oil price volatility and opened numerous trading opportunities. Markets essentially ignored the cumulating right-tail price risks last year, following the supply destruction wrought by OPEC's declaration of a market-share war, and Russian overtures to OPEC seeking a production-allocation dialogue, which were very much in evidence in January 2016. The continual OPEC-Russia dialogue, which appeared to be bearing fruit in Doha before it was scuppered by KSA at the last minute in April, was the underlying geopolitical driver last year, and kept the odds of a production deal elevated. Based on our modeling, the supply surge following OPEC's decision made getting long contingent upside price exposure extremely compelling, particularly as it imperiled the finances of all oil producers - rich and poor, but mostly the poorer states like Venezuela and Nigeria. Our reasoning was lower prices would accelerate rebalancing of global markets and raise the odds of a major supply disruption at one of these failing states.2 Our modeling consistently indicated global oil markets would rebalance in 2016H2.3 Ultimately, this is how things played out, aided in no small measure by mid-year wildfires in Canada, which temporarily removed move than 1mm b/d from global markets, and sabotage of pipelines and loading facilities in Nigeria. Even with that, markets remained under pressure as Canadian barrels returned, and foreign reserves in KSA and Russia were rapidly depleted. These fundamentals, along with constantly changing Fed guidance, provided numerous opportunities to exploit recurring patterns thrown up by chance, as is evident in the returns on recommendations we made - averaging 95.1% last year - that naturally followed from our analysis (Table 1). Our favored exposure was getting long contingent exposure (i.e., options), using deferred call spreads in WTI and Brent, given our assessment the odds of higher prices exceeded the market's. Later in the year, following the OPEC-Russia pact, we got long a front-to-back crude oil spread (Dec/17 WTI vs. Dec/18 WTI) expecting the goal of the deal - reducing global inventories - stood a good chance of being realized. We got lucky putting the trade on as the market was correcting, but just ahead of the statement by KSA's oil minister that the Kingdom would do "whatever it takes" to make the deal work. This transformed a strategic position - one we expected to hold for months - into a one-week exposure that returned 493% (Table 1). Table 1Energy Trades Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 In order to obtain a more detailed assessment of our energy portfolio's performance, we built an information ratio (IR) to evaluate how our energy recommendations performed compared to a selected benchmark, the S&P GS Commodity Index (GSCI). Essentially, our IR is used to assess whether an active portfolio has outperformed the selected benchmark in a consistent manner during the period of analysis, given the risk it incurred. To that end, our ratio looks at the average excess return of the active portfolio against the benchmark. This average excess return is then divided by its standard deviation (also referred to as the tracking error volatility) in order to get a risk-adjusted metric to evaluate whether the risk we took were compensated by the returns we generated. Our IR thus is calculated as: Formula Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 The higher the IR, the better the risk-adjusted relative performance of the portfolio. Three elements can explain a high IR: high returns in the portfolio, low returns in the benchmark, or low tracking error volatility. Hence, this measure helps analyzing the notion of risk-reward tradeoff; it tells us whether or not the risk assumed in our trades was compensated by larger returns. In our case, to get the risk-adjusted returns of the energy portfolio, we selected the GSCI as a benchmark, as it is heavily skewed towards Energy commodities (around 60% of its composition). We believe this is a plausible benchmark alternative to our energy trade recommendations for an investor, whose choice is passive index exposure with a significant energy weighting. Our portfolio's average return in 2016 was 95%, while the GSCI return was 11%. The tracking error volatility was 56%.4 Using these inputs, we calculated the IR of our recommendations was 1.47. This is an excellent risk-adjusted return, and indicates the high volatility of our returns was more than compensated for by consistent positive excess returns our recommendations generated relative to passive GSCI exposure, which also can be used as a benchmark for energy-heavy commodity index exposure (i.e., "commodity beta"). Remain Overweight Oil We expect the combination of production cuts and natural declines will remove enough production from the market this year to restore global oil stocks to five-year average levels toward the end of 2017Q2 or early Q3 (Chart 5), even with cheating by OPEC and non-OPEC producers capable of increasing production. As a result, in 2017, we expect the OPEC-Russia deal to result in inventory draws of ~ 10% by 2017Q3. On the demand side, we continue to expect global growth of ~ 1.3 to 1.5mm b/d. Given these expectations, we expect U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl, up $5 from our 2016 forecast, on the back of the end-year OPEC-Russia pact. We are moving the bottom of the range in which we expect WTI prices to trade most of the time to $45/bbl and keeping the upside at $65/bbl. Markets already are pricing in a normalization of global inventories by year end (Chart 6 and Chart 7). We will look for opportunities to re-establish our long front-to-back positions, expecting the backwardation further out the curve will steepen. Chart 6Backwardation Steepening Near Term... Backwardation Steepening Near Term ... Backwardation Steepening Near Term ... Chart 7...And Further Out the Curve ... And Further Out the Curve ... And Further Out the Curve Further out the curve - i.e., mid-2018 and beyond - our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry for projects expected between 2015 - 2020 will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers, chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia. It will be difficult to offset natural decline-curve losses - which will increase as U.S. shales account for a larger share of global supply - and meet increasing demand. As we've often noted, any indication U.S. shales or conventional supplies (Gulf states and Russian production) will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand and replace natural declines could spike prices further out the curve. We expect U.S. oil exports to increase this year, which means the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, will increasingly price to move WTI into global markets. We expect U.S. WTI exports to increase from an average ~ 500k b/d, which should keep the price differential roughly around +$1.50/bbl differential (Brent over) for 2017. If we see border-adjusted taxation laws take effect, we would look to get long WTI vs. short Brent, and long U.S. products (e.g., U.S. Gulf gasoline and distillate exposure) vs. short Brent exposure. Remain Neutral Bulks, Base Metals Over in the bulks and base metals markets, a full-fledged iron-ore market-share war at the beginning of last year threatened to take prices to $30/ton. Then, seemingly out of the blue, an unexpected pivot by Chinese policymakers toward stimulating the "old economy" caught many bulks and base-metals traders and analysts - ourselves included - flat-footed. Powerful rallies in iron ore, steel and base metals early in the year on Chinese exchanges were dismissed as irrational exuberance on the part of retail investors. But, at the end of the day, these market participants were responsible for well-informed price signals that fully reflected low inventories and surging demand.5 The -0.5% average return in our bulks and base metals recommendations last year attests to how difficult we found these markets to read and anticipate (Table 2). Table 2Base Metals Trades Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 As always, the evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced to slightly oversupplied globally and in China. Production globally and in China is growing yoy, while consumption shows signs of slowing. (Chart 8 and Chart 9). Chart 8World Base Metals Consumption Slowing,##br## Relative to Production... World Base Metals Consumption Slowing, Relative to Production ... World Base Metals Consumption Slowing, Relative to Production ... Chart 9...As Is ##br##China's ... As Is China's ... As Is China's Uncertainty re the direction of China's fiscal and monetary policy - chiefly, whether policymakers will, once again, resort to stimulating the "old economy" - will keep us broadly neutral bulks and base metals until we get further clarity on the direction of policy. We expect the monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. Odds favor "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, but we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. The fate of border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. Congress is critically important to bulk and base-metals markets, since it would encourage exports and discourage imports (along with raising their prices). Tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports likely would prompt a USD rally, which would send commodity prices generally sharply lower. It would boost U.S. steel production and base metals exports, while raising the cost of imports. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session of Congress. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector will eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. Manufacturing will play a larger role in copper markets, and will drive the demand side this year. However, if we see a stronger USD - either as a result of Fed policy or U.S. fiscal policy - price appreciation will be limited. We remain neutral copper, expecting a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in China. Reflationary policies will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. The supply deficit in nickel will widen on the back of rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017, which will support prices. We expect nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. Aluminum supply - for the moment - will lag demand globally, which keeps us tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. Stay Neutral Precious Metals Precious metals, gold in particular, staged an impressive rally on the back of unexpected easing by the U.S. Fed in response to weaker-than-expected sub-1% GDP growth in 1Q16 GDP. Markets had been pricing in as many as four interest-rate hikes earlier in the year into short-term expectations, which were quickly dashed. Markets lowered their expectations for multiple rate hikes last year, which weakened the USD and U.S. real rates, setting the stage for the gold rally. Nonetheless, gold proved a difficult commodity to trade last year, as our results indicate - the average return on our precious metals recommendations amounted to a paltry -0.65% (Table 3). For the near term - i.e., until greater clarity on Fed policy and the incoming Trump administration's fiscal policy direction becomes clear - we remain neutral precious metals, and will avoid taking any further exposure other than perhaps getting long gold volatility - i.e., buying puts and calls in the gold market - if the odds of border-adjusted taxation legislation passing increase. Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand and increase supply ex U.S. at the margin for commodities generally, oil and base metals in particular. This would be deflationary, given the high correlations between oil and base metals consumption and U.S. inflation (Chart 10).6 However, such a taxation scheme also would raise U.S. inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, sending the U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, higher. The global disinflationary impulse from a stronger USD would run headlong into higher U.S. inflation, which would be a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Table 3Precious Metals Trades ##br##Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Chart 10Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted ##br##Taxes Prove Deflationary Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted Taxes Prove Deflationary Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted Taxes Prove Deflationary This will complicate U.S. monetary policy. We believe the Fed also will be waiting on such direction, and that interest-rate policy will, therefore, remain pretty much be on hold, keeping precious metals - gold, in particular - rangebound. For the moment, the possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. We are taking profits on the tactical long gold position we opened December 15, 2016, as of today's close. Remain Underweight AGS Lastly, Ag markets provided us no joy, as the El Nino wreaked havoc on our recommendations. Our average -1.0% return for the year amply demonstrates the difficulty of trading markets so heavily influenced by weather (Table 4). Going into 2017, we believe there is a limited downside for grains. The downtrend since August 2012 like forms a bottom this year, if, as we are modeling, we see a return to normal weather conditions. That said, the principal upside risk remains unfavorable weather in major grain-producing countries, which could send badly battered grain prices surging as they did in 2016H1. Among grains, we favor wheat and rice over corn and soybeans. Global soybean acreage is likely to expand as the crop provides higher returns than other grains. South American corn output will continue rising on favorable policies and weak currencies, adding further pressure to already-high U.S. corn inventories, in particular, and global inventories globally (Chart 11). Table 4AGS Trades Closed In 2016 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Chart 11Global Grain Inventories Remain High Global Grain Inventories Remain High Global Grain Inventories Remain High Softs - cotton and sugar - likely will underperform grains in 2017, reversing their outperformance this year. We are tactically bearish cotton, as U.S. cotton acreage is likely to increase next spring. Strategically, we are neutral cotton. For the global sugar market, barring extremely unfavorable weather, we are tactically and strategically bearish. This year's extreme rally in prices may result in a small supply surplus in 2017. Our Ag strategies will continue to focus on relative-value investments. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodities & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Belanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Tactics Cliff Notes; A Synopsis of MCDP 1-3 Tactics," published by the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. 10 May 1998 (pp. 2, 3. sf). 2 In our January 7, 2016, publication we noted investors were ignoring growing upside price risk and suggested they get long a Dec/16 $50/$55 WTI call spread to gain exposure to higher volatility. We also recommended remaining long Dec/16 and Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent following passage of legislation to allow U.S. crude exports. We ultimately took profits on these recommendations of 172% on the call spread in June, and 97% on the Dec/16 WTI vs. Brent spread in June, and 88% on the Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent spread in July, respectively (Table 1). Please see "Oil Market Ignores Right-Tail Saudi Risks" in the January 7, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 In our January 21, 2016, Commodity & Energy Strategy article entitled "Global Oil Sell-off Will Accelerate Rebalancing," we noted, "We expect oil markets to rebalance by late 2016Q3 or early Q4. We remain long Dec/16 $50 calls vs. $55 calls, in anticipation of rebalancing and as a hedge against geopolitical risk." 4 Note: In order to find the standard deviation of the portfolio's excess returns (tracking error volatility), we averaged the daily percentage change in each trade's underlying assets. Any given trade only weighed in the daily average return if it was open during that day of the year. We are not accounting for the type of trades (spreads, pairs or single trades), we only track the underlying asset returns. From these daily average returns we subtracted the daily return of the preferred benchmark to obtain the daily excess return. Using this, we computed an historical standard deviation (based on 20-day periods) for every day during which a trade was open in our portfolio (we had 203 days with at least one energy trade opened). Lastly, we annualized this standard deviation to obtain our tracking error volatility. 5 Please see "Dead-Cat Bounces Notwithstanding, Iron Ore Will Trade Lower" in the January 21, 2016 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and "Fade The Copper Rally" in the February 25, 2016 issue. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 In earlier research, we've shown U.S. core PCE inflation is highly correlated with EM oil and base metals demand. Please see "2017 Commodity Outlook: Precious Metals" published December 15, 2016. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017 Tactical Focus Again Required In 2017

Feature Dear Client, For the last publication of 2016, we have opted to do something a little different. 2016 was a year were political shocks took pre-eminence. Whether we are talking Brexit, Trump, Italian referendum, Japanese upper-house elections, or Rousseff's impeachment; it often felt like economics took the back seat to political events. While this kind of regime shift toward more politically-driven markets can feel jarring, it is not new. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a similar event occurred. Populations in Western democracies - the U.S. and the U.K. in particular - exhausted by a decade of elevated inflation, created one of these shifts by putting Thatcher and Reagan in power. With the benefit of insight, we know how the story ended: with great economic successes in both the U.K. and the U.S. However, when Thatcher and Reagan actually took power, it was far from obvious that Western economies were about to leave stagflation and begin a low inflation boom. Today, we do not know how the Trump experiment will end. It is a similarly radical shift that politician wants to implement. Trump and his team want to beat deflation, especially wage deflation for the middle class. This is easier said than done. While we cannot claim to know how a Trump presidency will unfold, BCA has tried to provide some clarity among the noise by focusing on the implications and risks created by the various policies proposed, as well as the threat to the actual implementation of the policies. To finish the year, we would like to provide our client with some perspective. We are sending you the "Mr X" BCA Outlook published in December 1980, when Reagan was the President-elect. What is striking is that then as today, BCA was trying to make a balanced assessment of the potential for positive or disastrous changes that were about to affect the U.S. and global economy. The worries were very pronounced but ultimately proved to be unfounded. We are not saying that worries regarding Trump's proposed policies are unwarranted, but it is important to remember that investors need to remain very nimble when such shifts are emerging. Ultimately, the final direction and effect of the shifts Trump wants to implement will take years to materialize. Looking at historical reactions to similar political sea-changes is a comforting way to put things into perspective. After all, according to Zhou Enlai, it is still too early to judge the effect of the French Revolution.1 Have a great holiday period and a happy and prosperous new year. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President

Highlights The U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate while the RMB will depreciate further. This is a bad omen for EM risk assets, commodities, and global late cyclical equity sectors. Gold often leads oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. EM credit spreads have become detached from fundamentals and are unreasonably tight. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity trade: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Feature There are several major discrepancies in financial markets that in our view are unsustainable. 1. The gap between EM equity breadth, USD, RMB and EM share prices One way to measure equity market breadth is to compare performance of equal-weighted versus market cap-weighted stock price indexes. Based on this measure, EM stock market breadth has been deteriorating. Poor breadth often heralds a major selloff (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Remarkably, the same measure for the U.S. stock market shows improving breadth. The relative performance of equally-weighted EM stocks against U.S. equity indexes - a measure of breadth in relative performance - can also be a reliable marker for the relative performance of market cap-weighted indexes. It has plummeted to a new low pointing to new lows in EM versus U.S. relative share prices. In addition, a surging U.S. dollar has historically meant lower EM share prices (Chart I-2). We doubt this time is different. Finally, EM risk assets have decoupled from the RMB/USD exchange rate as well. The RMB has been depreciating and China's domestic corporate and government bond yields have spiked. As a result, the on-shore bond prices in RMB terms have plummeted (Chart I-3). Chart I-2A Rising U.S. Dollar Is ##br##A Bad Omen For EM A Rising U.S. Dollar Is A Bad Omen For EM A Rising U.S. Dollar Is A Bad Omen For EM Chart I-3China's On-Shore Corporate Bond##br## Prices Have Crashed bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c3 Experiencing considerable losses on their favorite financial investment of the past year, bonds, Chinese investors, as well as households and companies, could opt to switch into U.S. dollars. The stampede into the U.S. dollar could start as early as January when the annual US$ 50,000 quota per person becomes available. It is hard to see what the government will do to preclude this rush and massive flight towards U.S. dollars. In China, households' and corporates' RMB deposits in the banking system amount to RMB 122 tn or US$17.5 tn. Hence, the PBoC's foreign exchange reserves including gold at US$ 3.2 tn are only equal to 18.5% of these deposits at the current exchange rate. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar will appreciate and the RMB will depreciate. This is a bad omen for EM share prices and other risk assets. 2. Oil and copper prices deviating from gold prices Historically, when gold and oil prices have diverged, gold in most cases has proven more forward looking, with oil prices ultimately converging toward gold prices. Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B illustrate past episodes of gold and oil decoupling (in the 1980, 1990s and 2008), each of which were resolved via oil prices gravitating toward gold prices. Chart I-4AGold Led Oil Prices bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c4a bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c4a Chart I-4BGold Led Oil Prices Gold Led Oil Prices Gold Led Oil Prices In short, if history is any guide, the current gap between gold and oil prices will likely close via lower oil prices (Chart I-5, top panel). The same holds true for the recent divergence between gold and copper prices (Chart 5, bottom panel). We identified four historical periods when gold and copper prices diverged. In each case, it was copper prices that amended their trajectory and aligned with the direction of gold prices (Chart I-6A and 6B). Chart I-5Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Chart I-6AGold Led Copper Prices Too bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6a bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6a Chart I-6BGold Led Copper Prices Too bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6b bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6b In sum, historically there have been a number of episodes when gold has led both oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. Chart I-7China: Dichotomies bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c7 The underlying rationale could be that gold responds to monetary/liquidity conditions (gold is very sensitive to U.S. TIPS (real) yields) while oil and copper are more sensitive to growth conditions. Tightening in monetary/liquidity conditions often precedes a growth relapse. This could be the reason why gold has led oil and copper prices on several occasions in the past. 3. Dichotomies in China's industrial economy There are two types of dichotomies underway within China's industrial economy: The first is between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices. Commodities prices have surged, but the pace of manufacturing production has not improved at all (Chart I-7). There have been major discrepancies among various segments of China's industrial economy, with utilities surging and the technology sector remaining robust, and many others stagnating. The decoupling between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices can be explained by financial speculation and supply cutbacks. The former is unsustainable, while the latter is reversing as the government is gradually lifting restrictions on supply for coal and steel. The second is between the private- and state-owned parts of the industrial sector. The state-owned segment has experienced a meaningful improvement in output, while private companies in the industrial sector have seen their output growth weaken, albeit the growth rate is higher than in the SOE sector. (Chart I-7, bottom panel). As China's fiscal and credit impulses wane,1 activity in the state-owned industrial segment will relapse anew. 4. EM credit spreads diverging from EM currencies and credit fundamentals EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads (credit markets) are once again proving very resilient, despite the renewed selloff in EM currencies (Chart I-8). EM credit markets have defied deteriorating EM credit fundamentals in the past several years. Below we identify several divergences and anomalies within the EM credit space that give us confidence that EM credit markets have become detached from fundamentals, and that their risk-reward profile is poor. Chart I-8EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies:##br## A Widening Dichotomy EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies: A Widening Dichotomy EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies: A Widening Dichotomy Chart I-9EM Corporate Financial Health:##br## Not Much Improvement bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c9 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c9 The EM Corporate Financial Health (CFH) Indicator has stabilized, but remains at a very depressed level (Chart I-9, top panel). This amelioration is largely due to the profit margin component. The other three components have not improved (Chart I-9, second panel). The valuation model based on the EM CFH indicator shows that EM corporate spreads are far too tight (Chart I-10). Chart I-10EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive The strong performance of EM credit markets in recent years has been justified by the persistence of low bond yields in developed markets (DM). Yet the latest spike in DM bond yields has so far not caused EM credit spreads to widen. We expect U.S./DM government bond yields to rise further, and the U.S. dollar to continue to strengthen. This, along with potential broad-based declines in commodities prices, should lead to material widening in EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads in early 2017. With respect to unsustainable discrepancies, the case in point is Brazil. The country's sovereign and corporate spreads have tightened a lot this year, even though economic activity continues to shrink. The country has had numerous boom-bust cycles in the past 100 years, yet this depression is the worst on record. In fact, the nation's economic growth and public debt dynamics are worse than at any time during the past 20 years. Yet, at 300 basis points, sovereign spreads are well below the 1000-2500 basis point trading range that prevailed in the second half of 1990s and early 2000s (Chart I-11). Remarkably, the economy's pace of contraction has lately intensified (Chart I-12). This will likely worsen government revenues and lead to further widening in the fiscal deficit - making debt dynamics unsustainable. Another absurd credit market divergence is between China's sovereign CDS and Chinese offshore corporate spreads. Sovereign CDS spreads have been widening, but corporate credit spreads remain very tight (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign ##br##Spreads And Fundamentals Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign Spreads And Fundamentals Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign Spreads And Fundamentals Chart I-12Brazil's Economy: ##br##No Improvement At All Brazil's Economy: No Improvement At All Brazil's Economy: No Improvement At All Chart I-13Chinese Sovereign CDS And ##br##Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Chinese Sovereign CDS And Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Chinese Sovereign CDS And Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Yet there is much more risk in Chinese corporates than in government debt. The corporate sector commands record leverage of 165% of national GDP, while public debt stands at 46% of GDP. Besides, the central government in China will always have immediate access to domestic or foreign debt markets, while some corporations could lose access to financing if creditors question their creditworthiness and decide to tighten credit. There is no rational case to support the rise in sovereign CDS when corporate spreads are tame. The only feasible explanation is that investors - who are invested in Chinese corporate bonds, and are not interested in selling them - are buying sovereign CDS to tactically hedge their credit exposure. If and when market sentiment sours sufficiently, and credit spread widening is perceived durable and lasting, real money will sell corporate bonds, resulting in a major spike in corporate spreads. 5. Divergence between global late cyclicals and the U.S. dollar Another area where we detect that financial markets have lately become overly optimistic is in global late cyclicals - materials, machinery and energy stocks. Typically, the absolute share prices in these sectors correlate with the U.S. dollar exchange rate but they have lately diverged (Chart I-14). Furthermore, global machinery stocks in general, and Caterpillar's share price in particular, have lately staged significant gains, while their EPS and sales continue to plunge (Chart I-15). Notably, Caterpillar's sales have not improved, even on a rate-of-change basis. Chart I-14Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: ##br##Unsustainable Decoupling Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: Unsustainable Decoupling Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: Unsustainable Decoupling Chart I-15Global Machinery Sales And##br## Profits Continue Plunging Global Machinery Sales And Profits Continue Plunging Global Machinery Sales And Profits Continue Plunging EM including China capital spending in real terms is as large as the U.S. and EU capital spending combined (Chart I-16). If the EM and China capex cycle does not post a recovery, which is our baseline view, it will be hard for global late cyclical stocks to continue rallying based solely on the positive outlook for U.S. infrastructure spending and potential U.S. tax reforms. In short, global late cyclicals such as machinery, materials and energy stocks that performed quite well in 2016 are vulnerable to a major pullback as EM/Chinese capital spending disappoints on the back of credit growth deceleration. Notably, these global equity sectors have reached a major technical resistance that will likely become a ceiling for their share prices (Chart I-17). Chart I-16EM/China's Capex Is As Large As ##br##U.S. And Euro Area Combined EM/China's Capex Is As Large As U.S. And Euro Area Combined EM/China's Capex Is As Large As U.S. And Euro Area Combined Chart I-17Global Late Cyclicals Are ##br##Facing Technical Resistance Global Late Cyclicals Are Facing Technical Resistance Global Late Cyclicals Are Facing Technical Resistance 6. Decoupling between the South African rand and precious metals prices The South African rand's recent resilience - despite the considerable drop in precious metal prices - is unprecedented (Chart I-18, top panel). Similarly, the rand has also decoupled from the exchange rate of another major metals producer: Australia (Chart I-18, bottom panel). We cannot think of any reason why these discrepancies can or should persist. Rising global bond yields and a broadening selloff in commodities prices should hurt the rand. In fact, the trade-weighted rand is facing a major technical resistance (Chart I-19) and will likely relapse sooner than later. Chart I-18Rand, AUD And ##br##Precious Metals Rand, AUD And Precious Metals Rand, AUD And Precious Metals Chart I-19Trade-Weighted Rand Is ##br##Facing Technical Resistance Trade-Weighted Rand Is Facing Technical Resistance Trade-Weighted Rand Is Facing Technical Resistance We reiterate our structural short position in the rand versus the U.S. dollar, and on October 12, 2016 initiated a short ZAR / long MXN trade. Traders should consider putting on these trades. Investment Strategy Chart I-20EM Relative Equity Performance ##br##Is Heading To New Lows EM Relative Equity Performance Is Heading To New Lows EM Relative Equity Performance Is Heading To New Lows Emerging markets share prices and currencies have been doing poorly since October, despite U.S. equity shares breaking out to new highs. In fact, almost all relative outperformance has been wiped out (Chart I-20). BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team expects further declines in EM share prices and currencies, as well as a selloff in domestic bonds and a widening of sovereign and corporate spreads. Absolute return investors should stay put, while asset allocators should maintain underweight positions in EM risk assets within respective global portfolios. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com India: Demonetization And Opportunities In Equities On November 8, India launched a demonetization program with the goal of removing the two most used banknotes - the 500 INR and 1000 INR banknotes - from circulation. Both banknotes accounted for roughly 85% of currency in circulation, which itself accounts for 13% of India's broad money supply. Moreover, almost 90%2 of retail transactions in India are cash-reliant. While around INR 13 trillion of notes (US$ 190 billion) have been deposited in the banking system as of December 10, only INR 5 trillion of new notes have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). India is unlikely to turn cashless overnight. According to a Harvard Business Review article,3 less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment instruments. Likewise, less than 2% of Indians have used a cellular phone to receive a payment. This implies cash shortages could persist for a while and will have a significant impact on short-term economic activity. There are numerous reports that layoffs and business shutdowns have ensued in several industries, particularly in the informal economy (Chart II-1). The service sector PMI already dipped below 50 in November and the manufacturing PMI fell as well (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Very Weak Employment Outlook Very Weak Employment Outlook Very Weak Employment Outlook Chart II-2Indian PMIs Are Sinking Indian PMIs Are Sinking Indian PMIs Are Sinking Having boomed over the past year, motorcycle sales growth is now waning. Similarly, passenger and commercial vehicle sales - that have been anemic - will now dip. However, the consumption slowdown should not continue beyond the next couple of months. As more currency is supplied by the RBI, economic activity will rebound - particularly household spending. Pent-up demand will be unleashed as money circulation is restored. Nevertheless, investment expenditures are the key factors for improving productivity and, hence, as non-inflationary growth potential. Capital spending had been anemic in India well before the demonetization program was announced (Chart II-3). The reason for such lackluster investment expenditure lies in the fact that past investment projects taken on by highly leveraged Indian conglomerates have delivered poor performance. This translated into ever rising non-performing loans (NPLs) at state banks. Without debt restructuring and public bank recapitalization, a new capex cycle is unlikely in India. Consistently, credit to large industries is now contracting (Chart II-4) and foreign lending to Indian companies is declining. Chart II-3Indian Capex Is Anemic Indian Capex Is Anemic Indian Capex Is Anemic Chart II-4Banks Prefer Consumers bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s2_c4 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s2_c4 We expect the demonetization program to hurt capital spending only mildly in the coming months, but do not expect a material bounce in investment afterward, unlike the one slated for household consumption. Indian share prices have more downside in absolute terms, as the market is still expensive and growth is slumping. Nevertheless, India will likely outperform the EM equity benchmark going forward (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge The rationale for our overweight on Indian equities within the EM stock universe is due to the nation's much better macro fundamentals relative to those in many other EM. In particular, deleveraging and NPL write-offs are more advanced, the current account deficit is small, and India will benefit from potentially lower commodities prices. Within the Indian bourse, we recommend overweighting software stocks that will benefit from a revival in advanced economies' growth and a weaker currency. Besides, Indian software stocks are not exposed to the currently weak domestic consumption cycle and in fact might benefit from the push toward digitalization in banking. Bottom Line: Indian consumption will weaken in the coming three months or so, but will rebound thereafter. The capex cycle is weak and will remain subdued. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity recommendation: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst aymank@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Key EM Issues Going Into 2017," dated December 14, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Chakravorti, B., Mazzotta, B., Bijapurkar, R., Shukla, R., Ramesha, K., Bapat, D., &Roy, D. (2013). The cost of cash in India. Institute of Business in the Global Context, Fletcher School, Tufts University. 3 Chakravorti, B. (2016, December 14). India's Botched War on Cash. Retrieved from https://hbr.org Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Inflation And Interest Rates Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Inflation And Interest Rates Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016