Protectionism/Competitive devaluation

Highlights There is more downside risk ahead as the geopolitical calendar is packed in May; Protectionism remains in play, but markets could also fall on Iran-U.S. tensions, military intervention in Syria, and Russia-West confrontation; Investors should expect volatility to go up as we approach a turbulent summer; We were wrong on Russia-West tensions peaking and are closing all of our Russian trades for now, but may look for new entry points soon; Go long a basket of NAFTA currencies versus the Euro and expect reflation to remain the "only game in town" in Japan. Feature "I'm not saying there won't be a little pain, but the market has gone up 40 percent, 42 percent so we might lose a little bit of it. But we're going to have a much stronger country when we're finished. So we may take a hit and you know what, ultimately we're going to be much stronger for it." President Donald Trump, April 6, 2018 Chart 1Teflon Trump Teflon Trump Teflon Trump There are times when conventional wisdom is spectacularly wrong. Last week was such a moment. Since Donald Trump became president, the "smart money" has believed that he was obsessed with the stock market. Therefore, the view went, none of his policies would threaten the bull market. We have pushed back against this assumption because our view is that geopolitical risks - specifically the lack of constraints on the executive branch in foreign and trade policy - would become investment relevant.1 This view has been correct thus far: we called the volatility spike and trade protectionism in 2018. Not only have President Trump's tariff pronouncements produced stock market drawdowns, but his popularity appears to be unaffected. Astonishingly, President Trump's approval rating collapsed as the stock market went up in 2017 and recovered as the stock market went in reverse this year (Chart 1)! It is therefore empirically incorrect that President Trump is constrained by the stock market. His actions over the past month, as well as his approval ratings, suggest that he is quite comfortable with volatility. There are two broad reasons why we never bought into the media hype. First, there is no real correlation, or only a weak one, between equity declines of 10% and presidential approval ratings (Chart 2). Generally, presidential approval rating does decline amidst market drawdowns of 10% or greater, but the effect on the presidency is only permanent if the momentum of the approval rating was already heading lower, otherwise the effect is minimal and temporary. Second, the median American does not really own stocks (Table 1). President Trump considers blue collar white voters his base and they care more about unemployment and wages, not their equity portfolios. At some point, equity market drawdowns will affect hard data and the real economy. This is the point at which President Trump will care about the stock market. Given that the market is already down 10% from the peak, we are not far away from this pain threshold. But in this way, President Trump is no different from any other president. Chart 2AThe Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... The Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... The Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... Chart 2B...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. ...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. ...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. The pessimistic view on trade protectionism risk, that there is more downside to equities ahead, is therefore still in play. Investors should be careful not to overreact to positive developments, such as President Xi's speech at the Boao Forum where he largely reiterated previous Beijing promises to open up individual sectors to foreign investment. In fact, it is the investment community itself that is the target of President Trump's rhetoric. In order to convince Beijing that his threat of protectionism is credible, President Trump has to show that he is willing to incur pain at home, which explains the quote with which we began this report. Table 1Stock Ownership Is Concentrated Amongst The Wealthiest Households Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility This is not dissimilar to President Trump's doctrine of "maximum pressure" which, when applied to North Korea, produced a significant bond rally last summer. The 10-year Treasury yield topped 2.39% on July 7 and then collapsed to a low of 2.05% in September.2 The vast majority of the yield decline, at the time, came from falling real yields as investors flocked into safe-haven assets amidst North Korean tensions and not lower inflation expectations. It is therefore dangerous to rely on conventional wisdom when assessing the limits of volatility or equity drawdowns. Any buoyant market reaction may in fact elicit a more aggressive policy from Washington. As if on cue, President Trump shocked the markets on April 7 by suggesting that he would impose another round of tariffs on a further $100bn worth of Chinese imports, bringing the total under threat to $160 billion. The announcement came after the market closed 0.89% up on April 6. Perhaps President Trump was irked that the market was so dismissive of his trade threats and decided to jolt it back to reality. In addition to trade, there are several other reasons to be bearish on risk assets as we approach May: Chart 3Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Chart 4Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Inflation: Unemployment is low, with wage pressures starting to build (Chart 3). Meanwhile, teacher strikes in Red States like Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arizona are signalling that public service sector wage pressures are building in the most fiscally prudent states. Service sector wages cannot be suppressed through automation or outsourcing and are therefore likely to add to inflationary pressures (Chart 4). The Fed remains in tightening mode, despite the mounting geopolitical risks. "Stroke of pen risk:" Another sign that President Trump is comfortable with market drawdowns is his increasingly aggressive rhetoric on Amazon. There is a rising probability that the current administration decides to up the regulatory pressure on the technology and retail giant, as well as a possibility that other technology companies like Facebook and Google face "stroke of pen" risks. Iran: This year's premier geopolitical risk is the potential for renewed U.S.-Iran tensions.3 Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has staffed his cabinet with two hawks, new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Meanwhile, tensions in Syria are building with potential for U.S. and Iranian forces to be directly implicated in a skirmish. The U.S. is almost certain to militarily respond to the alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government forces against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Douma. Throughout it all, investors appear to remain unfazed by the rising probability that Iran's 2 million barrels of oil exports come under renewed sanction risk, mainly because the media is ignoring the risk (Chart 5). Chart 5The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk Russia: As we discuss below, tensions between the West and Russia appear to be building up anew. Particularly concerning is the aforementioned chemical attack in Syria, which Moscow considers a "false flag operation." The Russian government hinted in mid-March that precisely such an attack may occur and that the U.S. would use it as a pretext to attack Syrian government forces and structures.4 Our view that tensions have peaked, elucidated in a recent report, therefore appears to have been spectacularly wrong. Chinese reforms: Now that Xi Jinping has finished setting up his new government, his initiatives are starting to be implemented. While some slight tax cuts are on the docket, and interbank rates have eased significantly, there is no sign of broad policy easing or economic recovery (Chart 6). Rather, both Xi and his economic czar Liu He have continued to stress the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, pollution, and poverty - the first two requiring tighter policy. Xi has stated that deleveraging will focus on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments. SOEs will have debt caps and will not be allowed to lend to local governments. Instead, local governments will have to borrow through formal bond markets, giving the central government greater control. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Housing says property restrictions will remain in place. All in all, the risk of negative surprises in China this year remains significant, with a likely negative impact on global growth.5 There is also a fundamental reason for equity market weakness: the market is likely coming to grips with a calendar 2019 EPS growth of a more reasonable 10% annual rate compared with this year's near 20% peak growth rate. This transition, which our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy has highlighted in recent research, will be turbulent.6 In addition, Anastasios has pointed out that stocks are reacting to a more bearish mix of soft and hard data (Chart 7), suggesting that not all of the market volatility is due to headline risk. Chart 6China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 Chart 7Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market How should investors make sense of these budding risks? Going forward, we would fade any enthusiasm or narratives of "peak pessimism" on trade protectionism. It is in the interest of the Trump administration that investors take his threats seriously. President Trump literally needs stocks to go down in order to show Beijing that he is serious. The summer months could be volatile as market confusion grows amidst the upcoming event risk (Table 2). This may be a good time to be risk-averse, with the old adage "sell in May and go away" appropriate this year. Table 2Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility There are several reasons why protectionism is a much bigger deal than it was in the 1980s when investors last had to price a trade war between two major economies (Japan and the U.S. at the time): Chart 8This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... Chart 9...Globalization... ...Globalization... ...Globalization... Supply chains are a much bigger deal today than thirty years ago (Chart 8); The share of global exports as a percent of GDP is much higher today (Chart 9); Interest rates are much lower, leaving little room for policymakers to ease (Chart 10); Stock market valuations are higher, leaving stocks exposed to drawbacks (Chart 11); Unlike 1981-88, when Japan and the U.S. waged a nearly decade-long trade war while remaining allies in the Cold War, China and the U.S. are outright rivals. This increases the probability that Beijing's reprisal, given its constraints in retaliating against U.S. exports (Chart 12), could take a geopolitical turn. Chart 10...Policymaker Ammunition... ...Policymaker Ammunition... ...Policymaker Ammunition... Chart 11...And Valuations ...And Valuations ...And Valuations Chart 12China May Run Out Of U.S. Exports To Sanction Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Investors should therefore prepare for volatility of volatility. Amidst the confusion, there could be some not-so-positive news that the market overreacts to with optimism, and some not-so-negative news that the market reacts to with pessimism. In our six years of publishing geopolitically driven investment strategy, we have not seen a similar period where a confluence of risks and tensions are building up at the same time. May should therefore be a busy month. Mexico: A Silver Lining Amidst Mercantilism Risk? Mexico began the year with clouds over its head due to the Trump team's tough negotiating line on NAFTA. The third round of negotiations, in September 2017, ended on a bad note. The peso tumbled and headline and core inflation soared, portending both tighter monetary policy and weaker domestic demand.7 Today, however, the odds of renewing NAFTA have improved significantly. We have reduced our probability of Trump abrogating the trade deal from 50% to 20%. The administration appears to be focused on China and therefore looking to wrap up the NAFTA negotiations quickly over the summer. This would give time to send the new deal to the Mexican and U.S. congresses prior to the September changeover in Mexico's legislature and January changeover in the U.S. legislature. The U.S. has reportedly compromised on an earlier demand that NAFTA-traded automobiles have a U.S. domestic content of 50%.8 Meanwhile, inflation has peaked and the peso has firmed up (Chart 13), which will help buoy real incomes and boost purchasing power. Economic policy has been prudent, with central bank rate hikes restraining inflation and government spending cuts producing a primary budget surplus (and a much-reduced headline budget deficit of -1% of GDP) (Chart 14).9 Chart 13Mexico: Peso & Inflation Mexico: Peso & Inflation Mexico: Peso & Inflation Chart 14Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals In this more bullish context, the Mexican elections on July 1 are market-neutral. True, it is hard to present a strong pro-market outcome. The public is shifting to the left on the economic spectrum while the outgoing "pro-market" administration of Enrique Pena Nieto has lost credibility. The latest polling suggests that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) is polling in the lower 30-percentile (around 33%), above his next competitors, Ricardo Anaya (PAN) at 26% and Jose Antonio Meade (PRI) at 14% (Chart 15). However, the latest data point of the admittedly volatile polling gives AMLO a much less commanding lead of 6-7% over Anaya than he had before. AMLO is polling around his performance in the 2006 and 2012 elections (35% and 32%, respectively), has increased his lead over the other candidates, and his National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and "Together We'll Make History" coalition are also polling with double-digit leads (Chart 16). The general shift to the left is also apparent in the fact that Ricardo Anaya's PAN has been forced to combine with the left-wing PRD in order to garner votes. Chart 15AMLO's Lead Is Not Insurmountable Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 16Likely No Majority In Congress Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Nevertheless, political risk is overstated for the following reasons: AMLO is not Hugo Chavez:10 True, he is a leftist, a populist, and has a reputation for egotism. He is Mexico's fitting anti-Trump. Nevertheless, he is also a known quantity, having run for president and engaged with the major parties for over a decade. While he elevates headline political risk, we would fade the risk based on the fact that Mexico is a relatively right-wing country (Chart 17), and his movement will probably not garner a majority in Congress (see next bullet). Notably, AMLO's rhetoric on Trump and NAFTA has been restrained, and his personnel decisions have been competent and orthodox. He has not suggested he will revoke new private Mexican oil concessions, under the outgoing government's privatization scheme, but only halt the auctions. AMLO will be constrained by Congress: The trend in Mexico is towards "pluralization" or fragmentation in Congress (see Chart 18), meaning that ruling parties will have to share power. This is not a negative development. As we recently pointed out, political plurality engenders stability by drawing protest parties into centrist coalitions and by allowing establishment parties to coopt protest narratives without having to actually protest or revolt.11 At this point in time, it is difficult to see how AMLO's MORENA garners enough support to get a majority in Congress. AMLO's closest challenger is right-wing and pro-market: If AMLO loses the election, Ricardo Anaya of PAN will not be scorned by financial markets. In 2006, AMLO looked like he would win the election but then lost to Felipe Calderon (PAN). Of course, a victory by Anaya is not very market positive either, as PAN is in an unstable coalition with the left-wing PRD and would also be constrained in Congress. Still, there would be a lower probability of reversing the outgoing PRI administration's policies than under AMLO. AMLO is unlikely to repeal NAFTA: Mexico's exports to NAFTA partners comprise 30% of GDP, and it would be exceedingly dangerous for a Mexican leader to provoke Trump on the issue. A plurality of the Mexican public (44%) supports the ongoing NAFTA negotiations as they have been handled by the current government (Chart 19), as of late February polling by the Wilson Center. The same polling shows that Mexicans are generally aware of how important NAFTA is for their economy. This is despite the polls showing that a majority of Mexicans have a negative view of the U.S., due largely to Trump's rhetoric (though that majority has fallen considerably since last year to 56%). In other words, anti-American sentiment is not turning the Mexican public against compromising on a new NAFTA deal. Chart 17Mexicans Lean Right Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 18Mexico's Rising Political Plurality Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Finally, Mexico is more exposed to U.S. growth (which is charged with fiscal stimulus), and to BCA's robust outlook on oil prices (as opposed to our weaker metals outlook), while it is less exposed to weakening Chinese demand than other EMs (such as South Africa or Brazil).12 The peso looks particularly attractive relative to the latter two currencies (Chart 20). Chart 19Mexicans Want NAFTA To Survive Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 20A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? None of the above should suggest that the Mexican election will be a smooth affair. The rise of AMLO will create jitters in the marketplace, particularly as he faces off against Trump, who will continue to try to pressure Mexico over immigration and border security even once NAFTA negotiations are squared away. Nevertheless, the cyclical backdrop has improved while the major headwind of NAFTA abrogation seems to be abating. Bottom Line: Mexico's presidential campaign, election, and aftermath will give rise to plenty of occasion for volatility, particularly as President Trump and a likely President Obrador will not shy from a war of words. Nevertheless, Mexico's economic policy is stable and the NAFTA headwind is abating. We recommend going long Mexican local currency bonds relative to the EM benchmark. We also recommend that clients go long a NAFTA basket of currencies - the peso and the loonie - versus the euro. Our currency strategist - Mathieu Savary - has recently pointed out that the euro has moved ahead of long-term fundamentals and is ripe for a near-term correction.13 Japan: Abe Will Survive Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has come under rising public criticism in recent that is dragging down his approval ratings (Chart 21). Three separate scandals are weighing on his administration: one relating to the government's sale of land at knockdown prices to a nationalist school, Moritomo Gakuen, tied to Abe's wife; another relating to the discovery of "lost" journals of Japan Self-Defense Force activity during the Iraq war; another tied to the mishandling of statistics in promoting the government's new revisions to the labor law. Abe's popularity has tested lower lows in the past, but he is approaching the floor. And while Abe is still polling in line with the popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at this stage in his term (Chart 22), nevertheless he is approaching his 65th month in office when Koizumi stepped down. Chart 21Abe's Approval Testing The Floor Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Chart 22Abe Holding At Koizumi's Levels Of Support Expect Volatility... Of Volatility Expect Volatility... Of Volatility More importantly, the all-important September leadership election is approaching. The challenges arising today are at least partly motivated by factions within the LDP that want to challenge Abe's leadership. Koizumi stepped aside in September 2006 because he could not contend for the LDP's leadership due to party rules that limited the leader to two consecutive three-year terms. Abe is not constrained on this front. He has already revised those rules to three terms, giving him until September 2021 to remain eligible as party leader. He wants to run again and incumbents are heavily favored in party elections. Abe also secured his second two-thirds supermajority in the House of Representatives, in October 2017. This was a remarkable feat and one that will make it difficult for contenders to convince the rank and file in Japan's prefectures that they can lead the party more effectively. While Abe's 38% approval is now slightly below the psychologically important 40% level, and below the LDP's overall approval rating (Chart 23), there is no alternative to the LDP heading into July 2019 elections for the House of Councillors. This is manifest from the October election result. Chart 23Still No Alternative To LDP Still No Alternative To LDP Still No Alternative To LDP What happens if Abe's popularity sinks into the 20-percentile range? Financial markets will selloff in anticipation that he will be ousted. He could conceivably survive a scrape with the upper 20% approval range, but markets will assume the worst once he dips beneath 30% in the average polling on a sustainable basis. Markets will also assume that the remarkably reflationary period in Japanese economic policy is coming to an end. Even when Abe's successor forms a government, investors may believe that the best of the reflationary push is over. We think that the market would be wrong to doubt Japan's inflationary push. First, if Abe is ousted, the LDP will remain in power: it has until October 2021 before it faces another general election that could deprive it of government control. (A loss in the upper house election in 2019 can prevent it from passing constitutional changes but not from running the country.) This ensures that policy will be continuous in the transition and that any changes in trajectory will be a matter of degree, not kind. Second, the phenomenon of "Abenomics" is not only Abe's doing but the LDP's answer to its first shocking experience in the political wilderness, from 2009-12. This experience taught the LDP that it needed to adopt bolder policies. The result was dovish monetary policy under Haruhiko Kuroda, who just began his second five-year term on April 9 and whose faction has the majority on the monetary policy board. Looser fiscal policy was another consequence - and ultimately it came to pass.14 It will be hard for a new LDP leader to tighten policy. Factions that are criticizing Abe or Kuroda today will find it harder to phase out stimulus once they are in office. Abe's successor will, like him, have to try policies that boost corporate investment, wages, the fertility rate, immigration, social spending and military spending.15 Without such initiatives, Japan will sink back into a deflationary spiral. As for BoJ policy, over the next 18 months the biggest challenges are meeting the 2% inflation target while the yen is rising due to both China's slowdown and trade war risks.16 Tokyo is also ostensibly required to hike the consumption tax in October 2019. This is more than enough to convince Kuroda to stand pat for the time being.17 In the meantime, Abe's push to revise the constitution is a significant factor in encouraging persistently loose monetary and fiscal policy. The national referendum on the matter could be held along with the early 2019 local elections or the July 2019 upper house election. It will be hard to win 50%+ of the popular vote and nigh impossible if the economy is failing. What should investors look for to determine if Abe's downfall is imminent? In addition to Abe's approval rating we will watch to see if the ongoing scandal probes produce any direct link to Abe, or if top cabinet ministers are forced to resign (like Finance Minister Taro Aso or Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera). It will also be a telling sign if Abe's "work-style" reforms to liberalize the labor market, which have received cabinet approval, wither in the Diet due to lack of party discipline (not our baseline view).18 But even granting Abe's survival, we would expect that China's slowdown and the U.S.-China trade war will keep the yen well bid. We are sticking with our tactical long JPY/EUR trade, which is up 2.6% thus far. Bottom Line: Shinzo Abe is likely to be re-elected as LDP leader in September and to lead his party in the charge toward the 2019 upper house election and constitutional referendum. Should he fall into the 20% of popular approval, the markets should sell off. His leadership and alliances have been remarkably reflationary and the policy tailwind could dwindle. We would fade this risk, but we still think the yen will remain buoyant due to China's internal dynamics and the U.S.-China trade war. We remain long yen/euro until we see signs that Washington and Beijing are able to defuse the immediate trade war. Russia: Tensions With The West Have Not Peaked Our view that tensions between Russia and the West would peak following President Putin's reelection has been spectacularly wrong.19 We still encourage clients to review the report, penned in early March, as it sets out the limits to Russia's aggressive foreign policy. The country is geopolitically a lot more constrained then investors think, and thus there are material limits to how far the Kremlin can take the rivalry with the West. What we did not account for is that such weakness is precisely the reason for the tensions. Specifically, the Trump administration - riding high following the success of its "maximum pressure" doctrine in the Korea imbroglio - smells blood. President Trump is betting that the view of Russian constraints is correct and therefore the time to pressure Putin - and prove his own anti-Kremlin credentials - is now. But has the market gotten ahead of itself? The expanded sanctions target specific individuals and companies - EN+ Group, GAZ Group, and Rusal - and yet the broad equity market in Russia has tumbled.20 Sberbank, which is nowhere mentioned in the sanctions, fell by an extraordinary 16% since the announcement. On one hand, there does appear to be a material step-up in sanctions. Despite being focused on specific companies, the new restrictions are designed to make the entire Russian secondary bond market "not clearable." The targeting of specific companies, therefore, was merely a shot-across-the-bow. The implication for the future - and the reason that Sberbank fell as much as it did - is that U.S. investors could be forbidden - or the compliance costs could rise by so much that they might as well be forbidden - from participating in Russian debt and equity markets in the future. On the other hand, our Russia geopolitical risk index has not priced in the renewed tensions (Chart 24). This means that either our currency-derived measure is wrong or the sell off in equity and debt markets is not translating into bearishness about the overall economy. Given our bullish oil outlook and our view of the limits of Russian aggression investors should expect, the index may actually be signaling that these tensions are an opportunity to buy Russian assets. Chart 24The Russia GPI Says No Risk The Russia GPI Says No Risk The Russia GPI Says No Risk That said, we have learned our lesson. There is no point in trying to catch a falling knife as the Kremlin and the White House square off over Syria and other geopolitical issues. As such, we are closing all of our Russia trades until we find a better entry point to capitalize on our structural view that there are material limits to geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia. The long Russia equities / short EM equities has been stopped out at 5% loss. Our buy South African / sell Russian 5-year CDS protection is down 20 bps and our long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds is up 1.07 bps. Investment Implications In April 2017, we penned a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!," turning the old "sell in May and go away" adage on its head.21 At the time, investors were similarly facing a number of geopolitical risks, from the second round of French elections to concerns about President Trump's domestic agenda. However, we had a very high conviction view that these risks were overstated. This time around, we fear that the markets are mispricing constraints on President Trump. Geopolitical risks ahead of us are largely in the realm of foreign policy, where the U.S. Constitution gives the president large leeway. This includes trade policy. As such, it is much more difficult to have a high conviction view on how the Trump administration will act towards China, Iran, and Russia. Furthermore, the success of the "maximum pressure" doctrine has emboldened President Trump to talk tough, worry about consequences later. Investors have to understand that we are the target of President Trump's rhetoric. There is no better way for the White House to show China, Iran, and Russia that it is serious - that its threats are credible - than if it strongly counters the view that it will do nothing to harm domestic equities. We therefore expect further volatility in the markets. We propose that clients hedge the risks this summer with our "geopolitical protector portfolio" - equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold - which is currently up 1.46%, although adding 10-Year U.S. Treasurys to the mix may make sense as well. We would also recommend that clients expect both a spike in the VIX and a rise in the volatility of the VIX (volatility of volatility). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com; and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Russia says U.S. plans to strike Damascus, pledges military response," Reuters, dated March 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "US drops contentious demand for auto content, clearing path in NAFTA talks," Globe and Mail, March 21, 2018, available at www.theglobeandmail.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Perched On An Icy Cliff," dated March 29, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Should Investors Fear Political Plurality?" dated November 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see "Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report; "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017; and "Japan: Abenomics Will Survive Abe," in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018; and "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see Cory Baird, "BOJ Chief Haruhiko Kuroda Begins New Term By Vowing To Continue Stimulus In Pursuit Of 2% Inflation," Japan Times, April 9, 2018, available at www.japantimes.co.jp. 18 Please see "Work style reform legislation gets Abe Cabinet approval," Jiji Press, April 6, 2018, available at www.the-japan-news.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Department of the Treasury, "Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations - 31 C.F.R. Part 589," dated April 7, 2018, available at treasury.gov. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights R-star is higher in the U.S. than in most other large economies. This includes China, where an elevated savings rate has depressed the neutral rate of interest. Countries with relatively high neutral rates like the U.S. will tend to run structural current account deficits, whereas countries with relatively low neutral rates will tend to run surpluses. The failure of the Trump administration to understand this basic economic lesson could inflame the ongoing trade spat between the two countries, at a time when populism is on the rise and China is challenging the U.S. for global influence. Fortunately, trade protectionism is less attractive when jobs are plentiful, as is the case in the U.S. today. Thus, we continue to see a market-friendly resolution to the ongoing conflict. Our base case remains that another global recession is still about two years away, which should keep the bull market in global equities intact. However, with global growth decelerating, financial conditions tightening at the margin, and the near-term signal from our proprietary MacroQuant model stuck in bearish territory for the second month in a row, the tactical picture for stocks remains rather murky. Feature Blame It On The Neutral Rate If the world of macroeconomics were set in a superhero universe, the real neutral rate of interest, otherwise known as R-star, would undoubtedly be cast as an arch-villain. R-star is the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation. A depressed R-star has made the zero lower-bound constraint on nominal rates a vexing problem for central bankers. Not long after the Global Financial Crisis began, policy rates fell to ultra-low levels. But even this was not enough to engender a strong recovery. Most economies needed negative real rates. However, with inflation stuck at low levels, there was a limit to how far below zero real rates could go. Japan, of course, has been no stranger to this problem. Policy rates have been close to zero for over 20 years, yet inflation remains stubbornly low (Chart 1). Some commentators have dismissed this issue, noting that real per capita GDP has still managed to grow at a reasonably healthy clip. Unfortunately, this misguided optimism ignores the fact that Japan was only able to keep the economy from sinking into a depression by relying on massive budget deficits. With Japanese monetary policy rendered impotent, fiscal policy had to pick up the slack. High levels of excess private-sector savings were absorbed with continued government dissavings (Chart 2). The result is a gross government debt-to-GDP ratio of 240%. A low R-star has also been a major problem in the euro area. Before the European sovereign debt crisis erupted, Germany was able to export its excess savings to the peripheral countries, who were more than happy to load up on cheap debt so that they could live beyond their means (Chart 3). Chart 1Japan: Even Zero Interest Rates ##br##Were Not Enough To Spur Inflation Japan: Even Zero Interest Rates Were Not Enough To Spur Inflation Japan: Even Zero Interest Rates Were Not Enough To Spur Inflation Chart 2Japan Relied On Large Fiscal Deficits And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Japan Relied On Large Fiscal Deficits And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Japan Relied On Large Fiscal Deficits And Current Account Surpluses To Offset The Rise In Private-Sector Savings Chart 3The European Periphery Is No Longer ##br##Absorbing Germany's Excess Savings The European Periphery Is No Longer Absorbing Germany's Excess Savings The European Periphery Is No Longer Absorbing Germany's Excess Savings Those days are over. Today, Germany's current account surplus stands at a gargantuan 8% of GDP, but much of Germany's savings are exported to the rest of the world. Consequently, the euro area current account balance has gone from roughly breakeven in the pre-crisis period to a surplus of 3% of GDP. This likely means that the neutral rate in the euro area has fallen further. R-Star In China Chart 4China Saves A Lot China Saves A Lot China Saves A Lot What about China? One might think that China's fast trend GDP growth rate would translate into a high neutral rate. However, the neutral rate is not just a function of trend growth. Most economic models state that the savings rate also affects the neutral rate.1 The more income people wish to save at any given interest rate, the lower the neutral rate will be. For a variety of institutional and cultural reasons, the Chinese save a lot (Chart 4). The national savings rate has averaged 50% of GDP for the past decade. In fact, despite an investment-to-GDP ratio of 44%, China still manages to run a current account surplus (remember the current account balance is just the difference between savings and investment). A Simple Thought Experiment The earth does not trade with Mars. As a result, the global current account balance must be zero; current account surpluses in one set of countries must be offset by current account deficits in another set of countries. Interest rates and exchange rates play a vital role in ensuring that this identity is satisfied. Imagine a bunch of island economies - all with different neutral rates - that do not trade with one another. Now suppose a technological breakthrough occurs that permits free trade and capital mobility. What would you expect to happen? Standard economic theory says that capital will flow towards the islands with relatively high interest rates. As shown in Chart 5, the flood of capital will push down the interest rate in those economies. A lower interest rate, in turn, will discourage saving and encourage investment, leading to a current account deficit. Capital inflows will also drive up the currency, while higher spending will push up consumer prices. Such a "real appreciation" of the exchange rate is necessary to ensure that increased spending falls primarily on foreign-made goods.2 Chart 5Interest Rates And Current Account Balances In An Open Economy U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? On the flipside, capital will flow out of economies with low neutral rates, putting upward pressure on interest rates. A higher interest rate will lead to more savings and less investment, translating into a current account surplus. Countries with relatively low neutral rates will also see a real depreciation of their exchange rates. If there is complete free trade and capital mobility, the final equilibrium will be one where interest rates are equalized across all islands and the current account deficits of the islands with relatively high neutral rates are exactly offset by the current account surpluses of the islands with low neutral rates. In addition, countries with relatively high neutral rates will end up with exchange rates that appear somewhat overvalued relative to their fair value, while those with low neutral rates will have exchange rates that appear somewhat undervalued. U.S.-China Trade Tensions: An Inevitable Conflict There are many structural reasons why the U.S. and China are at loggerheads over trade these days. We predicted that Trump would win the presidency largely because we thought the political/media establishment was underestimating the importance of the populist wave sweeping across the U.S. and much of the world. Our geopolitical analysts share this view. They have also argued that China's growing economic, military, and technological prowess will inevitably put it into conflict with the U.S., which has been the world's sole hegemon ever since the Soviet Union collapsed.3 This week's report adds another structural reason to the list. While R-star in the U.S. is fairly low by historic standards, it is higher than in most other countries, reflecting America's favorable demographics, large fiscal deficit, and relatively spendthrift culture. This means that the U.S. must run a structural current account deficit. This, of course, is at odds with the Trump administration's stated objectives. Efforts by China or any other country to "talk up" their currencies in the hopes of placating Trump will fail. The U.S. economy is already operating at close to full employment. A weaker dollar would only shift the composition of spending towards domestically-produced goods. The U.S., however, does not have enough spare labor to produce these additional goods. All that would happen is that inflation would rise, rendering U.S. exporters less competitive. More stimulative fiscal policy will further increase the neutral rate of interest in the United States. Chart 6 shows that the budget deficit is set to widen to nearly 6% of GDP by 2019 even if the unemployment rate continues to decline. A larger budget deficit will drain national savings, shifting the savings schedule in the savings-investment diagram discussed earlier to the left. This will result in a bigger current account deficit (Chart 7). Chart 6The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Chart 7A Bigger U.S. Budget Deficit Will Cause The U.S. Neutral Rate To Rise, ##br## Leading To A Larger Current-Account Deficit U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? Investment Considerations The specter of trade protectionism is here to stay, as is the prospect of escalating U.S.-China geopolitical tensions. Fortunately, beggar-thy-neighbor policies are less attractive when jobs are plentiful, as is the case in the U.S. today. Trump also remains constrained by the stock market's view of his actions. After all, this is a president who likes to measure the success of his economic agenda by the value of the S&P 500. As such, we expect both the U.S. and China to follow a two-pronged approach to trade issues over the coming months. Publicly, they will snipe at one another, threatening each other with tariffs and other trade barriers. Privately, they will seek out a compromise that avoids a full-out trade war. China's announcement this week that it will retaliate in kind to the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese imports should not have taken anyone by surprise. The Chinese government had repeatedly said that they would do precisely this. Importantly, U.S. tariffs do not kick in until June. Between now and then, negotiators from both sides will try to hammer out a deal. Just as with the steel and aluminum tariffs, the final set of tariffs will be a watered-down version of the original proposal. Political theatre will be the name of the game. As discussed in last week's Q2 Strategy Outlook, our base case remains that another global recession is still about two years away, which should keep the bull market in global equities intact.4 We warned investors to "Take Out Some Insurance" on February 2nd, one day before the VIX spike began.5 Now that the S&P 500 is 7% off its highs, our bet is that the path of least resistance for global equities over the next 12 months is up. Nevertheless, with global growth decelerating, financial conditions tightening at the margin, and the one-month ahead signal from the beta version of our forthcoming proprietary MacroQuant model stuck in bearish territory for the second month in a row, the tactical picture for stocks still looks rather murky (Chart 8). For the time being, short-term investors should sell the rallies and buy the dips. Chart 8MacroQuant Model: Tactical Picture For Stocks Still Looks Rather Challenging U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? U.S.-China Trade Spat: Is R-Star To Blame? 2 The real exchange rate can be thought of as the volume of foreign goods and services that can be acquired by selling a basket of U.S. goods and services. Mathematically, the real exchange rate between two currencies is the product of the nominal exchange rate and the ratio of prices between the countries. A real appreciation tends to make a country less competitive, either through a nominal increase in its currency or through an increase in domestic prices relative to foreign prices. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015; and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea,” dated May 29, 2012. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Q2 Strategy Outlook, “It’s More Like 1998 Than 2000,” dated March 30, 2018. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Take Out Some Insurance,” dated February 2, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The U.S. and China have a roughly 60-day period to prevent the current trade "skirmish" from metastasizing into a full-blown trade war; The revised U.S.-Korea trade deal suggests that Trump's trade negotiators are credible and are targeting China, not U.S. allies; The U.S. will demand that China's recent RMB appreciation is backed by a long-term reduction in foreign exchange intervention; Tariff reciprocity is not significant, but market access and investment reciprocity are; China will offer concessions first, and will only go to a trade war if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs anyway; Short Chinese technology stocks; remain short China-exposed S&P500 stocks in expectation of further volatility. Feature The market is coming to terms with the fact that President Trump is willing to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down 5.7% since the White House announced Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it announced forthcoming Section 301 tariffs against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets,1 we believe that the current set of U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a "trade skirmish," rather than a full-out war.2 That said, the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. Our "trade skirmish" view is low-conviction. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. As such, it is appropriate for the market to price a 20%-30% probability of a full-blown trade war. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the current market action is appropriately pricing the worst-case scenario. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities if a similar confrontation between Japan and the U.S. did not in the late 1980s? For three reasons. First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Second, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Third, supply chains are much more integrated today, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. As such, we think the current drawdown is appropriate. That said, the administration's policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer are on the same page, making China - and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea - the main target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 1). The rapid pace at which the administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China gives a clear indication of what is afoot. The U.S. is using the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 1).3 We think this strategy can work, as outlined last week, but there is plenty of room for mistakes that could derail it. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 1U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Trump also wants to change U.S. policy on immigration and could use the NAFTA negotiation to gain leverage over Mexico. There is therefore still some probability that Trump triggers Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe it has declined substantively since we put it at 50% in November, particularly given the U.S.-South Korea negotiations we discuss below.4 This week we take a look at the revised U.S.-Korea trade deal and what it suggests about the Trump administration's trade agenda more broadly. Then we update the status of the U.S.-China trade frictions, which are only temporarily subsiding, if at all. Lessons From The KORUS Talks The just-completed renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (the "KORUS FTA") offers some clues to the Trump administration's trade tactics that may be relevant for future negotiations with NAFTA partners, China, and others. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the KORUS FTA, as the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has ballooned since its implementation in March 2012 (Chart 2). Trump used the threat of withdrawing from the deal to pressure South Korean President Moon Jae-in not to ease sanctions on North Korea too rapidly. Chart 2Why Trump Likes Tariffs Why Trump Likes Tariffs Why Trump Likes Tariffs Now USTR Lighthizer and his South Korean counterpart, Hyun Chong-Kim, have agreed to the outlines of a revised deal.5 The key points are as follows: Steel tariff waiver for Korea: South Korea will receive a country-level exemption from the U.S.'s recently imposed steel tariffs.6 Going forward, Korean steel exports will be subject to quotas equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume during 2015-17. Greater market access for U.S. autos: Korea will double the number of autos it imports on the basis of U.S. safety standards, from 25,000 to 50,000 per year from each U.S. carmaker. It can import more subject to its own safety standards. It will refrain from any new emissions-standards tests, will accept U.S. safety standards on auto parts, and will ease ecological policies and the customs process of verifying the origin of exports. Delayed market access for Korean trucks: The U.S. will retain the existing 25% tariff on Korean trucks through 2041, instead of 2021 (Chart 2, second panel). Fair treatment of U.S. pharmaceutical imports: Korea promises not to discriminate against U.S. drugs but to grant them fair treatment under KORUS provisions. Ancillary currency agreement: The two sides appended a "gentleman's agreement" on currency policies, which is not a formal part of the deal and not subject to legislative confirmation. South Korea agreed not to devalue the won competitively, or to manipulate it more broadly, and to provide greater transparency regarding its interventions in foreign exchange markets. There are three main takeaways from the above. First, the U.S. is obviously focusing on non-tariff barriers to trade, the main hindrance to trade in a world with already low tariff rates. The grievances with Korea were primarily due to safety standards, environmental policies, and burdensome administration that hindered U.S. exports despite the reduction of tariffs under the KORUS agreement. Second, USTR Robert Lighthizer - the seasoned negotiator of the historic 1980s trade disputes with Japan, and the man in charge of the current NAFTA and China negotiations - deserves his reputation as a competent policymaker. He apparently makes concrete demands and is capable of compromising to conclude deals. This reduces the risk, overstated by the media, that the inexperienced U.S. president is driving the trade negotiations. Third, the U.S. is not deliberately trying to punish its allies in pursuit of some mercantilist fantasy of closing every single trade imbalance. Strategic logic dictated that Washington and Seoul needed to conclude a deal quickly so as to better coordinate on North Korea, and they did so. It is highly unlikely that the concluded deal will end the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, but it will likely improve it substantively. Moon Jae-in continues to be a pragmatist in his dealings with Trump and Trump is joining Moon's "Moonshine" policy of engagement with North Korea. Talk of the U.S. abandoning its allies did not materialize. (Japan and Taiwan are likely to get deals soon.) Most importantly, this deal is a strong indication that the U.S. will continue to pressure China on its foreign exchange practices. It would make no sense for the U.S. to require its allies to disavow competitive devaluation and reduce currency interventions while not demanding similar assurances from China. On this front, China's recent appreciation of the yuan will not ultimately satisfy the U.S., as it is arbitrary. The U.S. will need to extract deeper guarantees, with the implicit threat of tariffs to prevent China from backsliding. Otherwise the U.S. would yield Chinese exporters a foreign exchange advantage relative to American trade partners who agree to stop intervening to preserve a favorable exchange rate with the USD. A simple comparison of these countries currency moves over the past eight years reveals how they have allowed less appreciation relative to the U.S. than in trade-weighted terms, and how China would benefit if the others were forced to stop this practice while it was left off the hook (Chart 3). Chart 3The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation This last conclusion fits with our study of previous cases of U.S. trade protectionism, in which the end-game was dollar depreciation relative to key trade partners.7 The KORUS case can be considered alongside Lighthizer's and the Trump administration's handling of the Section 301 investigation into China's forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration came out swinging with unilateral 25% tariffs on about $60 billion worth of goods, to be listed on April 6 and enacted sometime in June. But it also signaled that it would allow a consultation period, and initiated a case through the World Trade Organization, thus reinforcing (rather than undermining) the global trading system. These developments give some grounds for optimism in the NAFTA negotiations and (less so) in the China negotiations. While China is preempting U.S. demands on its currency policy, it will be averse to providing any permanent guarantees, or to painful structural demands. This is due to its concerns about overall stability and its suspicion that the U.S. is pursuing a broader strategic containment policy against it. We discuss these issues below. Bottom Line: The preliminary conclusions of the KORUS FTA negotiation suggest that the Trump administration's trade leadership is credible, while Trump himself is looking for quick and concrete trade "wins" that can be presented to his domestic voter base. This is a marginally market-positive sign. But its ramifications are limited with regard to China, where strategic tensions and geopolitical competition will make it much harder to strike a similar deal quickly. U.S.-China: Fade The "Mirror Tax," Focus On Market Access And Tech China announced tariffs on roughly $3-$3.5 billion worth of U.S. goods on April 2 - ranging from fruits and nuts to wine and pork - in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. imposed in March under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. China used the exact same tariff rates as the U.S. - 25% and 10% - while selecting the product list so as to produce roughly the same net trade impact in USD terms (Chart 4). The implication is that China will retaliate in kind to deter the U.S., but does not wish to "up the ante." This is largely what we expected, but the implication is significant: the U.S. is about to release a preliminary list on April 6 of $50-$60 billion worth of goods on which it will slap tariffs. This second round of tariffs - which is China-specific - follows from the probe under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. China's recent decision suggests that if negotiations fail, it will respond with tariffs worth roughly the same amount, which is a much bigger exchange of fire for these two economies. The actual retaliatory action would most likely occur in June, when the U.S.'s list is finalized and implemented, though China may hint at its product list much sooner, adding to trade fears and market volatility.8 The Trump administration claims that its product list will be chosen by an algorithm to maximize the impact on Chinese exporters while minimizing the impact on the American consumer. Consistent with this aim, some reports indicate that the goods will be advanced technological products set to benefit from China's "Made in China 2025" plan, in which China has laid down aggressive domestic content requirements (Chart 5). Chart 4Tit For Tat Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 5China's High-Tech Protectionism Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China What is the Trump administration's goal? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin declared at the G20 finance ministers' meeting that he did not want to penalize Chinese imports so much as promote U.S. exports. Is this a credible basis for assessing the administration's policy? Yes and no. We think Mnuchin is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. When it comes to blocking imports or boosting exports, Mnuchin is right: the U.S. goal is not simply to punish Beijing for past unfair trade practices by blocking imports of Chinese goods. True, the Trump administration has focused on a lack of reciprocity in tariff rates. But a "mirror tax" or "mirror tariff" with China, which Trump has referred to, would not make much of a difference to the trade balance: Chart 6AThe U.S. Exports Soybeans And Cars To China Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 6BChina Exports Phones And Computers To The U.S. Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Taking a look at the top ten exports of the U.S. and China to each other (Chart 6 A&B), it is quite clear that China imposes higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods (Chart 7 A&B). This follows from World Trade Organization rules and the relative level of economic development of the two countries. Chart 7AAmerican Exports To China Face Higher Tariffs... Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 7B... Than Chinese Exports To America Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China If we equalize these tariffs by raising U.S. tariffs to the same level as their Chinese counterparts for the same good, we wind up with a very small $6.2 billion gain to the U.S. trade balance (Chart 8). If we focus only on the top ten goods that both countries export to each other, and impose a hypothetical mirror tax, we wind up with an even smaller gain for the U.S. of $3.9 billion (Chart 9). This is small fry and cannot be the administration's goal (at least not its main goal). The real goal is to gain greater market access for U.S. exports in China. Here the U.S. may have a case, as China lags both its developed and emerging market peers in sourcing its imports from the U.S. (Chart 10). While China comprises 24% of total EM imports, it comprises only 15% of U.S. exports to EM. Even in commodity exports, where the U.S. has made major inroads in China, Beijing has recently limited the American share (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 8Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 9Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact (2) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 10U.S. Grievance Is About Market Access Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China A simple, back-of-the-envelope comparison of the U.S.'s top exports to China and EM ex-China suggests that the U.S. can make a case that its exports are suffering unduly in China: China's share of top U.S. exports is lower than one might expect it to be relative to EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 11 A&B). The U.S.'s market share of China's imports in key goods is lower than it is in EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 12 A&B). The U.S. share of China's top imports is smaller than the DM-ex-U.S. share (Chart 13 A&B). Chart 11AChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Broad) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 11BChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Detailed) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 12AU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Broad) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 12BU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Detailed) Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 13AU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 13BU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China China has granted the legitimacy of U.S. complaints by pledging several times in the last few months to open market access. The latest news from the negotiations suggests that some progress is being made.9 Clearly the above is a very rough measure. Chinese consumers may not want to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as from Europe and Japan. The U.S. doubtless needs to improve its global competitiveness, and even then it may not gain as much market share in China as its DM peers. Nevertheless, Washington sees itself as the power that brought China into the global economy and allowed it to join the WTO. If China wants the U.S. to allow it to play a greater role in running the world, the U.S. is demanding a beneficial economic relationship in return. One way China is offering to deal with the problem is by buying American goods at the expense of U.S. allies' goods. For instance, Beijing has offered to buy more semiconductors from the U.S. and fewer from Taiwan and South Korea. This would alleviate the U.S. trade deficit a little, but at a greater expense to U.S. allies (Table 2). It would open up an opportunity for China to make more strategic acquisitions in those weakened, neighboring industries. It is not clear that the Trump administration will accept such a "concession," unless it is coupled with much greater concessions as compensation for selling out the allies. Table 2China's Trade Concessions To The U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Similarly, China's concessions that have been offered so far - like lowering the 25% tariff on car imports - are tokens in the right direction but not sufficient to satisfy the U.S. at the current juncture. This means that the U.S. will demand structural changes that increase market access, from a stronger RMB to a more consumer-oriented economy, as part of what will be a drawn-out effort to encourage China to rebalance its macroeconomy. Of course, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was only telling half the truth: the U.S. also wants to prevent China from stealing too much of America's market share too fast. When we look at China's comparative advantage - the goods categories in which China's export growth has been fastest in recent years, weighted by contribution to the total - the U.S. is the country that has the largest global market share in these very goods (Chart 14). For instance, telecoms equipment, car parts, TVs, electrical circuits, etc. The U.S.'s export mix is not as dependent on these goods as that of China's neighbors (Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), but it is the chief exporter of these goods nevertheless. Because many of China's most competitive goods are still low value-added (toys, plastics, textiles, furniture), China is pursuing tech upgrades, innovation, and intellectual property: it would eat away at the U.S. share of more advanced goods. Chart 14China's Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China The Trump administration is trying to slow China's advance and put a stop to China's aggressive poaching of foreign tech and IP.10 This will include restrictions on Chinese direct investment and acquisitions to be announced by Mnuchin on May 21. We expect him to intensify an inherently stringent vetting process. The administration has already taken a proactive stance by blocking Canyon Bridge Capital Partners from acquiring Lattice Semiconductor and Singaporean company Broadcom's attempted acquisition of Qualcomm.11 Rumor has it that the administration is now considering invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which authorizes the president to take actions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." Trump would be able to cite China's use of state-backed companies, corporate espionage, and cyber-attacks in pursuit of technology and IP (Table 3). Table 3Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues... Especially When National Security Is Involved Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China This is entirely aside from legislation pending in Congress, which the White House appears to support, that would provide the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with the ability to block investments across entire industries, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and with a broader definition of national security and sensitive property and technologies.12 While American presidents have historically vetoed similar legislation against China, the Trump administration may not, depending on the outcome of talks. The key point is that the U.S. political establishment - across the spectrum - is alarmed about China's economic mercantilism. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently declared to a group of top policymakers in Beijing: "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology."13 Warren, a staunchly liberal senator from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, is entirely on the same page as Trump. The takeaway for investors? China's tit-for-tat response to Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs should not be dismissed out of hand. The market is sensitive to trade fears and there is a clear avenue for them to get worse if the 60-day consultation period lapses without any major Chinese concessions. True, negotiations are ongoing and Trump's trade team has been shown to be both credible and willing to pursue trade disputes through the WTO. Nevertheless there are substantial measures aimed at China coming down the pike and the usual restraints on U.S. policy, centered on the U.S. business establishment lobbying policymakers, are not as effective as in the past. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s primary economic goal in the China negotiations is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access. The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. As such, Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology. Investment Conclusions Several clients have asked about the constraints on the different players if trade conflict should escalate over the coming months. On the surface the U.S. is in a stronger position because its outsized deficit with China means that measures constricting bilateral trade are inherently more damaging to China's output (Chart 15). Even some of China's best retaliatory options are difficult to put into practice, including selling U.S. treasuries or imposing sanctions on U.S. commodities (Table 4).14 Chart 15China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. Table 4China's Retaliation Options Are Limited... Even In Agriculture Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China The U.S. also faces a constraint in imposing measures on China because manufacturing value chains today sprawl across various countries and multinational corporations. Tariffs therefore punish countries, including U.S. allies, that provide inputs to China or American companies that profit from them - think Apple. Moreover, tariffs will not in themselves change the U.S.'s fundamental savings-investment balance, suggesting that demand for foreign goods will simply shift to other producers and the trade deficit will be unaffected. However, supply chain risk is ultimately not prohibitive for the U.S. China has long ranked among the most exposed to supply-chain disruptions, while the U.S. ranks among the least (Chart 16). Moreover, U.S. allies in Europe and ASEAN stand to benefit if supply chains are rerouted from China (Chart 17). While the U.S. and allies would suffer higher initial costs as a result, they would gain the strategic advantage of reducing China's centrality to global supply chains. The latter has given Beijing an advantage in acquiring technology and moving up the value chain. Chart 16China Most Exposed To Supply-Chain Risk Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China Chart 17U.S. Allies Benefit If Supply Chains Move Trump's Demands On China Trump's Demands On China While the Xi Jinping administration is weaning China off export reliance and U.S. reliance, the country still employs 28% of its workers in the manufacturing sector, which leaves it more exposed to disruptions than the U.S. if trade frictions should spiral out of control and weaken overall demand (Chart 18). While American workers are intimately familiar with the boom-and-bust cycle of free labor markets, China has not struggled with significant unemployment since 2003 (Chart 19). Its middle class was much smaller then. Chart 18Employment Is A Constraint On China Employment Is A Constraint On China Employment Is A Constraint On China Chart 19China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss In short, China will first attempt to appease the Trump administration through market access (and keeping the RMB strong) to maintain its supply-chain centrality and overall stability. If Trump accepts China's concessions, trade frictions will not spiral out of control - at least not this year. China will only accept a full-fledged trade war if Trump rejects its concessions and imposes punitive measures that threaten its stability. At that juncture, Xi would probably find it useful to demonize Trump and execute long-term changes to make China more self-sufficient, blaming the U.S.-initiated trade war for the painful consequences. This is why it matters if Trump's demands go beyond foreign exchange rates, improved market access, and IP enforcement - for instance, if they extend to capital account liberalization, the holy grail of American trade negotiations with China. Thus far, Trump's team has not raised this demand, but it is a subject we will revisit soon as it is likely to be China's red line, at least within the economic sphere. In light of our expectation for further trade-war related volatility, we would recommend shorting Chinese tech stocks15 and remaining short China-exposed U.S. stocks. The latter trade has been in the black by over 5% in just a week, but is currently up only 0.7%. It is a way to hedge the risk of further tensions between U.S. and China. Risks to this view are: if the U.S. reduces the Section 301 tariffs that it is threatening on or after April 6; if Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's investment restrictions due on May 21 are watered down; or if the U.S. makes no structural demands on China's economy but merely accepts temporary RMB appreciation and some big-ticket import orders. Otherwise the risk that trade tensions spiral out of control will remain elevated at least through the U.S. midterm elections on November 6. By then, Trump will need either to have cut a small-scale deal with China that he can tout for voters or to have taken more aggressive trade action pursuant to the Section 301 findings. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 A 60-day consultation period with both legislatures will follow but the deal will probably remain in more or less the same form. 6 Aluminum was not included, but South Korea is not a major source of aluminum products for the U.S. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 Please see David Lawder, "Trump to unveil China tariff list this week, targeting tech goods," Reuters, April 2, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin spoke with Politburo member Liu He, who is Xi Jinping's top economic policymaker, and they reportedly pledged that they are "committed" to a solution on reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. is asking for a $100 billion reduction to the trade deficit within the year, as well as some progress on intellectual property enforcement. Supposedly the specific demands involve reducing the Chinese tariff on car imports and raising the foreign ownership cap on Chinese financial companies, the latter of which China has previously promised to do. Please see Andrew Mayeda, "U.S. Pushes China On Cars And Finance In Tariff Talks," Bloomberg, March 26, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 10 Please see the U.S. Trade Representative, "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974," March 2018, available at ustr.gov. 11 In September 2017, the White House and Department of Treasury intervened in the attempt by a group of investors, including the state-owned China Venture Capital Fund, from acquiring Lattice, on the advice of CFIUS. Lattice makes computer chips that are highly versatile and can be used in military functions; the Chinese SOE was suspected of pursuing China's state-backed efforts to improve its semiconductor industry. Separately, in March 2018, President Trump blocked Singapore-based Broadcom's attempt to acquire Qualcomm, which would have been a hugely consequential tech merger due to the two companies' dominance in making processors. The Treasury Department feared that Chinese state entities might get access to Qualcomm's IP or that the merger might otherwise hinder Qualcomm's "technological leadership." Please see "CFIUS Case 18-036: Broadcom Limited (Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated," dated March 5, 2018, available at www.sec.gov. 12 Please see Andrew Mayeda, Saleha Mohsin, and David McLaughlin, "U.S. Weighs Use of Emergency Law to Curb Chinese Takeovers," March 27, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 13 She was speaking with Liu He, seasoned diplomat Yang Jiechi, and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. Please see Michael Martina, "Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses," April 1, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, and "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Recommended Allocation Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Due to the boost from U.S. fiscal stimulus, we do not expect recession until 2020. Despite some signs that growth is peaking, global economic fundamentals remain robust. Markets have wobbled because of the risk of trade war and rising inflation. We think neither likely to derail growth. Not one of our recession indicators is yet sending a warning signal. We are late cycle and volatility is likely to remain high (particularly if the trade war intensifies). But, given strong earnings growth and three further Fed rate hikes this year, we expect global equities to beat bonds over the next 12 months. Except for particularly risk-averse investors, who care mostly about capital preservation, we continue to recommend overweights in risk assets. We are overweight equities (especially euro area and Japan), cyclical equity sectors such as financials and industrials, credit (especially cross-overs and high-yield), and return-enhancing alternative assets such as private equity. Feature Overview Stimulus Trumps Tariffs Risk assets have been choppy so far this year, with global equities flat in the first quarter and the stock-to-bond ratio turning down (Chart 1). Markets were battered by worries about a trade war, signs of growth peaking, a rise in inflation, and bad news from the tech sector. This late in the cycle, with stock market valuations stretched and investors skittish about what might go wrong, we expect volatility to stay high. But the global economy remains robust - and will be boosted by U.S. fiscal stimulus - earnings are growing strongly, and the usual signs of recession and equity bear markets are absent. Though the going will be bumpy over coming quarters, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform at least through the end of this year. U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum and the threat of $50 billion of tariffs on Chinese imports so far represent a trade skirmish, not a trade war. The amounts pale by comparison with the positive impact coming though from U.S. tax cuts, increased fiscal spending, and repatriation (Chart 2). In history, fights over trade have rarely had a serious impact on growth. They flared up frequently in the 1980s, which was a period of strong economic growth. Even the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff increase of 1930 is now viewed by most economic historians as having played only a minor role in the collapse of trade during the Great Depression.1 Of course, trade war could escalate. China, as the biggest part of the U.S. trade deficit, is the White House's clear target (Chart 3). Japan in the 1980s, an ally of the U.S., agreed to voluntary exports restraints and to relocate production to the U.S. But China is a global rival.2 Chart 1A Tricky Quarter A Tricky Quarter A Tricky Quarter Chart 2Stimulus Tops Tariffs Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Chart 3China Is The Target China Is The Target China Is The Target For now, we expect the impact to be limited since some degree of compromise is the most likely outcome. President Trump sees the stock market as his Key Performance Indicator and would be likely to back off if stocks fell sharply. China knows that it has the most to lose in a prolonged fight. It might suit Xi Jinping's reformist agenda to boost consumption, cut excess capacity, and allow the RMB to appreciate modestly. While the U.S. has some justification for arguing that China's investment rules are unfair, China can also argue that it has made significant progress in recent years in reducing its dependence on exports, its current account surplus, and the undervaluation of its currency (Chart 4). But jitters will continue for a while. May could be a particularly tricky month, with the Iran sanctions waiver expiring on May 12, and the 60-day consultation period for China tariffs ending on May 21. Investors should expect that volatility, which in early January was remarkably low in all asset classes, should stay significantly higher until the end of this cycle (Chart 5). Chart 4...But Has Reduced Dependence On Exports ...But Has Reduced Dependence On Exports ...But Has Reduced Dependence On Exports Chart 5Volatility Likely To Stay High? Volatility Likely To Stay High? Volatility Likely To Stay High? Meanwhile, economic fundamentals generally remain strong. The Global Manufacturing PMI has dipped slightly from its cycle-high level in December, with recent currency strength causing some softness in the euro area and Japan (Chart 6). But the diffusion index shows that only three out of the 48 countries currently have PMIs below 50 (Egypt, Indonesia and South Africa). Consensus forecasts expect 2018 global GDP growth to come in at around 3.3%, similar to last year, and as yet show no signs of faltering (Chart 7). On the back of this, BCA's models suggest that global earnings growth will continue to grow at a double-digit pace for at least the rest of this year (Chart 8). Despite the strong growth, we see U.S. inflation picking up only steadily towards the Fed's 2% target.3 Jerome Powell in his first congressional testimony and press conference as Fed Chair showed no rush to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. We think the Fed is likely to hike four times, not three, but the market should not find this unduly hard to digest, as long as it is against a background of robust growth. Chart 6Dip In Growth Momentum? Dip In Growth Momentum? Dip In Growth Momentum? Chart 7Economists' Forecasts Not Faltering Economists' Forecasts Not Faltering Economists' Forecasts Not Faltering Chart 8Earnings Still Growing Strongly Earnings Still Growing Strongly Earnings Still Growing Strongly For the past year, we have highlighted a number of simple indicators we are watching carefully that have previously been reliable indicators of recessions and equity bear markets. Several have started to move in the wrong direction, but none is yet flashing a warning signal (Table 1, Chart 9). Table 1What To Watch For Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Chart 9No Warnings Flashing Here No Warnings Flashing Here No Warnings Flashing Here In February, BCA pushed out its forecast of the next recession to 2020, on the back of the U.S. fiscal stimulus. That would suggest turning more cautious on risk assets towards the end of this year - at which time some of these indicators may be flashing. But, until then we continue to recommend - except for the most risk-averse investors who care mainly about capital preservation and not about maximizing quarterly performance - an overweight allocation to risk assets. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President garry@bcaresearch.com Chart 10Not A Full Blown Trade War... For Now! Not A Full Blown Trade War.... For Now! Not A Full Blown Trade War.... For Now! What Our Clients Are Asking What Are The Implications Of U.S. Tariffs? Following recent announcements of tariffs on steel and aluminum and possible broad-based tariffs on Chinese imports, investors have started to worry about the future of global trade. But these moves should be no surprise since President Trump is merely delivering on electoral promises. From a macro-perspective, here are the key implications of rising trade barriers: An all-out trade war would certainly hurt U.S. growth, but a minor skirmish would have little impact. The U.S. is the advanced economy least exposed to global trade, which makes it harder for nations to retaliate. Running a large trade deficit, with imports from China representing 2.7% of GDP whereas exports to China are just 1.0% of U.S. GDP, gives the U.S. considerable leverage in negotiations. Additionally, the majority of Chinese imports from the U.S. are agricultural products, making it harder for China to retaliate with tariffs since these would raise prices for Chinese consumers (Chart 10). On the other hand, U.S. trade partners also have a case. With trade growth trailing output growth, other nations will be less willing to give in to U.S. threats. Additionally, unlike the Cold War era, when the U.S. had a greater influence on Europe and Japan, the world is moving toward a more multipolar structure. However, we do not believe nations will retaliate by dumping U.S. Treasuries, as that would deliver the U.S.'s desired end result of a weaker dollar. Chart 11Rising Wages Are The Missing Factor Rising Wages Are The Missing Factor Rising Wages Are The Missing Factor Finally, if tariffs lead to a smaller trade deficit and firms start to move production back to the U.S., aggregate demand will increase. And, given a positive output gap in the U.S., the Fed would be forced to turn more hawkish, ultimately forcing the dollar up. Equity markets do not like tariffs, and bonds will follow the path that real growth and inflation take. How the situation will develop depends on whether Trump embraces America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harnesses it for the trade war against China. If he does so, the combined forces of the U.S. and Europe will likely force China to concede. But if Trump goes it alone, a prolonged U.S.-China trade war could turn into a significant risk to global growth. How Quickly Will U.S. Inflation Rise? The equity sell-off in early February was triggered by a slightly higher-than-expected average hourly earnings number. In recent meetings, we find that clients, who last year argued that the structural pressures would keep inflation depressed ("the Philips Curve is dead"), now worry that it will quickly exceed 2%. And it is true that the three-month rate of change of core CPI has jumped recently (Chart 11, panel 1). Investors are clearly skittish about the risk of higher inflation, which would push the Fed to accelerate the pace of rate hikes. We continue to argue that core PCE inflation (the Fed's main measure) will rise slowly to 2% over the next 12 months, but we do not see it accelerating dramatically. Inflation tends to lag GDP growth by around 18 months and the pickup in growth from Q2 last year should start to feed through. This will be magnified by the 8% weakness in the US dollar over the past 12 months, which has already pushed up import prices by 2% YoY. What is missing, however, is wage pressure. Average hourly earnings are growing only at 2.6% YoY. We find that wage growth tends to lag profits by around 24 months (panel 2) and, since profits moved sideways for close to two years until Q2 last year, it may be a few quarters yet before companies feel confident enough to raise wages. Note, too, that wages have been weak compared to profits in this cycle. This is likely partly because of automation, but also because the participation rate for the core working population continues to recover towards its 2007 level, indicating there is more slack in the labor market than the headline unemployment data suggest (panel 3). Should Investors Still Own Junk Bonds? Chart 12Credit Cycle Still On Credit Cycle Still On Credit Cycle Still On The current late stage of the economic cycle has investors worried about the credit cycle and the outlook for corporate credit, in particular high-yield bonds. The number-one concern is stretched valuations. Spreads are close to all-time lows, which means investors should not expect significant capital gain. However, spreads can stay low for extended periods, especially in the late stages of the credit cycle. Junk bonds are a carry trade at this point, and investors can continue to pick up carry before a sustained period of spread widening sets in (Chart 12). A flattening yield curve is bad for junk returns, as it signals monetary policy is too restrictive. But, as inflation continues to trend higher, the curve is likely to steepen while allowing the Fed to deliver rate hikes close to its median projection. The key risk is a scenario in which inflation falters, but the Fed continues to hike. In this case a risk-off episode in credit markets would be likely, but this would be a buying opportunity and not the end of the cycle. Corporate balance-sheets have weakened, and logically investors should demand greater compensation to hold high-yield bonds. But spreads have diverged from this measure since early 2016. However, we expect improvements in corporate health since the outlook for profit growth is strong. However, a great deal of bond issuance has been used for share buybacks. If capital structures have less of an equity cushion, then recovery rates are likely to be lower when defaults do start to rise. Cross-asset volatility has returned. But credit spreads have remained calm thanks to accommodative monetary policy and easing bank lending standards. Also, stricter post-crisis bank capital regulations have mitigated the risk. Finally, the growing presence of open-ended junk bond funds and ETFs increases the risk that, once spreads start to widen, they will widen much more quickly than they would have otherwise. Who Should Invest In Hedged Foreign Government Bonds? In a recently published Special Report,4 we found that hedged foreign government bonds are a good source of diversification for bond portfolios. Hedging not only reduces the volatility of the foreign bonds, it reduces it so much that the risk-adjusted return ratio has significantly improved for investors with home currency in USD, GBP, AUD, NZD, CAD and EUR (Table 2). This is true across different time periods for most fixed income investors other than those in Japan, as shown in Chart 13. Table 2Domestic And Foreign Government Risk Return Profile (December 1999 - January 2018) Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Chart 13Domestic Vs. Foreign Treasury Bonds: Consistent Performance Across Time Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 So the answer depends on investors' objectives and constraints: If investors are comfortable with the volatility in their local aggregate bond indexes, which are already a lot lower than equities, then investors in the U.S., the U.K., Canada and the euro area are better off staying home for higher returns without dealing with hedging operations. For Aussie, kiwi and Japanese investors, however, going abroad enhances returns. If investors focus on lower volatility, then all investors should invest a large portion of their portfolios overseas, with the exception of Japanese investors. If investors focus on risk-adjusted returns, then investors in Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., the U.K. and Canada are better off investing a large portion overseas. Global Economy Overview: Global growth remains robust, though momentum has slowed slightly in recent weeks. No recession is likely before 2020 at the earliest due to strong U.S. fiscal stimulus. Inflation will slowly rise towards central bank targets but there is little reason to expect it to accelerate dramatically, and so we see no need for aggressive monetary tightening. U.S.: Short-term, growth looks to have softened, with the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index turning down (Chart 14, top panel), and the regional Fed NowCasts for Q1 GDP growth pointing to 2.4%-2.7%. However, growth over the next two years should be boosted by the recent tax cuts and government spending increases, which we estimate will push up GDP growth by 0.8% in 2018 and 1.3% in 2019. Wages should start to rise from their current sluggish levels (average hourly earnings only up 2.6% YoY) given the tight labor market, which should boost consumption. Capex (panel 5) is likely to continue to recover due to tax cuts and a high level of businesses confidence. Euro Area: Growth has been steady in recent quarters, with Q4 GDP rising 2.5% QoQ annualized. However, lead indicators such as the PMI (Chart 15, top panel) have rolled over, probably because of the strong euro (up 6.2% in trade-weighted terms over the past 12 months). The effect has yet to be seen in exports, which continue to grow strongly, 6.2% YoY in February, but earnings results for Q4 surprised much less on the upside in the euro area than in the U.S. Chart 14Growth Robust, But Momentum Slowing Growth Robust, But Momentum Slowing Growth Robust, But Momentum Slowing Chart 15Strong Currencies Denting EU And Japanese Growth Strong Currencies Denting EU And Japanese Growth Strong Currencies Denting EU And Japanese Growth Japan: As an export-oriented, cyclical economy, Japan has also benefitted from better global conditions, with GDP rising by 1.6% QoQ annualized in Q4. However, like Europe, the stronger currency has begun to dent the external sector, with industrial production and the leading index slowing (Chart 15, panel 2). However, more encouraging signs are appearing domestically: retail sales rose by 2.5% YoY in January and part-time wages are up 2.0% YoY. As a result, inflation is finally emerging, with CPI (excluding food and energy) up 0.3% YoY. Emerging Markets: China's growth remains steady, with the Caixin PMI at 51 (panel 3). However, credit and money supply growth continue to point to a slowdown in coming months. This may be evident when March data (unaffected by the shifting timing of Chinese New Year) becomes available. Elsewhere in EM, growth has picked up moderately: Q4 GDP growth came in at an annualized rate of 7.2% in India, 3.0% in Korea, and even 2.1% in Brazil and 1.8% in Russia. Interest rates: A modest rise in inflation expectations (panel 4) has led to a rise in long-term rates, with the U.S. 10-year yield rising from 2.5% to almost 3% during Q1 before slipping back a little. We expect the Fed to hike four times this year, and think this will push up the 10-year Treasury yield to 3.3-3.5% by year-end. The ECB continues to emphasize that it will move only slowly to raise rates after halting asset purchases later this year, and we think the market has correctly priced the timing of the first hike for Q4 2019. We see no reason why the BoJ will end its Yield Curve Control policy, with inflation still well below the 2% target. Chart 16Cautiously Optimistic Cautiously Optimistic Cautiously Optimistic Global Equities Tip-Toeing Through The Late Cycle. Global equities experienced widespread corrections in the first quarter after a very strong start in January gave way to fear of rising inflation in the U.S., fear of slowing growth in China, and fear of rising geopolitical tensions globally. The return of macro volatility was so violent that it pushed the VIX to high readings not seen since 2015. Granted, a background of stretched valuations, complacency, and the "fear of missing out" also contributed to the market correction. The healthy correction of global equities from the high in late January has seen valuations contracting as earnings continued to grow at strong pace (Chart 16). BCA's house view is that global growth may be peaking, but should remain strong and above trend, underpinning decent earnings growth for the next 9-12 months. As such, we retain our pro-cyclical tilts in global equity allocations, overweight cyclical sectors and underweight defensive sectors; overweight high-beta DM markets (Japan and euro area); neutral on the U.S. and Canada; and underweight EM and Australia, the markets that would suffer most from a deceleration in Chinese growth. However, we are late in the cycle and valuations remain stretched by historical standards despite the recent correction. With macro volatility returning, investors should be very conscious of potential risks that could derail the uptrend in equities. For investors with higher aversion to risk, we suggest raising cash by selling into strength or dialing down the overweight of cyclicals vs defensives. Anatomy Of EM/DM Outperformance Since their low in early 2016, EM equities have outperformed DM in total return terms by more than 20%, of which 262 bps came in the first quarter of 2018, despite the rising volatility in all asset classes recently. As show in Chart 17, the outperformance of EM over DM has been dominated by three sectors: Technology, Financials and Energy. In the two-year period ending December 2017, over half of the EM outperformance came from the Tech sector, followed by Financials and Energy, accounting for 32% and 14% respectively. In Q1 2018, however, Tech's contribution dropped sharply to 0.3%, while Financials and Energy shot up to 51% and 33% respectively. Even though Energy is a relatively small sector, accounting for 6-7% of benchmark weights in both EM and DM, the diverging performance between EM and DM Energy sectors has played an important role in the EM outperformance. In the two years ending December 2017, EM Energy outperformed its DM counterpart by 32%, the same magnitude as the Tech sector (Table 3). In Q1 2018, EM Energy gained 7.6% while DM Energy suffered a 5.2% decline, resulting in a staggering 13% outperformance (Table 4). Chart 17Sector Contributions To EM/DM Outperformance Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Table 3Two-Year Performance Attribution* (December 2015 - December 2017) Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Table 4Q1/2018 Attribution* (December 2015 - December 2017) Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Country-wise, Brazil and China led the outperformance, helped by the Brazilian real's 30% appreciation against the U.S. dollar. BCA's EM Strategy believes that Brazilian equities and the real will both weaken given the country's weak governance and poor fiscal profile. Chart 18Style Performance Style Performance Style Performance We are neutral on Tech globally, and the general reliance of EM equities on Chinese growth, and the high leverage in EM do not bode well for EM equities. Remain underweight EM vs. DM. A Sector Approach To Style Year to date, the equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio has outperformed the global benchmark slightly, largely driven by the strong outperformance of Momentum and Quality, while Value and Minimum Volatility (MinVol) have underperformed (Chart 18, top three panels). This is in line with our previous regime analysis that indicated rising growth and inflation is a good environment for Momentum and Quality, but a bad one for Min Vol.5 As we have argued before, we prefer sector positioning to style positioning because 1) the major style tilts such as Value/Growth, Min Vol and Small Cap/Large Cap have seen significant sector shifts over time, and 2) sector selection offers more flexibility. As shown in Chart 18 (bottom three panels), the relative performance of Min Vol is a mirror image of Cyclicals vs Defensives, while Value/Growth is highly correlated with Cyclicals/Defensives. In a Special Report,6 we elaborated in-depth that sector selection is a better alternative to size selection, especially in the U.S. We maintain our neutral view on styles, and continue to favor Cyclicals versus Defensives. Given that we are at the late stage of the business cycle, investors with lower risk tolerance may consider gradually dialing down exposure to cyclical tilts. For stock pickers, this would mean favoring stocks with low volatility, high quality and strong momentum. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Despite rising volatility due to changes in inflation expectations and uncertain developments in geopolitics, the investment backdrop has been evolving in line with our 2018 Strategy Outlook. Global growth continues at a strong pace (Chart 19) and our U.S. Bond Strategy has increased its yield forecast to the range of 3.3-3.6%, from 2.80-3.25% previously, reflecting both a higher real yield and higher inflation expectations. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield increased by 34 bps in Q1 to 2.74%, still lower than our fair value estimate, implying that there is still upside risk for global bond yields. As such, investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. The base case forecast from our U.S. Bond Strategy is that the U.S. TIPS breakeven will rise to 2.3-2.5% around the time that U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target rate, likely sometime in 2H 2018. Compared to the current level of 2.05, this means the 10-year TIPS has upside of 25-45 bps, an important source of relative return in the low-return fixed income space (Chart 20). Maintain overweight TIPS vs. nominal bonds. In terms of relative value, however, TIPS are no longer cheap. For those who have not moved to overweight TIPS, we suggest "buying TIPS on dips". In addition, inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in Australia and Japan are still very attractive vs. their respective nominal bonds (Chart 20, bottom panel). Overweight ILBs in those two markets also fits well with our macro themes. Chart 19Further Upside In Bond Yields Further Upside In Bond Yields Further Upside In Bond Yields Chart 20Favor Inflation linkers Favor Inflation linkers Favor Inflation linkers Corporate Bonds We continue to favor both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds within the fixed-income category. High-yield spreads barely reacted to the sell-offs in equities in February and March (Chart 21). We see credit spreads as a useful indicator of recessions and equity bear markets and so the fact that they did not rise suggests no broad-based risk aversion. Moreover, this resilience comes despite significant outflows from high-yield ETFs, $4.4 billion year-to-date, almost completely reversing the inflows over the previous three quarters. We still find spreads in this space attractive. BCA estimates the default-adjusted spread is still around 250 basis points (assuming default losses of 1.3% over the coming 12 months) which, while not cheap, is less overvalued than other fixed-income categories (Chart 22). Investment grade spreads, however, have widened in recent weeks (Chart 21), with the rise concentrated in the highest-quality credits. This is most likely because investors see little value in these securities. We keep our overweight but we focus on cross-over credits and sectors where valuations are still reasonable, for example energy, airlines and insurance companies. Excessive leverage remains a concern for corporate bond losses in the next recession. BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 23) has improved in recent quarters, mostly due to stronger profitability. But the deterioration in interest coverage ratios in recent years makes companies vulnerable to higher rates. We estimate that a 100 basis point increase in interest rates across the corporate curve would lead to a drop in the ratio of EBITDA to interest expenses from 4.0 to 2.5.7 Sectors such as Materials, Technology, Consumer Discretionary and Energy appear especially at risk.8 Chart 21IG Spreads Have Widened, But Not HY IG Spreads Have Widened, But Not HY IG Spreads Have Widened, But Not HY Chart 22Junk Bonds Still Offer Some Value Junk Bonds Still Offer Some Value Junk Bonds Still Offer Some Value Chart 23Leverage Is A Worry For The Next Recession Leverage Is A Worry For The Next Recession Leverage Is A Worry For The Next Recession Commodities Chart 24OPEC Agreements Hold The Key OPEC Agreements Hold The Key OPEC Agreements Hold The Key Energy (Overweight): Demand/supply fundamentals have been driving prices in crude oil markets (Chart 24). Fundamentals remain favorable as strong global demand is keeping the market in physical deficit. However, the outlook for demand has turned cloudy as the market may start to price in the possibility of a trade war which would dent growth. Also, threats of renewed sanctions against Iran and deeper ones against Venezuela could potentially disrupt supply sufficiently to push up the crude price. Given rising uncertainties with the demand and supply outlook, we expect increased volatility in the crude price. We maintain our forecasts for the average 2018 prices for Brent and WTI at $74 and $70 respectively. Industrial Metals (Neutral): As President Trump moves ahead with protectionist policies, markets are being spooked by the possibility of a trade war. Looking past the noise, since China remains the largest source of demand, price action will follow domestic Chinese market fundamentals which are a function of how authorities handle a possible growth slowdown. The possibility of global trade disruptions, coupled with a recovery in the U.S. dollar, suggests increased price volatility. We are particularly negative on zinc. Spanish zinc has been flooding into China, depressing physical premiums and causing inventory accumulation (Chart 24, panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Rising trade protectionism, geopolitical tensions, and diverging monetary policy will be sources of increased market volatility for the rest of the year. When equity markets went through a minor correction earlier this year, gold outperformed global equities by 6%. However, rising interest rates and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are two headwinds for the gold price. We continue to recommend gold as a safe haven asset against unexpected market volatility and inflation surprises (Chart 24, panel 4). Currencies Chart 25Dollar Will Stage A Recovery Rally Dollar Will Stage A Recovery Rally Dollar Will Stage A Recovery Rally U.S. Dollar: Following its 7% depreciation last year, the greenback is flat year to date. A positive output gap and strong inflation readings are giving the Fed enough reasons not to fall behind the curve. Secondly, the proposed fiscal stimulus is likely to increase the U.S.'s twin deficits which has historically been bullish for the currency, as long as it is accompanied by rising real rates. Finally, speculative positions in the dollar are net short, which means any positive surprises will be bullish for the currency. We expect the U.S. dollar to stage a recovery rally in the coming months (Chart 25, panel 1). Carry Trades: Cross-asset class volatility is making a strong comeback. Carry trades fare poorly in volatile FX markets. High-yielding EM currencies like the BRL, TRY, and ZAR will underperform, whereas low yielding safe-haven funding currencies like the Swiss franc and Japanese yen, in countries with outsized net international investment positions, will be the winners. Finally, the return of volatility could hurt global economic sentiment and possibly weigh on growth-sensitive currencies like the KRW, AUD and NZD (Chart 25, panel 2). Euro: Analyzing the euro's strength, we see a 9% divergence in performance between the EUR/USD pair and the trade-weighted euro. Global synchronized growth was driven predominantly by a recovery in manufacturing which benefited the euro area more than the U.S. Also looking at history, the euro tends to appreciate relative to USD in the last two years of economic upswings driven by strong growth. Finally, the recent divergence in relative interest rates is a clear sign that other fundamental factors, such as the current account balance, have been exerting pressure. Sentiment and positioning remain extremely euro bullish, hence any disappointment with economic data will force a correction (Chart 25, panel 3). GBP: Since 2017, the pound has strengthened by over 16% vs. USD. An appreciating currency has dented inflation readings, thereby limiting the pass-through effects via the Bank of England hiking rates. A hurdle to further appreciation is negative growth in real disposable income and declining household confidence. Finally, weak FDI inflows will hurt the U.K.'s basic balance. Since the BoE will find it difficult to tighten policy much, we expect a correction in the next few months (Chart 25, panel 4). Alternatives Investors have been increasing their allocation to alternatives, pushing AUM to a record $7.7 trillion. We continue to recommend allocations through three different buckets: 1) among return enhancers, we favor private equity vs hedge funds; 2) favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures in inflation hedges; 3) favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products as volatility dampeners. But alternatives have a few challenges that require special consideration. Private Equity: Key drivers of returns have changed. In the past, managers were able to succeed by "buying low/selling high". But today, investors need to pick general partners (GPs) who can identify attractive targets and effect strategic and operational improvements. $1.7 trillion of dry powder. Global buyout value grew by 19% in 2017, but deal count grew by only 2%. High valuations multiples, stiff competition, and an uncertain macro outlook will force funds to be selective. Competition from corporate buyers. GPs are fighting with large corporations looking for growth through acquisition. Private equity's share of overall M&A activity globally declined in 2017 for the fourth year running. Competition for targets is boosting entry multiples in the middle-market segment. Hedge Funds: Net exposure for long/short managers has remained static over market cycles, which means investors pay too much for market exposure. But if we see market rotation or increased dispersion of single stock returns, this hedge fund group will benefit. Discretionary macro will benefit from differing growth outlooks, idiosyncratic events, and local rate cycles. Also, potential for more dispersion in the large-cap space and at the index level will benefit systematic macro. Event-driven funds have been hurt by deal-spread volatility as shareholder opposition, anti-trust concerns and political issues led to deal delays. But we continue to favor short-term special situations in less-followed markets such as Asia. Real Estate: After strong growth in capital values, driven by low rates and cap rate compression, investors need to focus on income-driven total returns. Additionally, income returns do not vary across markets nearly as much as capital value growth. Increase focus on core strategies. Look for properties in prime locations with long and stable lease contracts. Investors can also consider loans made to high-quality borrowers which are secured against properties with stable cash flows. Private Debt: With ultra-low yields, private debt offers attractive risk-adjusted return, diversification, and a potential cash flow profile ideal for institutional investors. However, it is critical to source a differentiated pipeline of opportunities. Infrastructure debt, with a long expected useful life, can provide effective duration for liability matching. Risk-adjusted returns can be enhanced by directly sourcing and structuring. Risks To Our View We see the risks to our main scenario (strong growth continuing through 2019, moderate inflation, late cycle volatility, and rising geopolitical risks) as balanced. There are a number of obvious downside risks, including an escalating trade war, a sharp upside surprise to inflation, and the Fed turning more hawkish (perhaps in an attempt to demonstrate its independence if President Trump pressures it not to raise rates). Among the risks less appreciated by investors is a slowdown in China. Leading indicators of the Chinese economy, particularly money supply and credit growth, continue to slow (Chart 26). Xi Jinping's recent senior appointments suggests he is serious about structural reform, which would mean accepting slower growth in the short-term to put China on a sounder long-term growth path. Linked to this, we also think investors are insufficiently concerned about the impact of rising rates on emerging market borrowers. If, as we expect, U.S. long rates rise to close to 3.5% over the next year and the dollar strengthens, the $3.5 trillion of foreign-currency borrowing by EM borrowers could become a burden (Chart 27). Chart 26What If China Slows? bca.gaa_qpo_2018_04_03_c26 bca.gaa_qpo_2018_04_03_c26 Chart 27Highed Indebted EM Borrowers Are A Risk Highed Indebted EM Borrowers Are A Risk Highed Indebted EM Borrowers Are A Risk Chart 28Presidents Like Markets To Rise Quarterly - April 2018 Quarterly - April 2018 Upside risk centers on a continuation of strong growth and dovish central banks. We may be underestimating the impact of U.S. fiscal policy. Our assumption that it will peter out in 2020 may be wrong, if President Trump goes for further stimulus ahead of the presidential election - the third and fourth years of presidential cycles are usually the best for stocks (Chart 28). Wages may stay low because of automation. In the face of this the Fed may stay dovish: it already shows some signs of allowing an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, to balance the six years that it missed it to the downside. All this could produce a stock market meltup, similar to 1999. 1 See, for example, Clashing Over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy, Douglas J, Irwin, Chicago 2017, chapter 8. 2 For an analysis of the geopolitical implications, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 27, 2018. 3 Please see the What Our Clients Are Asking: How Quickly Will U.S. Inflation Rise? on page 8 of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook for the reasons why this is our view. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Why Invest In Foreign Government Bonds?" dated March 12, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?" dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Small Cap Outperformance: Fact Or Myth?" dated April 7, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The U.S. Corporate Sector," dated February 22, 2018. 8 Please see also What Our Clients Are Asking: Should Investors Still Own Junk Bonds, on page 9 of this Quarterly Update, for more analysis of this asset class. GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Global growth has peaked, but will remain firmly above trend for the remainder of the year. The composition of global growth is shifting back towards the U.S. As often happens in the late stages of business-cycle expansions, asset markets have entered a more volatile phase. A global recession is likely in 2020. Equities: The correction is nearing an end, which will set the stage for a blow-off rally into year-end. For the time being, favor DM over EM stocks, Europe over the U.S., and value over growth. The "real" bear market will start next year. Government bonds: Global bond yields will trend higher over the next 12 months, but will begin moving lower by the middle of next year as recession risks mount. Over the long haul, yields are going higher - much higher. Credit: Spread product will eke out small gains relative to government bonds over the next 12 months. Spreads will blow out as the recession approaches. Investors will be shocked to learn that a lot of what they thought is investment-grade debt is really junk (or worse). Currencies: The U.S. dollar will bounce before resuming its bear market next year. The yen could weaken slightly against the dollar in 2018, but will hold its own against most other currencies. Energy-sensitive currencies such as the CAD will outperform other commodity currencies. Feature Booyah Writing frantically on October 8, 1998, CNBC commentator and former hedge fund manager Jim Cramer entitled his TheStreet.com piece with the indelible words "Get Out Now". Long-Term Capital Management had just imploded. Emerging Markets were crashing. Coming off the heels of a stratospheric ascent, the S&P 500 was down 22% from its highs. The tech-heavy NASDAQ had swooned 33%. The equity bull market had finally ended. Or so he thought. As fate would have it, the S&P 500 bottomed literally the very same minute that Cramer's piece came out.1 It went on to rise 68% before ultimately peaking in March 2000. Cramer would go on to avenge his 1998 call, wisely counseling his readers on October 6, 2008 to "take your money out of the stock market right now, this week." But on that fateful day in 1998, he was wrong. There are many differences in the economic environment between now and then, but on the crucial question of which way global equities are heading, history is likely to rhyme. As was the case in the late 1990s, the shakeout this year may be a prelude to a blow-off rally that takes stocks to new highs. Historically, equity bear markets and recessions almost always overlap (Chart 1). In fact, the most useful lesson I have learned over the past 25 years studying macro and markets is that unless you think a recession is around the corner, you should overweight stocks. It's as simple as that. Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Fortunately, another recession is not around the corner. Interest rates are rising but are not yet in restrictive territory. Fiscal policy is being loosened, particularly in the U.S. Easy fiscal policy and still-accommodative monetary policy rarely produce recessions. As we discuss below, a global recession will eventually arrive - probably in 2020 - but that is still two years away. Stocks normally sniff out recessions before they start. However, the lead time is usually about six months. As Table 1 illustrates, equities typically do well in the second-to-last year of business-cycle expansions. We are probably in that window now. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 A Whiff Of Stagflation So why the newfound angst? Partly, it is because markets were technically overbought and due for a correction. We warned clients as much in a report entitled "Take Out Some Insurance", published on February 2nd, one day before the VIX spike began.2 Fears of stagflation are also escalating. Inflation appears to be rising at the same time as global growth is slowing. Real potential GDP has increased at a snail's pace in the G7 economies over the past decade, the result of disappointing productivity gains and sluggish labor force growth (Chart 2). If the world is running out of spare capacity - and GDP growth is forced to climb down towards what many fear is an anemic trendline - then revenue and earnings growth are apt to decelerate. Chart 2Lackluster Productivity Gains And Anemic Labor##br## Force Growth Have Weighed On Potential GDP Lackluster Productivity Gains And Anemic Labor Force Growth Have Weighed On Potential GDP Lackluster Productivity Gains And Anemic Labor Force Growth Have Weighed On Potential GDP Escalating protectionism has further exacerbated anxieties about stagflation. President Trump has threatened to hike tariffs on steel and aluminum, go after China for allegedly stealing U.S. intellectual property, and pull out of NAFTA if a new deal is not negotiated in America's favor. An all-out global trade war would raise consumer prices and reduce output by impairing the efficient allocation of resources across countries. Investors have taken notice. None of these stagflationary concerns can be summarily dismissed, but they are less worrisome than they might appear. Let's start with trade wars. A Trade Spat, Not A Trade War We have long thought that we are in a secular bull market in populism. This is why we argued that investors were greatly understating the risks of Brexit in the weeks leading up to the referendum. It is also why we ignored the derision of others and predicted that Trumpism would prevail back in 2015 and that Trump himself would win the presidency by securing a larger-than-expected share of disgruntled white blue-collar workers in the Midwest.3 Trade protectionism, of course, is a major part of most populist agendas. However, the attractiveness of protectionism tends to ebb and flow depending on the state of the business cycle. There is a reason why the Smoot-Hawley tariff act was introduced during the Great Depression and not the Roaring Twenties. Both economically and politically, beggar-thy-neighbor policies are more appealing when unemployment is high and one more job abroad means one less job at home. That is not the case today, at least not in the U.S. Moreover, while the U.S. legal system gives the president free rein to impose tariffs and other trade barriers, Donald Trump is still constrained by the reaction of the business community and financial markets. After all, this is a president who likes to measure his self-worth by the value of the S&P 500. Needless to say, investors do not like protectionism. It is not surprising, therefore, that Trump has watered down his tariff rhetoric every time the stock market has sold off. It also not surprising that Trump has increasingly focused his wrath on China, a country with which the U.S. business community has had a love-hate relationship. A blue-ribbon commission recently estimated that intellectual property theft - most of it originating from China - costs the U.S. $225 billion-to-$600 billion per year.4 That is a lot of money that American companies could be making but aren't. China will undoubtedly complain that it is being unfairly singled out. It will also threaten retaliatory measures if the Trump administration imposes trade barriers on Chinese imports. In the end, those threats are likely to ring hollow. A war is only worth fighting if you think you can win. China has a very asymmetric trading relationship with the U.S., and one that gives it very little leverage. U.S. exports to China amount to less than one percent of U.S. GDP. That's peanuts - in some cases literally: Nearly half of U.S. goods exports to China consist of soybeans, wheat, cotton, nuts, and other agricultural products and raw materials. It would be difficult to tax them without hurting Chinese consumers. Of course, China could try to punish the U.S. by dumping Treasurys. But why would it? This would only drive down the value of the dollar, giving U.S. exporters a greater advantage. Trump wants that! Saying that you will retaliate against Trump's tariffs by no longer manipulating your currency is not exactly a credible threat.5 In the end, far from retaliating, China will try to placate Trump by easing restrictions on trade and foreign investment and making some politically-calculated purchases of U.S.-made goods. Boeing's stock sold off in the wake of escalating trade tensions. It probably should have risen. Peak Growth? In contrast to last year, global growth is no longer accelerating. Our Global Leading Economic Indicator is still rising, but the diffusion index, which measures the proportion of countries with rising LEIs, is down from its October 2017 high (Chart 3). Changes in the diffusion index have often foreshadowed changes in the composite LEI. An even more worrisome picture is painted by the OECD's LEI, which has actually dipped slightly over the past two months. The OECD's LEI diffusion index has also fallen below 50%. The Chinese economy appears to be slowing on the back of tighter monetary conditions (Chart 4). The Keqiang index, which combines data on electricity production, freight traffic, and bank lending, has come off its highs and our leading indicator for the index is pointing to further weakness. Property price inflation in tier 1 cities has fallen to zero. A number of clients noted during my visit to China last week that a wave of supply has hit the market over the past month following President Xi's warning that homes are for living and for not investing. A weaker Chinese property market could drag down construction spending, with adverse knock-on effects to commodity prices. Slower Chinese growth is rippling across the global economy (Chart 5). Korean exports - a bellwether for global trade - have decelerated. Japanese machinery orders have rolled over. The Baltic dry index has plunged by 40% from its December highs. The expectations component of the German IFO index has fallen to its lowest level since January 2017. Chart 3Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend,##br## But Has Probably Peaked For This Cycle Global Growth Will Remain Above-Trend But Ease From Blistering Pace Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend, But Has Probably Peaked For This Cycle Global Growth Will Remain Above-Trend But Ease From Blistering Pace Global Growth Will Remain Above Trend, But Has Probably Peaked For This Cycle Chart 4China's Industrial Sector Is Set ##br##To Slow Further China Is Slowing China's Industrial Sector Is Set To Slow Further China Is Slowing China's Industrial Sector Is Set To Slow Further China Is Slowing Chart 5Signs Of Slowing##br## Global Growth Signs Of Slowing Global Growth Signs Of Slowing Global Growth So far, the slowdown in global growth has been fairly modest. Goldman's global Current Activity Indicator (CAI), which combines both soft and hard data to gauge underlying economic momentum, was still up 4.9% in March, only slightly below recent cycle highs (Chart 6). The deterioration in a number of leading economic indicators suggests that the slowdown may have further to run. However, we would be surprised if it proves to be especially deep or long-lasting. Global financial conditions are still quite accommodative (Chart 7). Bank balance sheets are in good shape and rising capex intentions should support credit demand over the coming months, even in the face of somewhat higher borrowing costs. Improving labor markets should also bolster consumer confidence. Chart 6But Global Slowdown Has Been Fairly Modest But Global Slowdown Has Been Fairly Modest But Global Slowdown Has Been Fairly Modest Chart 7Global Financial Conditions Are Still Fairly Easy Global Financial Conditions Are Still Fairly Easy Global Financial Conditions Are Still Fairly Easy Back To The USA If global growth were decelerating because capacity constraints were starting to bite, this would be more worrying because it would mean any effort to stimulate demand would simply lead to more inflation rather than stronger economic growth. Reassuringly, that does not appear to be the case. The U.S. has slowed less than other large economies, even though it is closer to full employment. Notably, the manufacturing PMI has continued to rise in the U.S., but has dipped most everywhere else. Both Citigroup's and Goldman's economic surprise indices are still positive for the U.S., but have fallen into negative territory in Europe and Japan (Chart 8). Granted, Bloomberg consensus estimates suggest that U.S. growth will edge down to 2.5% in the first quarter. However, this may reflect ongoing seasonal adjustment problems. First quarter growth has averaged 1.7 percentage points less over the past decade than in the rest of the year. We are particularly skeptical of recent data showing that consumer spending has slowed, which is completely at odds with strong employment growth, rising home prices, and near record-high levels of consumer confidence. Looking out, U.S. demand growth should benefit from all the fiscal stimulus coming down the pike. We expect the fiscal impulse to rise from 0.3% of GDP in 2017 to 0.8% of GDP in 2018, and 1.3% of GDP in 2019 (Chart 9). The actual numbers could be even higher as our estimates do not include any additional expenditures on infrastructure, the possible restoration of earmarks (which could inflate pork-barrel spending), or the high likelihood that recent changes to the tax code will spawn all sorts of unforeseen loopholes, leading to lower-than-expected tax receipts. Chart 8U.S. Is The Standout U.S. Is The Standout U.S. Is The Standout Chart 9Fiscal Stimulus Bode Well For Growth Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Unfortunately, all this fiscal stimulus is coming at a time when the economy does not need it (Chart 10). The U.S. unemployment rate currently stands at 4.1%, 0.4 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Given the prospect of continued above-trend growth, the unemployment rate is likely to be close to 3.5% by early next year, which would be below the 2000 low of 3.8%. Chart 10Now Is Not The Time For Fiscal Profligacy Now Is Not The Time For Fiscal Profligacy Now Is Not The Time For Fiscal Profligacy Rebalancing Global Demand: The Role Of The Dollar What happens when fiscal stimulus pushes aggregate demand beyond an economy's productive capacity? One possibility is that imports go up, thereby allowing the additional demand to be satiated with increased production from the rest of the world. For this to happen, however, the prices of foreign-made goods sold in the U.S. need to decline relative to the prices of domestically-produced goods. U.S. imports account for only 15% of GDP. Thus, if the prices of U.S.-made goods do not change relative to the prices of foreign-made goods, only 15 cents or so of every additional dollar of income will fall on imports. After all, consumers do not care about the intricacies of balance of payments statistics when they are deciding whether to buy a foreign or domestic automobile. They care about relative prices. This means that either the nominal trade-weighted dollar must appreciate or the U.S. price level must rise relative to foreign prices. Both outcomes imply a "real appreciation" in the dollar exchange rate, which can be thought of as the volume of foreign goods and services that can be acquired by selling a basket of U.S. goods and services.6 In theory, one can envision a scenario where the nominal dollar exchange rate depreciates while the real exchange rate appreciates over the long haul because inflation rises significantly in the U.S. relative to its trading partners. Much of the market commentary has implicitly focused on just such an outcome. Massive fiscal stimulus, as the story goes, will lift U.S. inflation by so much that the dollar will fall over time. The problem with this narrative is that it is difficult to square with the facts. Long-term inflation expectations have actually risen more in the euro area and Japan since Trump got elected (Chart 11). The true puzzle is that rising U.S. real yields have not translated into a stronger dollar (Chart 12). Chart 11Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have ##br##Risen More In Japan And The Euro Area##br## Than The U.S. Since Trump Took Over Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen More In Japan And The Euro Area Than The U.S. Since Trump Took Over Long-Term Inflation Expectations Have Risen More In Japan And The Euro Area Than The U.S. Since Trump Took Over Chart 12The Dollar Has ##br##Decoupled From Interest##br## Rate Differentials The Dollar Has Decoupled From Interest Rate Differentials The Dollar Has Decoupled From Interest Rate Differentials A Trump Risk Premium? What happened, as Hillary Clinton might ask? One answer is that Trump happened. Larry Summers has argued that political uncertainty around Trump's antics (protectionism, the Mueller probe, the porn stars, etc.) has made holding U.S. assets more risky.7 This risk has been exacerbated by the prospect of large current account and fiscal deficits - the so-called "twin deficits" - stretching for as far as the eye can see. If this theory is correct, the increase in U.S. real bond yields may be less the result of better growth expectations and more the consequence of a rising risk premium on long-term government debt. It's an intriguing hypothesis, but it cannot explain why business confidence is near all-time highs or why the S&P 500, despite this year's selloff, has risen by 23% since the U.S. presidential election. It also cannot explain why the yield curve has flattened recently, which is not what you would expect if investors were shunning long-term bonds. Perhaps it is best not to overthink things. The dollar is a high-momentum currency (Chart 13). At the start of 2017, the greenback was overbought (Chart 14). Then global growth began to accelerate, which has historically has been bad news for the dollar (Chart 15). The lion's share of that growth also came from outside the U.S. None of this is true today, but the downward trend in the dollar has remained intact, and that is proving hard to break. Chart 13USD Is A Momentum Winner Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Chart 14USD Was Overbought At The Start Of 2017 USD Was Overbought At The Start Of 2017 USD Was Overbought At The Start Of 2017 Hard but not impossible. The dollar could get a bit of a reprieve. USD Libor has broken out recently (See Box 1 for details). As Chart 16 illustrates, there has been an extremely close relationship between the dollar index and the 3-month lagged value of the Libor-OIS spread. The cost of shorting the dollar is about to spike as borrowing rates linked to Libor reset over the next few weeks. The Libor spread will eventually come down, but perhaps not before the negative momentum against the dollar has turned into positive momentum. Chart 15Slowing Global Growth Tends##br## To Be Bullish For The Dollar Slowing Global Growth Tends To Be Bullish For The Dollar Slowing Global Growth Tends To Be Bullish For The Dollar Chart 16Shorting The Dollar Is About##br##To Get A Lot More Expensive Shorting The Dollar Is About To Get A Lot More Expensive Shorting The Dollar Is About To Get A Lot More Expensive Fixed-Income: Hedged Or Unhedged? Chart 17Bond Yields, Currency-Hedged Bond Yields, Currency-Hedged Bond Yields, Currency-Hedged When European investors buy U.S. bonds, they take on exposure to both the value of the bond and what happens to the euro-dollar exchange rate. If they do not want to assume the currency risk, they can sell the dollar forward, effectively locking in the number of euros they will receive for every dollar sold. The purchase of the bond increases the demand for dollars, while the commitment to sell the dollar increases the supply of dollars. For the value of the dollar, it is largely a wash.8 Likewise, if U.S. investors do not want to bear currency risk when purchasing German bunds, they can sell the euro forward. This also entails two offsetting transactions: One that boosts the demand for euros and one that raises the supply of euros. The spike in USD Libor has increased the currency-hedged return of non-U.S. bonds relative to U.S. bonds. Chart 17 shows that the yield on 10-year Treasurys, hedged into euros, has fallen to 0.06%, which is below the 0.5% yield offered by German bunds. In contrast, the 10-year bund yield, hedged into dollars, has risen to 3.16% - which is above the 2.78% yield offered by Treasurys. All things equal, it becomes less attractive for foreign investors who wish to buy U.S. bonds to hedge currency risk as USD Libor rises. In contrast, it becomes more attractive for U.S. investors to currency-hedge their overseas bond purchases when USD Libor goes up. Unhedged bond purchases bid up the currency of the issuer, but hedged purchases do not. If a smaller share of foreign investors decide to hedge currency risk when buying Treasurys, while a larger share of U.S. investors decide to hedge currency risk when purchasing foreign bonds, the net demand for dollars will rise. This could help the dollar over the coming months. Go Long Treasurys/Short German Bunds, Currency-Unhedged The correlation between the German-U.S. 30-year bond spread and EUR/USD was extremely tight in 2017 but has completely broken down this year (Chart 18). At this juncture, betting on a normalization of this correlation - effectively, a bet that U.S. Treasurys will outperform bunds in currency-unhedged terms - has become too good to resist. In fact, it is almost a "can't lose" wager. Consider the fact that 30-year Treasurys are yielding 182 basis points above comparable-maturity bunds. The euro would have to rise to 1.23*(1.0182)^30=2.11 against the dollar over the next 30 years for investors to lose money on this investment. Chart 18Unsustainable Divergence? Unsustainable Divergence? Unsustainable Divergence? Granted, inflation is likely to be lower in the euro area. CPI swaps are forecasting that euro area inflation will be roughly 40 bps lower compared to the U.S. over the next three decades. However, this would only lift the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) value of EUR/USD from its current level of 1.32 to 1.49. In other words, long-term investors betting on the euro are effectively betting on a major euro overshoot. The discussion above raises a more fundamental point. Investors often equate their view about the direction in which a currency is heading with whether to be bullish or bearish on it. We completely agree that the trade-weighted dollar will weaken over the long haul because most valuation metrics suggest that the greenback is still expensive. However, given the carry advantage the U.S. enjoys, long-term investors would still be better off overweighting U.S. fixed-income assets. Regional Equity Allocation U.S. equities have outperformed their global peers since the start of 2017 in local-currency terms but have underperformed in common-currency terms (Chart 19). If the dollar rebounds over the next few months, as we expect, this should boost the local-currency value of European stocks since many large multinational European companies generate sales in dollars. Sector skews should also work in Europe's favor. Financials are the largest overweight in euro area bourses, while technology is the biggest overweight in the U.S. (Table 2). Chart 19U.S. Equities Have Outperformed In Local-Currency Terms, But Not In Common-Currency U.S. Equities Have Outperformed In Local-Currency Terms, But Not In Common-Currency U.S. Equities Have Outperformed In Local-Currency Terms, But Not In Common-Currency Table 2Global Sector Skews: Tech Resides In The U.S. And Growth Indexes,##br## Financials Live In The Eurozone And Value Indexes Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 While global growth has peaked, it will remain firmly above trend. This will ensure that spare capacity continues to shrink, taking global bond yields higher. Since the ECB will not raise rates for at least another year, the yield curve in the euro area will steepen, boosting the profitability of European banks (Chart 20). Tech companies are particularly sensitive to changes in discount rates since they often trade on the assumption that most of their earnings will be realized far into the future. As such, higher long-term real bond yields will adversely affect U.S. tech names, especially in an environment where the dollar is strengthening (more than 50% of U.S. tech sales are derived from abroad). Recent concerns over the way Facebook and other tech companies have handled privacy issues could further sour sentiment towards the sector. The outlook for Japanese stocks is a tough call. Japan, like Europe, is trading at a discount relative to the U.S. based on our in-house valuation metrics (Chart 21). However, we do not see much downside for the yen, even after its recent appreciation. The currency remains very cheap by historic standards, Japan's current account surplus has widened to 4% of GDP, and unlike the euro, speculative positioning is short. While Japanese corporate earnings have been able to expand rapidly over the past 16 months without the support of a weaker currency, now that profit margins are near record highs (Chart 22), further gains in profits and equity prices are likely to be limited. Chart 20Euro Area Yield Curve ##br##Steepening Will Boost Banks Euro Area Yield Curve Steepening Will Boost Banks Euro Area Yield Curve Steepening Will Boost Banks Chart 21Japanese And Euro Area##br##Stocks Are Relatively Cheap Japanese And Euro Area Stocks Are Relatively Cheap Japanese And Euro Area Stocks Are Relatively Cheap The combination of higher U.S. rates, a stronger dollar, and weaker Chinese growth will weigh on EM equities over the coming months. There is $17 trillion in U.S. dollar-denominated debt held outside the U.S., most of it in emerging markets. Ironically, weaker Chinese growth will hurt other EMs more than it hurts China. China accounts for more than 50% of base metal demand compared to only 13.5% for oil (Chart 23). This means that the outlook for metal producers such as Brazil, South Africa, Chile, and Australia is more challenging than for energy producers such as Canada and Norway. Chart 22Global Profit ##br##Margin Picture Global Profit Margin Picture Global Profit Margin Picture Chart 23Base Metals Are More Sensitive##br## To Slower Chinese Growth Base Metals Are More Sensitive To Slower Chinese Growth Base Metals Are More Sensitive To Slower Chinese Growth Favor Value Over Growth We expect global value stocks to start outperforming growth stocks after more than a decade of deep underperformance (Chart 24). The valuation measures constructed by Anastasios Avgeriou and his global equity sector strategy team suggest that value stocks are trading more than two standard deviations cheap relative to growth stocks. Earnings revisions are also starting to move in favor of value names9. Similar to the U.S./euro area equity split, financials are overrepresented in value indices, while technology is overrepresented in growth indices. The weights of the energy and consumer discretionary sectors in the U.S. index are roughly the same as the weights of those two sectors in the euro area index. However, energy is overrepresented in global value indices while consumer discretionary is overrepresented in growth indices. Despite our outlook for a somewhat stronger dollar, our commodity strategists see upside for oil prices this year thanks to continued discipline by OPEC 2.0. This should help energy stocks. On the flipside, consumer discretionary stocks often struggle in a rising rate environment, so this should tilt the playing field in favor of value (Chart 25). Chart 24Value Versus Growth: ##br##Compelling Entry Point Value Versus Growth: Compelling Entry Point Value Versus Growth: Compelling Entry Point Chart 25Consumer Discretionary Stocks Do##br## Poorly In A Rising Rate Environment Consumer Discretionary Stocks Do Poorly In A Rising Rate Environment Consumer Discretionary Stocks Do Poorly In A Rising Rate Environment With all this in mind, we are initiating a trade recommendation to go long the All-Country World Value Index relative to the corresponding Growth Index starting today. Investment Conclusions Volatility typically rises in the late stages of business-cycle expansions, as inflation picks up and monetary policy becomes progressively less accommodative (Chart 26). We have entered such a phase. This does not mean that equities cannot go higher. Chart 27 shows that the VIX rose in the late 1990s, even as stocks zoomed to new highs. We are probably at the tail end of an equity correction now. A blow-off rally into year-end is likely. Chart 26A More Hawkish Fed Usually Means A Higher VIX A More Hawkish Fed Usually Means A Higher VIX A More Hawkish Fed Usually Means A Higher VIX Chart 27Volatility Can Increase As Stock Prices Rise Volatility Can Increase As Stock Prices Rise Volatility Can Increase As Stock Prices Rise We expect the fed funds rate to move into restrictive territory in the second half of 2019. Given the usual lags between changes in monetary policy and the real economy, this would place the next recession in 2020. By then, the U.S. fiscal impulse will have dropped back to zero. It is the change in the fiscal impulse that matters for growth. If growth has already slowed to a trend-like pace by late 2019 due to increasingly binding supply-side constraints, the economy could easily stall out in 2020. The extent to which investors may wish to participate in any blow-off rally this year is a matter of personal preference. As was the case in the late 1990s, long-term expected returns have fallen to fairly low levels. A comparison between the Shiller PE ratio and subsequent 10-year returns over the past century suggests that the S&P 500 will deliver a total nominal annualized return of only 3% over the next decade (Chart 28). A composite valuation measure incorporating both the trailing and forward PE ratio, price-to-book, price-to-cash flow, price-to-sales, market cap-to-GDP, dividend yield, and Tobin's Q shows only modestly higher expected returns for stock markets outside the U.S. (Appendix A). As such, while we recommend overweighting global equities over a 12-month horizon, we would not fault investors for taking some money off the table now. A somewhat more defensive posture would certainly be warranted. Recall that the NASDAQ bubble burst in March 2000, but the S&P 500, excluding the technology sector, did not peak until May 2001. During the intervening period, S&P tech stocks underperformed the rest of the market by 70% (Chart 29). As was the case back then, a shift away from tech leadership may be afoot. This would support our value over growth, and euro area over the U.S., recommendations. Chart 28Demanding U.S. Valuations Point##br## To Low Long-Term Returns Demanding U.S. Valuations Point To Low Long-Term Returns Demanding U.S. Valuations Point To Low Long-Term Returns Chart 29The Force Of Tech At ##br##The Turn Of The Century The Force Of Tech At The Turn Of The Century The Force Of Tech At The Turn Of The Century Spread product should be able to eke out small gains relative to government bonds over the next 12 months. Ratings migration has improved markedly following the energy related downgrades in 2014 and 2015. An improving rating migration ratio is usually associated with corporate bond outperformance relative to Treasurys (Chart 30). Spreads will blow out as the recession approaches. In this month's issue of The Bank Credit Analyst, my colleague Mark McClellan simulated the effect on investment grade credit from: 1) A 100 basis-point increase in interest rates across the curve; and (2) A more severe scenario where interest rates rise by 100 basis points and corporate profits fall by 25% peak- to-trough. Mark's calculations suggest that the next recession will see the interest coverage ratio drop more than in previous downturns (Chart 31).10 Investors may be shocked to discover that a lot of what they thought is investment-grade debt is really junk (or worse). Chart 30Ratings Migration Is Supportive For Credit But... Ratings Migration Is Supportive For Credit But... Ratings Migration Is Supportive For Credit But... Chart 31...Corporate Leverage Will Take Its Toll ...Corporate Leverage Will Take Its Toll ...Corporate Leverage Will Take Its Toll We suggested going long the dollar in August 2014. This view worked well for a while but struggled mightily last year. However, the broad trade-weighted dollar index has been fairly stable since September, and is actually up 2.3% since its January lows (Chart 32). The greenback is due for another rally, one that no doubt would catch many traders by surprise. After a heated internal debate, BCA shifted its house view on bonds towards a more bearish stance in July 2016. As fate would have it, our note entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" came out on the same day that the U.S. 10-year yield reached an all-time closing low of 1.37%.11 We observed in February that bond positioning had become extremely short and, thus, tactically, yields could come down a bit. This has indeed happened. Over a 12-month horizon, however, we continue to see yields rising more than what is currently priced in. Both the TIPS 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rates are 20-40 basis point below the 2.3%-to-2.5% range that prevailed in the pre-recession period (Chart 33). Somewhat higher oil prices should also boost inflation expectations. Chart 32Up Then##br## Down Up Then Down Up Then Down Chart 33Breakevens Still Below Levels Consistent##br## With 2% Inflation Mandate Breakevens Still Below Levels Consistent With 2% Inflation Mandate Breakevens Still Below Levels Consistent With 2% Inflation Mandate In addition, the real yield component could rise as the market revises up its expectation of the terminal rate. Revealingly, the mean and median terminal dots in the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections increased by 8.3 and 12.5 bps, respectively, in March, but are still more than 100 bps below where they were five years ago. Bond yields will increase in the euro area, as the ECB continues to taper asset purchases. We see less scope for yields to rise in the U.K., as the Brexit hangover continues to weigh on growth. Yields in Japan will remain repressed due to the continuation of the Bank of Japan's Yield Curve Control regime. As the next recession approaches, global bond yields will fall, but are unlikely to take out their 2016 lows. As we discussed in a series of recent reports, both yields and inflation will make a series of "higher highs" and "higher lows" in the U.S. and most other countries over the next decade and beyond.12 Appendix B shows stylistic diagrams of how we expect returns across the major asset classes to evolve over the next decade. The spike in the U.S. Libor-OIS spread appears to be driven by the confluence of a couple of factors. First, Congress raised the debt ceiling on February 9th. This has allowed the U.S. Treasury to rebuild its cash reserves by issuing more T-bills. The sale of these T-bills has drained cash from the overnight market. Second, U.S. corporations have started to repatriate dollars held overseas following the passage of the tax bill. This has further exacerbated the dollar shortage abroad. Libor represents unsecured lending, and hence embeds a credit risk premium. Banks and other financial institutions have been reluctant to put up capital to arbitrage the difference between the rate on Libor and OIS (the latter being a good risk-free proxy for the market's expectation of where short-term policy rates will be). This reluctance reflects regulatory changes, rather than systemic financial risk of the sort experienced during the Global Financial Crisis and the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. The 3-month TED spread - the difference between Libor and Treasury yields - has moved up only modestly due to the fact that short-term Treasury yields have also risen relative to short-term interest rate expectations. Bank CDS spreads have barely increased at all. The Libor-OIS spread will probably fall over the remainder of this year. However, the cost of shorting the dollar will still rise as the Fed continues to raise policy rates. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Box 1 What's Up With Libor? The spike in the U.S. Libor-OIS spread appears to be driven by the confluence of a couple of factors. First, Congress raised the debt ceiling on February 9th. This has allowed the U.S. Treasury to rebuild its cash reserves by issuing more T-bills. The sale of these T-bills has drained cash from the overnight market. Second, U.S. corporations have started to repatriate dollars held overseas following the passage of the tax bill. This has further exacerbated the dollar shortage abroad. Libor represents unsecured lending, and hence embeds a credit risk premium. Banks and other financial institutions have been reluctant to put up capital to arbitrage the difference between the rate on Libor and OIS (the latter being a good risk-free proxy for the market's expectation of where short-term policy rates will be). This reluctance reflects regulatory changes, rather than systemic financial risk of the sort experienced during the Global Financial Crisis and the European Sovereign Debt Crisis. The 3-month TED spread - the difference between Libor and Treasury yields - has moved up only modestly due to the fact that short-term Treasury yields have also risen relative to short-term interest rate expectations. Bank CDS spreads have barely increased at all. The Libor-OIS spread will probably fall over the remainder of this year. However, the cost of shorting the dollar will still rise as the Fed continues to raise policy rates. 1 In his book, Confessions Of A Street Addict, which I highly recommend, Cramer wrote: On October 8, a dreary, chilly rainy Thursday in New York ... the stock market bottomed. At eighteen minutes after 12:00 P.M. I ought to know. I caused it. At 12:18 P.M. I capitulated. I couldn't take it anymore. I gave up both literally, at my fund, and virtually, on my website, TheStreet.com, where I penned a piece entitled "Get Out Now". And the prop wash from that article marked the low point in the most vicious bear market of the last century. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Take Out Some Insurance," dated February 2, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy reports, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015; "Worry About Brexit, Not Payrolls", dated June 10, 2016; "Three (New) Controversial Calls", dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Also see BCA New York Investment Conference presentations: "Five Controversial Calls - Call #5: The Trumpists Will Win" (September 2015), and "Three Controversial Calls - Call #1: Trump Wins And The Dollar Rallies" (September 2016). 4 Please see "Update To The IP Commission Report - The Theft Of American intellectual Property: Reassessments Of The Challenge And United States Policy," The Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property (The National Bureau of Asian Research), (2017). 5 The fact that China's foreign exchange reserves have been trending sideways since early last year does not mean that past interventions should be disregarded. Just as both theory and evidence suggest that quantitative easing affects bond yields primarily through the "stock channel" (how many bonds central banks own) rather than the "flow channel" (the purchase or sales of bonds in any given period), the yuan's value is also more affected by the stock of foreign assets the PBOC controls rather than its recent interventions. This makes intuitive sense. If a central bank drives down its currency by buying a lot of foreign assets, and then suspends further purchases, one might expect the currency to stop falling, but one would not expect it strengthen to where it was before the intervention began. 6 Expressed mathematically, the real exchange rate between two currencies is the product of the nominal exchange rate and the ratio of prices between the countries. A real appreciation tends to make a country less competitive, either through a nominal increase in its currency or through an increase in prices in that country relative to those of its trading partners. 7 Larry Summers, "Currency Markets Send A Warning On The US Economy," March 5, 2018. 8 We say "largely" a wash because while selling the dollar forward is not exactly the same as short-selling it in the spot market due to the presence of the so-called currency basis swap spread, it is economically similar. When European investors short-sell the dollar, they are effectively borrowing dollars at Libor, selling them for euros, and parking the proceeds in a short-term account that pays Euribor. Three-month U.S. Libor is 230 bps these days, while three-month Euribor is -33 bps. Thus, European investors lose 263 bps by currency-hedging their U.S. bond purchases. Conversely, when U.S. investors go short the euro, they are effectively borrowing euros, selling them for dollars, and then parking the proceeds in a short-term account paying Libor. Thus, they gain the equivalent amount from the decision to currency-hedge purchases of euro area bonds. 9 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Size And Style Update," dated March 9, 2018, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?" dated March 29, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016; and Strategy Outlook, "Third Quarter 2016: End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 9, 2016. 12 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "What Central Bankers Don't Know: A Rumsfeldian Taxonomy," dated March 16, 2018; Weekly Report, "A Structural Bear Market In Bonds," dated February 16, 2018. Appendix A APPENDIX A CHART 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 APPENDIX A CHART 2Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 APPENDIX A CHART 3Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 APPENDIX A CHART 4Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Appendix B APPENDIX B CHART 1Market Outlook: Bonds Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 APPENDIX B CHART 2Market Outlook: Equities Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 APPENDIX B CHART 3Market Outlook: Currencies Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 APPENDIX B CHART 4Market Outlook: Commodities Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000 Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights With North Korean diplomacy on track, Taiwan is the country most exposed to U.S.-China trade and strategic tensions. The Taiwanese public supports the status quo; however, a majority sees itself as exclusively Taiwanese, and the desire for independence may grow over time. Domestic political changes in mainland China and in the United States are also conducive to greater geopolitical tensions affecting Taiwan. Beijing will likely refrain from excessive pressure in the lead-up to Taiwan's November local elections ... but an independence-leaning outcome could change that. Stay overweight Taiwan within Emerging Market portfolios, but be prepared to downgrade if latent geopolitical risks begin to materialize. Feature The decision by the United States to toughen its enforcement of trade rules with China marks a shift that will have lasting ramifications.1 The U.S. is concerned not only about the trade imbalance but also the national security risk posed by China's economic might and increasing technological prowess. Hence President Donald Trump has imposed trade measures on China despite Chinese President Xi Jinping's cooperation on North Korea. Xi has enforced sanctions on the North and thus forced Kim Jong Un to the negotiating table, even getting him to consider denuclearization (Chart 1). Global financial markets may "climb the wall of worry" about the latest tariffs because the Trump administration has moderated its rhetoric in practice, notably by choosing to prosecute China in the World Trade Organization. However, the protectionist shift in U.S. policy is a lasting one. American power is declining relative to China, and the two countries no longer share the same economic interdependency that acted as a deterrent to conflict in the past (Chart 2).2 Chart 1China Gives Kim To Trump China Gives Kim To Trump China Gives Kim To Trump Chart 2Structural Increase In U.S.-China Tensions Structural Increase In U.S.-China Tensions Structural Increase In U.S.-China Tensions Taiwan is the country that is most exposed to both trade and strategic tensions between the U.S. and China (Chart 3). Indeed, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has held since January 2016 that Taiwan is a potential geopolitical black swan.3 Does this warrant shifting to an underweight stance in EM portfolios? Not yet. But it is a left tail risk that investors should have on their radar. Taiwan Is Filled With Dry Powder There are three reasons to suspect that Taiwan geopolitical risk is understated. First, Chinese President Xi Jinping has consolidated power and made himself into Chairman Mao Zedong's peer in the Communist Party's ideological hierarchy. He is in power indefinitely. Xi has also followed his predecessor Jiang Zemin, in the 1990s, in taking a tough approach to security and defense. Implicitly he wants to make sure that unification occurs by 2049, but some argue that he wants to achieve it within his lifetime, namely by 2035. The Taiwanese public is resolutely opposed to any timetable. The fundamental risk is that economic slowdown could disappoint the aspirations of a big and ambitious middle class, which could force Xi to pursue nationalism and foreign aggression as a way to maintain domestic control (Chart 4). Beijing is still unlikely to attack Taiwan other than as a last resort, due to the American alliance system protecting it: this remains a hard constraint for now. But aggressive economic sanctions and military posturing with the intention to coerce Taiwan are much more likely than investors realize today. Chart 3Taiwan's Economy As Well As Security On The Line Taiwan's Economy As Well As Security On The Line Taiwan's Economy As Well As Security On The Line Chart 4China's Stability Vulnerable To Growth Slowdown China's Stability Vulnerable To Growth Slowdown China's Stability Vulnerable To Growth Slowdown Second, Taiwan's independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has gained control of every level of government on the island - the presidency, the legislature, the municipalities - since the large-scale, anti-mainland "Sunflower" protests of 2014. President Tsai Ing-wen, who replaced the outspokenly pro-China President Ma Ying-jeou, is vocally uncomfortable with the status quo. She has refused to positively affirm the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two interpretations. Beijing sees this idea as the basis of smooth cross-strait relations. Tsai has not in practice tried to break the status quo, but she is clearly interested in enhancing Taiwan's autonomy. Moreover, a youthful "Third Force" has emerged in Taiwanese politics, with the backing of former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, arguing for independence and the right to hold popular referendums on the question of sovereignty. Any success of this movement will provoke a massive response from China. Third, U.S. President Trump has suggested in several poignant ways that his tougher approach to China will entail a more robust American guarantee of Taiwan's security. While he has promised Xi to uphold the "One China policy," he is actively upgrading diplomatic and possibly naval relations with Taiwan and considering more substantial arms sales to Taiwan.4 His negotiation style suggests that he is not afraid to touch this "third rail" in Sino-American relations. Moreover, in the wake of the 1995-96 Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, and again in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, a hugely important shift in Taiwanese national identity accelerated. Today the public mostly identifies solely as Taiwanese, as opposed to both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 5). This trend has abated somewhat since the DPP rose to full control in 2014-16, but a 55% majority still sees itself as exclusively Taiwanese. Among the youth, that number is 70%. This dynamic raises the possibility that a political independence movement could one day emerge. Beijing, at any rate, is watching with great concern. Of course, this shift in national identity does not imply that Taiwanese want to declare independence for the state of Taiwan anytime soon. Only about 22% want the country to move toward formal independence, and only 5% want to declare independence today. Whereas 69% are comfortable maintaining the status quo for a long time (Chart 6). The Taiwanese want to preserve their de facto independence and continue to prosper. But support for independence has grown faster than support for the status quo since the 1994 consensus. The status quo barely, if at all, holds majority support if one removes from its ranks those who eventually want to see the country declare independence. And younger cohorts have larger majorities than older cohorts in favor of independence. Chart 5Majority Of Taiwanese Are Exclusively Taiwanese ... Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Chart 6... Yet Majority Support Status Quo For Now Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan The point is that there is a lot of "dry powder" in Taiwanese public opinion that could be ignited against China in the event of a change of circumstances, i.e. another military crisis or economic shock. Essentially, China is worried that someday this national identity could be weaponized. Chart 7China Gains Leverage Over Time China Gains Leverage Over Time China Gains Leverage Over Time How will China respond to the situation? So far it has not overreacted. Xi Jinping has launched more intimidating military drills and has hardened his rhetoric - including in key reports at the 2017 party congress and this year's National People's Congress. His administration has also pursued policies to emphasize its dominance, such as setting up new air traffic routes over the strait that Taiwan claims violate its rights.5 Nevertheless, the cross-strait status quo has not yet changed in any fundamental way that would suggest relations are about to explode. And this is fitting because the status quo is beneficial to the mainland, having created a vast imbalance of economic influence over Taiwan (Chart 7). This imbalance gives China the ability to use economic coercion to dissuade Taiwan's leaders from trying anything too daring. This year, in particular, there is reason to think that Xi Jinping may want to limit any provocations. Taiwan will hold local elections on November 24, an opportunity for the pro-China Kuomintang (KMT) to at least begin to claw back the political stature it has lost (Chart 8). A good showing in 2018 is essential for the KMT if it is to rebuild momentum for the 2020 general election. Tsai's and the DPP's approval ratings have fallen precipitously since her inauguration (Chart 9). Xi may deem that saber-rattling would be counterproductive by giving Tsai and the DPP a foil, when in fact the tide is already working against them. If the KMT's performance is abysmal in the November elections, then Beijing faces a problem. Its strategy of gaining influence over Taiwan through economic integration has not prevented the emergence of an exclusively Taiwanese identity. So far Beijing has not given up on this strategy but that might become a concern if the Xi administration treads softly this year and yet the DPP broadens its control of local offices. Worse still for Beijing would be sweeping gains for outspoken, pro-independence candidates, since China cannot expel them from the legislature as easily as it did their peers in Hong Kong. Chart 8Kuomintang Needs A Win In 2018 Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Chart 9DPP Only Leads KMT By A Little Now Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Bottom Line: Political changes in China, Taiwan, and the United States are conducive to souring relations across the strait. Moreover, Taiwanese national identity is dry powder that Beijing fears could be exploited by independence-leaning politicians - potentially with American backing from an aggressive President Trump. This three-way dynamic means that Taiwanese geopolitical risk is understated, despite the fact that these powers are all familiar with the dynamics and Beijing may not want to overly provoke voters ahead of local elections, knowing that heavy-handedness in 1995-96 encouraged Taiwanese uniqueness. Macro Backdrop And Trade Tensions Undermine DPP The problem for President Tsai and the ruling DPP, as local elections approach, is that the Taiwanese economy faces headwinds as Chinese and Asian trade slows down and as the Trump administration converts its protectionist rhetoric into action. Since last year, China has tightened financial conditions and regulation and has cracked down on corruption in the financial sector. The result is a slump in broad money supply that is now pointing to a drop in EM and Taiwanese exports (Chart 10). Indeed, a cyclical slowdown is emerging in Taiwan: The short-term loans impulse is weakening which suggests that Taiwanese export growth will slow further (Chart 11, top panel). The basis for this relationship is that short-term loans are used by Taiwanese businesses to fund their working capital needs as well as purchase inputs to fill their export orders. Further, broad money is also weak (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chart 10China Slowdown Spells Trouble For Taiwan bca.gps_sr_2018_03_30_c10 bca.gps_sr_2018_03_30_c10 Chart 11Taiwanese Money/Credit Growth Slowing Taiwanese Money/Credit Growth Slowing Taiwanese Money/Credit Growth Slowing The manufacturing sector is slowing, with the shipments-to-inventories ratio weak and manufacturing PMI dipping sharply (Chart 12). Worryingly, the new orders, export orders, and electronic-sector employment components of the manufacturing PMI are approaching a precarious level. Various prices of semiconductors are also starting to show signs of weakness globally which does not bode well for a market that relies heavily on this trade. The semiconductor shipment-to-inventory ratio has rolled over (Chart 13). Taiwanese exports to ASEAN are also slowing, which signifies that final demand for semiconductors is softening, as ASEAN economies lie at the final stage of the semiconductor supply chain process. Chart 12Manufacturing Indicators Rolling Over Manufacturing Indicators Rolling Over Manufacturing Indicators Rolling Over Chart 13Softness In Key Semiconductor Exports Softness In Key Semiconductor Exports Softness In Key Semiconductor Exports Further, global trade tensions have the potential to harm global growth and especially heavily trade-exposed economies like Taiwan. Taiwan is not guaranteed to benefit from the U.S.'s more aggressive posture toward China. Theoretically, if the U.S. imposes tariffs on goods from China that can be substituted by Taiwan, then Taiwan will benefit. But in practice, the U.S. is using tariffs as a threat to force China to open its market more to U.S. exports. One way that Beijing may respond is by purchasing American goods instead of goods that come from American allies like Taiwan. Beijing has already attempted this strategy by offering to increase imports of American semiconductors at the expense of Taiwan and South Korea. At the moment there are no details on how much of an increase China is proposing. In Table 1 we show several scenarios to assess the damage that could be inflicted on Taiwan if China substituted away from it. The impact on Taiwan's exports is not negligible. For instance, under the benign scenario, if U.S.'s share of semiconductor exports to China rise from 4%6 to 10%, then Taiwan's share of semiconductor exports to China would drop from 15% to 12%. That would amount to a $4 billion loss for Taiwan, approximately, which represents 1.4% share of its total exports and 4% of its overall semiconductor exports. This analysis assumes that the trade losses resulting from China's shift to its semiconductor import mix would harm Taiwan somewhat more than Korea. The latter holds a competitive advantage on Taiwan as Korea designs and manufactures unique semiconductors that are not as easily substitutable. At any rate, the damage to Taiwan's geopolitical and trade outlook would be more concerning than the loss of revenue. Table 1China's Trade Concessions To U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan It is unlikely that the Trump administration is willing to accept such a deal, which is flagrantly designed to appease the U.S. at the expense of its allies. But the exercise illustrates a broader dynamic in which U.S. negotiations with China threaten to disrupt trade relationships and supply chains that have benefited Taiwan in recent decades. The result will be greater uncertainty and a higher potential for negative shocks. Chart 14China Punishes Taiwan For 2016 Election China Punishes Taiwan For 2016 Election China Punishes Taiwan For 2016 Election Moreover, the Trump administration has not entirely exempted allies from trade pressure. For instance, Taiwan has appreciated the dollar a bit in response to the threat of punishment for currency manipulation from the U.S. Washington has also just secured assurances from South Korea that it will not competitively depreciate the won. If agreements like these stand, and yet China makes less robust or less permanent agreements regarding its own currency, South Korea and Taiwan could suffer marginal losses of competitiveness. Taiwan is also exposed to coercive economic measures from China. Since Tsai's election, Beijing has made a notable effort to reduce tourist travel to Taiwan, which is reflected in tourism and flight data (Chart 14). Given the context of political tensions, the risk of discrete sanctions will persist and could flare up at any time if an incident occurs that aggravates the distrust between the two governments. How will investors know if Taiwanese geopolitical risk is about to spike upwards? At the moment, geopolitical risk is subdued, according to a proxy based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 15). This indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It even jumped upon the heightened tensions around the 2016 election of Tsai, and her controversial phone call with Donald Trump after his election. At the moment it suggests that cross-strait tensions have subsided significantly, despite the cutoff in formal diplomatic communication. However, the low point of the measure, and the underlying political factors outlined in the previous section, suggest that it should rise going forward. Chart 15Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here In the short run, it will be important to watch the Trump administration's handling of diplomatic visits and arms sales to Taiwan. Trump's signing of the Taiwan Travel Act has elevated diplomatic exchanges in a way that is mostly symbolic but could still spark an episode of heightened tension with China that would result in economic sanctions. An unprecedented naval port call could turn into an incident. At the same time, the U.S. guarantees Taiwan's security and in token of that guarantee periodically provides Taiwan with weapons packages. Beijing, for its part, always protests these sales, more or less vigorously depending on the military capabilities in question. The currently slated one is not too big but there is a rumor that it will include F-35 stealth fighter jets; other surprises could occur. Traditionally, the biggest spikes in sales have fallen under Democratic, not Republican, administrations. However, Trump may change that. There is a consensus in Washington that policy toward China should get tougher. The Taiwan Travel Act, upgrading diplomatic ties, passed with unanimous consent in both the House and Senate. Taiwanese governments have a record of increasing military spending when Republican presidents sit in Washington. And the first DPP government, under Chen Shui-bian from 2000-08, marked a clear upturn in Taiwanese military spending growth (Chart 16). If the Trump administration decides to sell Taiwan weapon systems that make a qualitative difference in the military balance, it will raise tensions with Beijing and likely prompt economic sanctions against Taiwan. Chart 16Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant In the long run, there are three key negotiations taking place in the region that could increase Taiwanese geopolitical risk: U.S.-China trade negotiations: Taiwan has benefited from China's engagement with the U.S., and with the West more broadly, and stands to suffer if they disengage. That would herald rising strategic tensions that would put Taiwan's trade and security in jeopardy. Geopolitical risk would go up. North Korean diplomacy: Kim Jong Un has met with Xi Jinping and formally agreed to hold bilateral summits with Presidents Trump and Moon Jae-in of South Korea. He has also indicated that denuclearization is on the table. If the different parties enter onto a path towards a peace treaty and denuclearization, then Taiwan might worry that the U.S. will eventually remove troops from the peninsula - far-fetched but not out of the question. Taiwan would fear abandonment and could attempt to entangle the U.S. For its part, China could believe that cooperation on North Korea requires the U.S. to give China greater sway over Taiwan. Geopolitical risk would go up. The South China Sea: These sea lanes are vital to Taiwan as well as China, South Korea, and Japan. If the U.S. washes its hands of the matter, ceding China a maritime sphere of influence, Taiwan will face both greater supply risk and greater anxiety about American commitment to its security. Beijing might be emboldened to pressure Taiwan, or Taiwan might act out to try to secure American support. Geopolitical risk would go up. Bottom Line: Taiwan's economy is entering a cyclical slowdown on the back of China's slowdown and rollover in the semiconductor industry. At the same time, trade tensions emanating from the U.S.-China negotiations and political tensions emanating from the other side of the strait suggest that Taiwan's geopolitical risk premium will rise. Over the short term, Taiwan's local elections, the referendum movement, or U.S. diplomacy or arms sales could provide a catalyst for a cross-strait crisis. Over the long term, significant changes in U.S.-China relations, North Korea, or the South China Sea could put Taiwan in a more precarious position. Investment Conclusions While the absolute outlook for Taiwanese stock prices is negative, the potential downside in share prices in U.S. dollar terms is lower than for the EM benchmark. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy recommends that EM-dedicated investors remain overweight Taiwanese risk assets relative to the EM benchmark. First, the epicenter of China's slowdown is capital spending in general and construction in particular. Various Chinese industrial activity indicators have already begun decelerating. This is negative for industrial commodity prices and countries that produce them. Taiwan is less exposed to China's construction slump than many other EM economies. Second, China's spending on technology will not slow much. As a part of its ongoing reforms, Beijing will encourage more investment in technology as well as upgrading industries across the value-added curve. Hence, China's tech spending will outperform its expenditure on construction and infrastructure. Taiwan is poised to benefit from this relative shift in China's growth priorities. Third, there are no fresh credit excesses in Taiwan like in some other EMs. Taiwan's banking system worked out bad assets extensively following the credit excesses of the 1980s-90s. Hence it is less vulnerable than its peers in the developing world. Finally, Taiwan has an enormous current account surplus of 14% of GDP and, contrary to many other EMs, foreign investors hold few Taiwanese local bonds. When outflows from EM occur, the Taiwanese currency will fall under less pressure and its financial system under much less stress. This will allow Taiwanese stocks to act as a low-beta defensive play. Crucially, despite some appreciation to appease Trump, the Taiwanese dollar is among the cheapest currencies in EM (Chart 17). Chart 17Cheap Taiwanese Dollar Removes Risk Cheap Taiwanese Dollar Removes Risk Cheap Taiwanese Dollar Removes Risk As for heightened geopolitical risk, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy would note that while we view Taiwan as a potential "black swan," nevertheless tail risks are not the proper basis for an investment strategy. We will continue to monitor the situation so that we can alert clients when a major, market-relevant deterioration in cross-strait relations appears imminent, based largely on the factors highlighted above. If the DPP remains dominant after the local elections later this year, or if "Third Forces" make notable gains, we would suspect that the Xi administration will shift to using more sticks than carrots. This could include economic sanctions and military saber-rattling. The question then will be whether Beijing (or Washington or Taipei) attempts a material change to the status quo. Ultimately - from a bird's eye point of view - a war is more likely in the wake of Xi Jinping's elimination of term limits, consolidation of power, and the secular slowdown in China's economy and rise of Chinese nationalism. But we see no reason to fear such a catastrophic outcome in the near term. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, and "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Trump began, as president-elect, by holding an unprecedented telephone call with the Taiwanese president. His administration has since requested a new $1.4 billion arms package, opened legal space for port calls (including potentially naval port calls) in the 2018 Defense Authorization Act, and for higher-level diplomatic meetings via the Taiwan Travel Act, which became public law on March 16, 2018. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Military drills have involved symbolic shows, like sailing China's only operational aircraft carrier along the mid-line of the Taiwan Strait, as well as more poignant maneuvers, like drilling north and south of Taiwan simultaneously. As for rhetoric, Xi omitted from his 2017 party congress speech any reference to hopes that the Taiwanese "people" would bring about unification; in his speech after the March National People's Congress, he warned of the "punishment of history" for those who would promote secession. 6 Shown as the average of 2015 and 2017.

Highlights There is growing evidence that China's industrial sector is slowing, as are Asian trade flows. EM stocks have seen their tops. Even though current trade tensions between the U.S. and China could well dissipate, we are at the beginning of a long-term geopolitical standoff between these two superpowers. We are reinstating our long MXN / short BRL and ZAR trade. We are also upgrading Mexican sovereign credit and local bonds to overweight within their respective EM benchmarks. This week we review our recommended country allocation for the EM sovereign credit space. Feature The combination of budding signs of deceleration in both China and global trade, the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China as well as elevated equity valuations, leaves EM stocks extremely vulnerable. Odds are that EM share prices have made a major top. A few financial indicators point to a top in EM risk assets and commodities, while several leading economic indicators herald a global trade slowdown. Taken together we are reiterating our bearish stance on EM risk assets. Market- And Liquidity- Based Indicators Financial market indicators are signalling a major top in EM risk assets and commodities prices: The relative total return (carry included) of four equally weighted EM (ZAR, RUB, BRL and CLP) and three DM (AUD, NZD and CAD) commodities currencies versus an equally weighted average of two safe-haven currencies - the Japanese yen and Swiss franc - has rolled over at its previous highs, and is about to break below its 200-day moving average (Chart I-1). This technical profile points to rising odds of a major down-leg in this carry adjusted ratio of seven 'risk-on' versus two 'safe-haven' currencies, herein referred to as the risk-on / safe-haven currency ratio. Importantly, Chart I-2 demonstrates that this risk-on / safe-haven currency ratio has historically been coincident with EM share prices. A breakdown in this ratio would herald a major downtrend in EM equities. This is consistent with our qualitative assessment that EM equities have seen the peak in this rally. Chart I-1A Major Top In Risk-On Versus ##br##Safe-Haven Currency Ratio bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c1 bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c1 Chart I-2Risk-On Versus Safe-Haven Currency Ratio##br## And EM Share Prices: Twins? bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c2 bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c2 The annual rate of change in the risk-on / safe-haven currencies ratio leads global export volumes by several months. It currently indicates that global trade has already peaked, and a meaningful slowdown is in the cards (Chart I-3). As we documented in March 15 report,1 global cyclical sectors - mining, machinery and chemicals - have been underperforming since January. Industrial metals prices, including copper, are gapping down, as are steel and iron ore prices in China (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Global Trade Is Set To Slow bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c3 Chart I-4A Breakdown In Metals Prices Is In The Making A Breakdown In Metals Prices Is In The Making A Breakdown In Metals Prices Is In The Making Our aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse for China projects considerable downside risks for industrial metals prices (Chart I-5). In this context, a question arises: Why is oil doing well so far? Chart I-6 illustrates that industrial metals prices typically lead oil at peaks. Oil prices have historically been a lagging variable of global business cycles. Chart I-5China's Slowdown Is Far From Over China's Slowdown Is Far From Over China's Slowdown Is Far From Over Chart I-6Industrial Metals Lead Oil Prices At Tops Industrial Metals Lead Oil Prices At Tops Industrial Metals Lead Oil Prices At Tops Furthermore, our two measures of U.S. dollar liquidity have rolled over. These two measures have a high correlation with EM share prices and are inversely correlated with the trade-weighted U.S. dollar (Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B). The dollar is shown inverted on Chart I-7B. The rollover in these measures of U.S. dollar liquidity is due to shrinking U.S. banks' excess reserves at the Federal Reserve. The Fed's ongoing balance sheet reduction and the Treasury's replenishment of its account at the Fed will continue to shrink banks' excess reserves, and thereby weigh on these measures of U.S. dollar liquidity. In short, downside risks to EM stocks and upside risks to the U.S. dollar have increased. Last but not least, China's yield curve has recently ticked down again and is about to invert, signaling weaker growth ahead (Chart I-8). Chart I-7AU.S. Dollar Liquidity And EM Stocks... U.S. Dollar Liquidity And EM Stocks... U.S. Dollar Liquidity And EM Stocks... Chart I-7B...And Trade-Weighted Dollar (Inverted) ...And Trade-Weighted Dollar (Inverted) ...And Trade-Weighted Dollar (Inverted) Chart I-8China's Yield Curve Is About To Invert China's Yield Curve Is About To Invert China's Yield Curve Is About To Invert Hard Data In addition, certain economic data have also decisively rolled over, in particular: Taiwanese shipments to China lead global trade volumes by several months, and they now portend a meaningful slowdown in global export volumes (Chart I-9). The basis for this relationship is that Taiwan sends a lot of intermediate products to mainland China. These inputs are in turn assembled by China and then shipped worldwide. Therefore, diminishing trade flow from Taiwan to China is a sign of a slowdown in world trade. The three-month moving average of Korea's 20-day exports growth rate, which includes the March data point, reveals that considerable softness in global trade is underway (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Another Sign Of Peak In Global Trade Another Sign Of Peak In Global Trade Another Sign Of Peak In Global Trade Chart I-10Korean Export Growth Is Already Weak Korean Export Growth Is Already Weak Korean Export Growth Is Already Weak China's shipping freight index - the freight rates for containers out of China - is softening, and its annual rate of change points to weaker Asian exports (Chart I-11). The annual growth rate of vehicle sales in China has dropped to zero, with both passenger cars and commercial vehicles registering no growth in the past three months from a year ago (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Container Freight Rates In Asia Are Softening Container Freight Rates In Asia Are Softening Container Freight Rates In Asia Are Softening Chart I-12China's Auto Sales: Post-Stimulus Hangover China's Auto Sales: Post-Stimulus Hangover China's Auto Sales: Post-Stimulus Hangover Finally, measures of industrial activity in China such as total freight volumes and electricity output growth continue to downshift (Chart I-13). Next week we are planning to publish a Special Report on China's property market. Our initial research shows that structural imbalances remain acute in the nation's real estate market, and a downturn commensurable if not worse than those that occurred in 2011 and 2014-'15 is very likely. Will the Fed and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) reverse their stance quickly to stabilize growth or preclude a downdraft in global risk assets? In the U.S., the primary trend in core inflation is up. Chart I-14 demonstrates that measures of core inflation have recently risen. This, along with the tight labor market, potential upside surprises in U.S. wages and a still-large fiscal stimulus entails that the bar for the Fed to turn dovish will be somewhat higher this year. It may take a large drawdown in the S&P 500 and a meaningful appreciation in the dollar for the Fed to come to the rescue of risk assets. Chart I-13Chinese Industrial Sector Is Decelerating Chinese Industrial Sector Is Decelerating Chinese Industrial Sector Is Decelerating Chart I-14U.S. Core Inflation Has Bottomed U.S. Core Inflation Has Bottomed U.S. Core Inflation Has Bottomed The Chinese authorities on the other hand, had already been facing enormous challenges in balancing the needs for structural reforms and achieving robust growth before the eruption of the trade confrontation with the U.S. As such, the balancing task is becoming overwhelming. Even if the Chinese authorities stop tightening liquidity now, the cumulated impact of earlier liquidity and regulatory tightening will continue to work its way into the economy, thereby slowing growth. Bottom Line: There is growing evidence that China's industrial sector is slowing, as are Asian trade flows. This is bearish for commodities and EM risk assets. Geopolitics: Icing On The Cake The recent U.S. trade spat with China has arrived at a time when global trade and China's industrial cycle have already begun to downshift, as discussed above. At the same time, investor sentiment on global risk assets remains very complacent, and equity and credit markets are pricey. As such, the U.S.-China trade confrontation has become the icing on the cake. U.S. equity valuations are elevated - the median stock's P/E ratio is at an all-time high (Chart I-15). While EM share prices are not at record expensive levels, valuations are on the pricey side. The top panel of Chart I-16 shows the equal-weighted average of trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book, price-to-cash earnings and price-to-dividend ratios for the median EM sub-sector. This valuation indicator is about one standard deviation above its historical mean. Chart I-15U.S. Equities: Median P/E ##br##Is At Record High U.S. Equities: Median P/E Is At Record High U.S. Equities: Median P/E Is At Record High Chart I-16EM Stocks Are Expensive##br## In Absolute Term bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c16 bca.ems_wr_2018_03_29_s1_c16 The bottom panel of Chart I-16 illustrates the same valuation ratio relative to DM. Contrary to prevailing consensus, EM equities are not cheap relative their DM peers. Using median multiples of sub-sectors helps remove outliers. We discussed EM stock valuations in greater detail in our January 24 and March 1 special reports; the links to these reports are available on page 17. As to the duration and depth of the U.S.-China trade confrontation, we have the following remarks: If the U.S.'s plan to impose import tariffs on Chinese goods is primarily about domestic politics ahead of the mid-term elections later this year, as well as to obtain some trade concessions from China, then the current standoff will be resolved in a matter of months. If the true intention of the U.S. is to contain China's geopolitical rise to preserve its global hegemony, this episode of import tariffs will likely mark the beginning of a much longer and drawn-out geopolitical confrontation. In such a case, the U.S.-China relationship will likely witness a roller-coaster pattern with periods of ameliorations followed by periods of escalation and confrontation. Critically, mutual distrust will set in - if not already the case - which will hamper cooperation on various issues. As trade tensions ebb and flow in the months ahead, the reality is that America is worried about losing its geopolitical hegemony to the Middle Kingdom. Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service have been noting for several years that a U.S.-China confrontation is unavoidable.2 Bottom Line: Even though the current trade tensions between the U.S. and China could well dissipate, we are at the beginning of a long-term geopolitical standoff between these two superpowers. Re-Instating Long MXN / Short BRL and ZAR Trade Chart I-17MXN's Carry Is Above Those Of BRL And ZAR MXN's Carry Is Above Those Of BRL And ZAR MXN's Carry Is Above Those Of BRL And ZAR Odds are that the Mexican peso will begin outperforming the Brazilian real and the South African rand. The main reason why we closed these trades in October was due to NAFTA renegotiation risks. Presently, with the U.S.-Sino trade confrontation escalating, the odds of NAFTA abrogation are declining. In fact, the U.S. may attempt to strike a deal with its allies, including its NAFTA partners, to focus more directly on China. Consequently, a menace hanging over the peso from the Sword of Damocles, i.e., NAFTA retraction, will continue to diminish. Consistently, the risk premium priced into Mexican risk assets will wane, helping Mexican markets outperform their EM peers. Interestingly, for the first time in many years, the Mexican peso's carry is above those of the Brazilian real and the South African rand (Chart I-17). Therefore, going long MXN versus ZAR and BRL are carry positive trades. Importantly, the Mexican peso is cheap. Chart I-18A illustrates the peso is cheap in absolute terms, according to the real effective exchange rate (REER) based on unit labor costs. Chart I-18B shows the peso's relative REER against those of the rand and real. These measures are constructed using consumer and producer prices-based REERs. The peso is cheaper than the South African and Brazilian currencies. Not only is Mexico's currency cheap versus other EM currencies, but Mexican domestic bonds and sovereign spreads also offer great value relative to their EM benchmarks (Chart I-19).Finally, the Mexican equity market has massively underperformed the EM benchmark and is beginning to look attractive on a relative basis. Chart I-18AMXN Is Cheap In Trade-Weighted Terms... MXN Is Cheap In Trade-Weighted Terms... MXN Is Cheap In Trade-Weighted Terms... Chart I-18B...And Relative BRL And ZAR ...And Relative BRL And ZAR ...And Relative BRL And ZAR Chart I-19Mexican Local Currency And Dollar Bonds Offer Value Mexican Local Currency And Dollar Bonds Offer Value Mexican Local Currency And Dollar Bonds Offer Value If and as dedicated EM portfolios rotate into Mexican domestic bonds and equities, this will bid up the peso. Brazil and South Africa are leveraged to China and metals, while Mexico is exposed to the U.S. and oil. Our main theme remains that U.S. growth will do much better than that of China. While a potential drop in oil prices is a risk to the peso, Mexican goods shipments to the U.S. will remain strong, benefiting the nation's balance of payments. Macro policy in Mexico has been super-orthodox: the central bank has hiked interest rates significantly, and the government has tightened fiscal policy (Chart I-20, top panel). This has hurt growth but is positive for the trade balance and the currency (Chart I-20). Mexico will elect a new president in July, and odds of victory by leftist candidate Lopez Obrador are considerable. However, we do not expect a massive U-turn in macro policies after the elections. Importantly, the starting point of Mexico's macro settings is very healthy. In Brazil, government debt dynamics remain unsustainable, yet its financial markets have been extremely complacent. Brazil needs much higher nominal GDP growth and much lower interest rates to stabilize its public debt dynamics. As we have repeatedly argued, a major currency depreciation is needed to boost nominal GDP and government revenues. Besides, Brazil is set to hold general elections in October, and there is no visibility yet on the type of government that will enter office. In South Africa, financial markets have cheered the election of President Cyril Ramaphosa, but the outlook for structural reforms is still very uncertain. The recent decision to consider a constitutional change in Parliament that would allow the confiscation of land from white landlords may be an indication that investors have become overly optimistic on the outlook for structural reforms. In short, the median voter in both Brazil and South Africa favors leftist and populist policies. This entails that the odds of supply side reforms without meaningful riots in financial markets are not great. Finally, the relative performance of the MXN against the BRL and ZAR, including carry, seems to be attempting to make a bottom (Chart I-21). Chart I-20Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals Chart I-21A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? Bottom Line: Go long MXN versus an equally weighted basket of BRL and ZAR. Consistently, we also recommend overweighting Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. We will review the outlook for Mexican stocks in the coming weeks. EM Sovereign Credit Space: Country Allocation Asset allocators should compare EM sovereign and corporate credit with U.S. and European corporate bonds rather than EM local bonds or equities. The basis is that EM sovereign U.S. dollar bonds are a credit market, and vastly differ from local bonds and equities in terms of volatility, risk-reward trade-off and many other parameters. In short, EM credit markets should be compared to DM credit markets and EM equities to DM equities. EM local currency bonds are a separate, unique asset class.3 We continue to recommend underweighting EM sovereign and corporate credit versus U.S. and European corporate bonds. Within the EM sovereign space, our overweights are: Mexico, Argentina, Russia, Hungary, Poland, the Philippines, Chile and Peru. Neutral: Colombia, Indonesia, Egypt and Nigeria. Our underweights are: Brazil, Venezuela, Malaysia, Turkey and South Africa. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Disguised Risks", dated March 15, 2018; the link is available on page 17. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategies Now", dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 You may request May 7, 2013 Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report discussing our perspectives on how asset allocation for EM financial markets should be done. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

In this Special Report, we review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar. The long-term structural downtrend in the dollar is intact. This trend reflects both a slower underlying pace of U.S. productivity growth relative to the rest of the world and a persistent external deficit. The U.S. shortfall on its net international investment position, now at about 40% of GDP, is likely to continue growing in the coming decades. Fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, but the situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding sustainability. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see little reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are some parallels today with the Nixon era, but we do not expect the same outcome for the dollar. The Fed is unlikely to make the same mistake as it made in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There are risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. While the underlying trend in the dollar is down, cyclical factors are likely to see it appreciate on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Growth momentum, which moved in favor of the major non-U.S. currencies in 2017, should shift in the greenback's favor this year. U.S. fiscal stimulus is bullish the dollar, despite the fact that this will worsen the current account balance. Additional protectionist measures should also support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. The U.S. dollar just can't seem to get any respect even in the face of a major fiscal expansion that is sure to support U.S. growth. Nonetheless, there are a lot of moving parts to consider besides fiscal stimulus: a tightening Fed, accumulating government debt, geopolitical tension and growing trade protectionism among others. The interplay of all these various forces can easily create confusion about the currency outlook. Textbook economic models show that the currency should appreciate in the face of stimulative fiscal policy and rising tariffs, at least in the short term, not least because U.S. interest rates should rise relative to other countries. However, one could also equate protectionism and a larger fiscally-driven external deficit with a weaker dollar. Which forces will dominate? In this Special Report, we sort out the moving parts. We review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar in the short- and long-term. Tariffs And The Dollar Let's start with import tariffs. In theory, higher tariffs should be positive for the currency as long as there is no retaliation. The amount spent on imports will fall as consumer spending is re-directed toward domestically-produced goods and services. A lower import bill means the country does not need to export as much to finance its imports, leading to dollar appreciation (partially offsetting the competitive advantage that the tariff provides). Tariffs also boost inflation temporarily, which means that higher U.S. real interest rates should also lift the dollar to the extent that the Fed responds with tighter policy. That said, the tariffs recently announced by the Trump Administration are small potatoes in the grand scheme. The U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. The positive impact on U.S. growth is also modest as the tariffs benefit only two industries, and higher domestic prices for steel and aluminum undermine U.S. consumers of these two metals. A unilateral tariff increase could be mildly growth-positive if there is no retaliation by trading partners. This was the result of a Bank of Canada study, which found that much of the growth benefits from a higher import tariff are offset by an appreciation of the currency.1 Even a short-term growth boost is not guaranteed. A detailed analysis of the 2002 Bush steel tariff increase found that the import tax killed many more jobs than it created.2 Shortages forced some U.S. steel-consuming firms to source the metal offshore, while others made their steel suppliers absorb the higher costs, leading to job losses. A recent IMF3 study employed a large macro-economic model to simulate the impact of a 10% across-the-board U.S. import tariff without any retaliation. It found that tariffs place upward pressure on domestic interest rates, especially if the economy is already at full employment (Chart II-1). This is because the central bank endeavors to counter the inflationary impact with higher interest rates. However, a stronger currency and higher interest rates eventually cool the economy and the Fed is later forced to ease policy. This puts the whole process into reverse as interest rate differentials fall and the dollar weakens. Chart II-1At Full Employment, Import Tariffs Raise Rates April 2018 April 2018 The economic outcome would be much worse if U.S. trading partners were to retaliate and the situation degenerates into a full-fledged trade war involving a growing number of industries. In theory, the dollar would not rise as much if there is retaliation because foreign tariffs on U.S. exports are offsetting in terms of relative prices. But all countries lose in this scenario. China is considering only a small retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs as we go to press, but the trade dispute has the potential to really heat up, as we discuss in the Overview section. The bottom line is that the Trump tariffs are more likely to lead to a stronger dollar than a weaker one, although far more would have to be done to see any meaningful impact. Fiscal Stimulus And The Dollar Traditional economic theory suggests that fiscal stimulus is also positive for the currency in the short term. The boost in aggregate demand worsens the current account balance, since some of the extra government spending is satisfied by foreign producers. The U.S. dollar appreciates as interest rates increase relative to the other major countries, attracting capital inflows. The currency appreciation thus facilitates the necessary adjustment (deterioration) in the current account balance. The impact on interest rates is similar to the tariff shock shown in Chart II-1. All of the above market and economic adjustments should be accentuated when the economy is already at full employment. Since the domestic economy is short of spare capacity, a vast majority of the extra spending related to fiscal stimulus must be imported. Moreover, the Fed would have to respond even more aggressively to the extent that inflationary pressures are greater when the economy is running hot. The result would be even more upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Reality has not supported the theory so far. The U.S. dollar weakened after the tax cuts were passed, and it did not even get a lift following the Senate spending plan that was released in February. The broad trade-weighted dollar has traded roughly sideways since mid-2017. Judging by the market reaction to the fiscal news, it appears that investors are worried about a potential replay of the so-called Nixon shock, when fiscal stimulus exacerbated the 'twin deficits' problem, investors lost confidence in policymakers and the dollar fell. Twin deficits refers to a period when the federal budget deficit and the current account deficit are deteriorating at the same time. Chart II-2 highlights that the late 1960s/early 1970s was the last time that the federal government stimulated the economy at a time when the economy was already at full employment. Seeing the parallels today, some investors are concerned the dollar will decline as it did in the early 1970s. Chart II-2A Replay Of The Nixon Years? A Replay Of The Nixon Years? A Replay Of The Nixon Years? Current Account And Budget Balances Often Diverge... The two deficits don't always shift in the same direction. In fact, Chart II-3 highlights that they usually move in opposite directions through the business cycle. This is not surprising because the current account usually improves in a recession as imports contract more than exports, but the budget deficit rises as tax revenues wither. The process reverses when the economy recovers. Chart II-3Twin Deficits And The Dollar Twin Deficits And The Dollar Twin Deficits And The Dollar The current account balance equals the government financial balance (i.e. budget deficit) plus the private sector financial balance (savings less investment spending). Thus, swings in the latter mean that the current account can move independently of the budget deficit. Even when the two deficits move in the same direction, there has been no clear historical relationship between the sum of the fiscal and current account balances and the value of the trade-weighted dollar (shaded periods in Chart II-3). In the early 1980s, the twin deficits exploded on the back of the Reagan tax cuts and the military buildup, but the dollar strengthened. In contrast, the dollar weakened in the early 2000s, a period when the twin deficits rose in response to the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and a booming housing market. ...But Generally Fiscal Expansion Undermines The Current Account Over long periods, a sustained rise in the fiscal deficit is generally associated with a sustained deterioration in the external balance. Numerous academic studies have found that every 1 percentage-point rise in the budget deficit worsens the current account balance by an average of 0.2-0.3 percentage points over the medium term. One study found that the current account deteriorates by an extra 0.2 percentage points if the fiscal stimulus arrives at a time when the economy is at full employment (i.e. an additional 0.2 percentage points over-and-above the 0.2-0.3 average response, for a total of 0.4 to 0.5).4 Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment today, these estimates imply that the expected two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline over 2018 and 2019 could add almost a full percentage point to the U.S. current account deficit (from around 3% of GDP currently to 4%). It could be even worse over the next couple of years because the private sector is likely to augment the government sector's drain on national savings. The mini capital spending boom currently underway will lift imports and thereby contribute to a further widening in the U.S. external deficit position. Nonetheless, theory supports the view that the dollar will rise in the face of fiscal stimulus, at least in the near term, even if this is accompanied by a rising external deficit. Theory gets fuzzier in terms of the long-term outlook for the currency. However, the traditional approach to the balance of payments suggests that the equilibrium value of the dollar will eventually fall. An ongoing current account deficit will accumulate into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt that must be serviced. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-4). The dollar will eventually have to depreciate in order to generate a trade surplus large enough to allow the U.S. to cover the extra interest payments on its growing stock of foreign debt. Chart II-4Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar The structural depreciation of the U.S. dollar observed since the early 1980s supports the theory, because it has trended lower along with the NIIP/GDP ratio. However, the downtrend probably also reflects other structural factors. For example, U.S. output-per-employee has persistently fallen relative to its major trading partners for decades (Chart II-4, third panel). The bottom line is that, while the dollar is likely to remain in a structural downtrend, it should receive at least a short-term boost from the combination of fiscal stimulus and higher tariffs. What could cause the dollar to buck the theory and depreciate even in the near term? We see three main scenarios in which the dollar could fall on a 12-month investment horizon. (1) Strong Growth Outside The U.S. First, growth momentum favored Europe, Japan and some of the other major countries relative to the U.S. in 2017. This helps to explain dollar weakness last year because the currency tends to underperform when growth surprises favor other countries in relative terms. It is possible that momentum will remain a headwind for the dollar this year. Nonetheless, this is not our base case. European and Japanese growth appears to be peaking, while fiscal stimulus should give the U.S. economy a strong boost this year and next (see the Overview section). (2) A Lagging Fed The Fed will play a major role in the dollar's near-term trend. The Fed could fail to tighten in the face of accelerating growth and falling unemployment, allowing inflation and inflation expectations to ratchet higher. If investors come to believe that the Fed will remain behind-the-curve, rising long-term inflation expectations would depress real interest rates and thereby knock the dollar down. This was part of the story in the Nixon years. Under pressure from the Administration, then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns failed to respond to rising inflation, contributing to a major dollar depreciation from 1968 to 1974. We see this risk as a very low-probability event. Today's Fed acts much more independently of Congress beyond its dual commitment on inflation and unemployment. And, given that the economy is at full employment, there is nothing stopping the FOMC from acting to preserve its 2% inflation target if it appears threatened. Chair Powell is new and untested, but we doubt he and the rest of the Committee will be influenced by any political pressure to keep rates unduly low as inflation rises. Even Governor Brainard, a well-known dove, has shifted in a hawkish direction recently. President Trump would have to replace the entire FOMC in order to keep interest rates from rising. We doubt he will try. (3) Long-Run Sustainability Concerns It might be the case that the deteriorating outlook for the NIIP undermines the perceived long-run equilibrium value of the currency so much that it overwhelms the impact of rising U.S. interest rates and causes the dollar to weaken even in the near term. This scenario would likely require a complete breakdown in confidence in current and future Administrations to avoid a runaway government debt situation. Historically, countries with large and growing NIIP shortfalls tend to have weakening currencies. The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. One could argue that the external deficit represents the U.S. "living beyond its means," because it consumes more than it produces. Another school of thought is that global savings are plentiful, and investors seek markets that are deep, liquid and offer a high expected rate of return. Indeed, China has willingly plowed a large chunk of its excess savings into U.S. assets since 2000. If the U.S. is an attractive place to invest, then we should not be surprised that the country runs a persistent trade deficit and capital account surplus. But even taking the more positive side of this debate, there are limits to how long the current situation can persist. The large stock of financial obligations implies flows of income payments and receipts - interest, dividends and the like - that must be paid out of the economy's current production. This might grow to be large enough to significantly curtail U.S. consumption and investment. At some point, foreign investors may begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We are not suggesting that foreign investors will suddenly dump their U.S. stocks and bonds. Rather, they may demand a higher expected rate of return in order to accept a rising allocation to U.S. assets. This would imply that the dollar will fall sharply so that it has room to appreciate and thereby lift the expected rate of return for foreign investors from that point forward. Chart II-5 shows that a 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. Any deficit above this level would imply a rapidly deteriorating situation. A 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040. The fact that the current account averaged 4.6% in the 2000s and 2½% since 2010 confirms that the NIIP is unlikely to stabilize unless major macroeconomic adjustments are made (see below). Chart II-5Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Academic research is inconclusive on how large the U.S. NIIP could become before there are serious economic consequences and/or foreign investors begin to revolt. Exorbitant Privilege The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The U.S. is also able to get away with offering foreign investors a lower return on their investment in the U.S. than U.S. investors receive on their foreign investment. Chart II-6 provides a proxy for these two returns. Relatively safe, but low yielding, fixed-income investments are a large component of foreign investments in the U.S., while U.S. investors favor equities and other assets that have a higher expected rate of return when investing abroad (Chart II-7). This gap increased after the Great Recession as U.S. interest rates fell by more than the return U.S. investors received on their foreign assets. Today's gap, at almost 1½ percentage points, is well above the 1 percentage point average for the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. Chart II-6U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns Chart II-7Composition Of Net International ##br##Investment Position April 2018 April 2018 A yield gap of 1.5 percentage points may not sound like much, but it has been enough that the U.S. enjoys a positive net inflow of private investment income of about 1.2% of GDP, despite the fact that foreign investors hold far more U.S. assets than the reverse (Chart II-6, top panel). In Chart II-8 we simulate the primary investment balance based on a persistent 3% of GDP current account deficit and under several scenarios for the investment yield gap. Perhaps counterintuitively, the primary investment surplus that the U.S. currently enjoys will actually rise slightly as a percent of GDP if the yield gap remains near 1½ percentage points. This is because, although the NIIP balance becomes more negative over time, U.S. liabilities are not growing fast enough relative to its assets to offset the yield differential. Chart II-8Primary Investment Balance Simulations Primary Investment Balance Simulations Primary Investment Balance Simulations However, some narrowing in the yield gap is likely as the Fed raises interest rates. Historically, the gap does not narrow one-for-one with Fed rate hikes because the yield on U.S. investments abroad also rises. Assuming that the yield gap returns to the pre-Lehman average of 1 percentage point over the next three years, the primary investment balance would decline, but would remain positive. Only under the assumption that the yield gap falls to 50 basis points or lower would the primary balance turn negative (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Crossing the line from positive to negative territory on investment income is not necessarily a huge red flag for the dollar, but it would signal that foreign debt will begin to impinge on the U.S. standard of living. That said, the yield gap will have to deteriorate significantly for this to happen anytime soon. What Drives The Major Swings In The Dollar? While the dollar has been in a structural bear market for many decades, there have been major fluctuations around the downtrend. Since 1980, there have been three major bull phases and two bear markets (bull phases are shaded in Chart II-9). These major swings can largely be explained by shifts in U.S./foreign differentials for short-term interest rates, real GDP growth and productivity growth. A model using these three variables explains most of the cyclical swings in the dollar, as the dotted line in the top panel of Chart II-9 reveals. Chart II-9U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors The peaks and troughs do not line up perfectly, but periods of dollar appreciation were associated with rising U.S. interest rates relative to other countries, faster relative U.S. real GDP growth, and improving U.S. relative productivity growth. Since the Great Recession, rate differentials have moved significantly in favor of the dollar, although U.S. relative growth improved a little as well. Productivity trends have not been a factor in recent years. Note that the current account has been less useful in identifying the cyclical swings in the dollar. Looking ahead, we expect short-term interest rate differentials to shift further in favor of the U.S. dollar. We assume that the Fed will hike rates three additional times in 2018 and another three next year. The Bank of Japan will stick with its current rate and 10-year target for the foreseeable future. The ECB may begin the next rate hike campaign by mid-2019, but will proceed slowly thereafter. We expect rate differentials to widen by more than is discounted in the market. As discussed above, we also expect growth momentum to swing back in favor of the U.S. economy in 2018. U.S. productivity growth will continue to underperform the rest-of-world average over the medium and long term. Nonetheless, we expect a cyclical upturn in relative productivity performance that should also support the greenback for the next year or two. Conclusion Reducing the U.S. structural external deficit to a sustainable level would require significant macro-economic adjustments that seem unlikely for the foreseeable future. We would need to see some combination of a higher level of the U.S. household saving rate, a balanced Federal budget balance or better, and/or much stronger growth among U.S. trading partners. In other words, the U.S. would have to become a net producer of goods and services, and either Europe or Asia would have to become a net consumer of goods and services. Current trends do not favor such a role reversal. Indeed, the U.S. twin deficits are sure to move in the wrong direction for at least the next two years. Longer-term, pressure on the federal budget deficit will only intensify with the aging of the population. The shortfall in terms of net foreign assets will continue to grow, which means that the long-term structural downtrend in the trade-weighted value of the dollar will persist. Other structural factors, such as international productivity trends, also point to a long-term dollar depreciation. It seems incongruous that the U.S. dollar is the largest reserve currency and that U.S. is the world's largest international debtor. The situation is perhaps perpetuated by the lack of an alternative, but this could change over time as concerns over the long-run viability of the Eurozone ebb and the Chinese renminbi gains in terms of international trade. The transition could take decades. The U.S. twin-deficits situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is anywhere close to the point where investors would begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see no reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are other risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. In 2018, we expect the dollar to partially unwind last year's weakness on the back of positive cyclical forces. Additional protectionist measures should support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Mathieu Savary Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy 1 A Wave of Protectionism? An Analysis of Economic and Political Considerations. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2008-2. Philipp Maier. 2 The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002. Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman. February 4, 2003. 3 See footnote to Chart II-1. 4 Fiscal Policy and the Current Account. Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 7859 September 16, 2010.

Highlights The 2018 outlook for both economic growth and corporate profits remains constructive for risk assets, although evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Some measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months. Nonetheless, the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend, suggesting that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown. The dip in early 2018 in the Global ZEW index likely reflected uncertainty over protectionist trade action. Economic growth in the major countries outside of the U.S. may have peaked, but will remain robust at least through this year. The potential for a trade war is a key risk facing investors. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy. That said, there are hopeful signs that the latest trade skirmish will not degenerate into a full-blown trade war and thereby cause lasting damage to risk assets. Stay overweight equities and corporate bonds. President Trump will announce on May 19 whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Stay long oil and related investments. The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated. EPS growth is peaking in Europe and Japan, but has a bit more upside in the U.S. later this year. Cross-country equity allocation is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. Rising U.S. corporate leverage is not an issue now, but could intensify the next downturn as ratings are slashed, defaults rise and banks tighten lending standards. The bond bear market remains intact, although the consolidation phase has further to run. By Q1 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below NAIRU. Policymakers will then try to nudge up the unemployment rate, but the odds of avoiding a recession are very low. Feature Investors are right to be concerned following the March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on about $50 billion of Chinese imports. The President is low in the polls and needs a victory of some sort heading into midterm elections. Getting tough on trade plays well with voters, and the President faces few constraints from Congress on this issue. Trump wants a raft of items from China, including opening up to foreign investment and a crackdown on intellectual theft. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy.1 That said, we do not expect the latest trade skirmish to degenerate into a full-blown trade war. First, China has already signaled it wants to avoid significant escalation. Beijing has offered several concessions, and its threat of retaliatory trade action has been measured so far. On the U.S. side, the fact that the Administration has decided to bring its case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that the Americans are willing to proceed through the normal trade-dispute channels. The bottom line is that, while we cannot rule out escalating trade action that causes meaningful damage to the equity market, it is more likely that the current round of tensions will be limited to brief flare-ups. Investors should monitor the extent of European involvement. If Europe joins the U.S. effort to force China to change its trade practices via the WTO, then China will have little choice but to give in without a major fight. In terms of other geopolitical risks, North Korea should move to the back burner for a while now that the regime has agreed to negotiations. Of greater near-term significance is May 19, when Trump will announce whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Oil prices would benefit if the May deadline for issuing waivers on Iran sanctions passes. Trade penalties against Iran would reduce its oil production and exports. The U.S. is also considering sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry. Moreover, Russia and Saudi Arabia are reportedly considering a deal to greatly extend their alliance to curb oil supply. While there are downside risks as well, our base case outlook sees the price of Brent reaching US$74 before year end. Global Growth: Some Mixed Signs Also facing investors this year is the risk that the recent softening in the economic data morphs into a serious growth scare. The 2018 outlook for both the economy and corporate profits remains constructive in our view, but evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Investors may begin to question recent upward revisions to the growth outlook for this year and next. Industrial production has softened and the manufacturing PMI has shifted lower in most of the advanced economies (Chart I-1). Bad weather in North America and Europe in early 2018 may be partly to blame, but Korean exports, a leading indicator for the global business cycle, have also softened. The Chinese economy is decelerating and we believe the growth risks are underappreciated. President Xi has cemented his power base and there has been a shift toward accelerated reform. Chinese leaders recognize that leverage in the system is a problem, and the regime is tightening policy on a multi-pronged basis. Structural reforms are positive for long-term growth, but are negative in the short term. The tightening in financial conditions is already evident in the Chinese PMI and the sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (although the latest reading shows an uptick; not shown). A hard landing is not our base case, but the risks are to the downside because the authorities will err on the side of tight policy and low growth. It is also disconcerting that some of our measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months, including capital goods imports and industrial production of capital goods (Chart I-2). Nonetheless, the fact that the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend suggests that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Consumer and business confidence continues to firm in the major economies. Chart I-1Some Signs Of A Peak In Global Growth Some Signs Of A Peak In Global Growth Some Signs Of A Peak In Global Growth Chart I-2A Soft Spot For Capital Spending A Soft Spot For Capital Spending A Soft Spot For Capital Spending Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown (Chart I-3). BCA's Global LEI remains in an uptrend and its diffusion index is above the 50 line. In contrast, the global measure of the ZEW investor sentiment index plunged in March. We attribute the decline to the announcement of steel and aluminum tariffs and the subsequent market swoon, suggesting that the ZEW pullback will prove to be temporary. Turning to the U.S., retail sales disappointed in January and February, especially considering that taxpayers just received a sizable tax cut. Nonetheless, this probably reflects lagged effects and weather distortions. Our U.S. consumer spending indicator continues to strengthen as all of the components remain constructive outside of auto sales. Household balance sheets are the best that they have been since 2007; net worth is soaring and the aggregate debt-to-income ratio is close to the lowest level since the turn of the century (Chart I-4). Given robust employment growth and the tightest labor market in decades, there is little to hold U.S. consumer spending back. We expect that the tax cut effect on retail sales will be revealed in the coming months, helping to sustain the healthy backdrop for corporate profits. Chart I-3Global Leading Indicators Mostly Positive Global Leading Indicators Mostly Positive Global Leading Indicators Mostly Positive Chart I-4U.S. Consumers In Good Shape U.S. Consumers In Good Shape U.S. Consumers In Good Shape Global Margins Still Rising The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated (Chart I-5). Earnings-per-share surged in the early months of the year in both the U.S. and Japan, although they languished in the Eurozone according to IBES data (local currencies; not shown). Relative equity returns in local currency tend to follow relative shifts in 12-month forward EPS expectations over long periods, and bottom-up analysts have lifted their U.S. earnings figures in light of the fiscal stimulus (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Global Margins Still Rising Global Margins Still Rising Global Margins Still Rising Chart I-6EPS And Relative Equity Returns EPS And Relative Equity Returns EPS And Relative Equity Returns The key question is: can the U.S. market outperform again in 2018 now that the tax cuts have largely been priced in? One can make a compelling case either way. Growth: Global growth will remain robust for at least the next year, and the Eurozone and Japanese markets are more geared to global growth than is the U.S. However, the impressive fiscal stimulus in the pipeline means that economic growth momentum is likely to swing back toward the U.S. this year. GDP growth in Europe and Japan will remain above-trend, but it has probably peaked for the cycle in both economies. Valuation: Our composite measure of valuation suggests that Europe and Japan are on the cheap side relative to the U.S. based on our aggregate valuation indicator, which takes into consideration a wide variety of yardsticks (Chart I-7). That said, one of the reasons why European stocks are on the cheap side at the moment is that export-oriented German exporters are quite exposed to rising international tariffs. Earnings: Previous currency shifts will add to EPS growth in the U.S. in the first half of the year, but will be a drag in Europe and Japan (Chart I-8). However, these effects will wane through the year unless the dollar keeps falling. Indeed, we expect the dollar to firm modestly over the next year, favoring the European equity market at the margin. In contrast, we expect the yen to strengthen in the near term, which will trim Japanese EPS growth. Chart I-7Valuation Ranking Of Nonfinancial ##br##Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. April 2018 April 2018 Chart I-8Impact Of Currency Shifts On EPS Growth Impact Of Currency Shifts On EPS Growth Impact Of Currency Shifts On EPS Growth Chart I-9 updates the forecast from our top-down earnings models. The incorporation of the fiscal stimulus lifted the U.S. EPS growth profile relative to our previous forecast. EPS growth is expected to peak at over 20% later this year (4-quarter moving total basis using S&P 500 data). Growth is expected to decelerate thereafter since we have factored in a modest margin squeeze as U.S. wage growth picks up. Narrowing margins are less of a risk in Europe. U.S. EPS growth should be above that of Europe in 2018, but will then fall to about the same pace in 2019. We expect Japanese profit growth to remain very strong this year and next, given Japan's highly pro-cyclical earnings sensitivity. However, this does not incorporate the risk of further yen strength. Earnings expectations will also matter. Twelve-month bottom-up expectations are higher than our U.S. forecast ('x' in Chart I-9 denotes 12-month forward EPS expectations). In contrast, expectations are roughly in line with our forecast for the European market. It will therefore be more difficult at the margin for U.S. earnings to surprise to the upside. Monetary Policy: The relative shift in monetary policies should favor the European and Japanese markets to the U.S. The FOMC will continue tightening, with risks still to the upside on rates in absolute terms and relative to the other two economies. Sector Performance: Sector skews should work in Europe's favor. Financials are the largest overweight in Euro area bourses, while technology is the largest overweight in the U.S. We are constructive on the financial sector in both markets, but out-performance of the sector will favor the Eurozone broad market. Meanwhile, tech companies are particularly sensitive to changes in discount rates, since they often trade on the assumption that most of their earnings will be realized far into the future. As such, higher long-term real bond yields will adversely affect U.S. tech names, especially in an environment where the dollar is strengthening. The Japanese market has a relatively high weighting in industrials and consumer discretionary. The market will benefit if the global mini capex boom continues, but this could be counteracted by softness in global auto sales and further yen strength. It is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. We continue to avoid the Japanese market for the near term because of the potential for additional yen gains. As for the equity sector call, investors should remain oriented toward cyclicals versus defensives. Our key themes of a synchronized global capex mini boom, rising bond yields and firm oil prices favor the industrials, energy and financial sectors. Chart I-10 highlights four indicators that support the cyclicals over defensives theme, the dollar and the business sales-to-inventories ratio. Telecom, consumer discretionary and homebuilders are underweight. Chart I-9Profit Forecast Profit Forecast Profit Forecast Chart I-10These Indicators Favor Cyclical Stocks These Indicators Favor Cyclical Stocks These Indicators Favor Cyclical Stocks We will be watching the indicators in Chart I-10 to time the shift to a more defensive equity sector allocation. Leverage And The Next Recession As the economic expansion enters the late stages, investors are focused on where leverage pressure points may lurk. Last month's Special Report on U.S. corporate vulnerability to higher interest rates and a recession raised some eyebrows. For our sample of 770 companies, we estimated how much interest coverage for the average company would decline under two scenarios: (1) interest rates rise by 100 basis points across the curve; and (2) interest rates rise by 100 basis points and there is a recession in which corporate profits fall by 25% peak to trough. Given all the client inquiries, we decided to delve deeper into the results. We were concerned that our sample of high-yield companies distorted the overall results because it includes many small firms and outliers. We are more comfortable with the results using only the investment-grade firms, shown in Chart I-11. The 'x' marks the interest rate shock and the 'o' marks the combined shock. Nonetheless, the main qualitative message is unchanged. The starting point for interest coverage is low, considering that interest rates are near the lowest levels on record and profits are extremely high relative to GDP. This is the result of an extended period of corporate releveraging on the back of low borrowing rates. Chart I-12 shows that the interest coverage ratio has declined even as profit margins have remained elevated. Normally the two move together through the cycle. Chart I-11Corporate Leverage Will Take A Toll Corporate Leverage Will Take A Toll Corporate Leverage Will Take A Toll Chart I-12The Consequences Of Rising Leverage The Consequences Of Rising Leverage The Consequences Of Rising Leverage The implication is that the next recession will see interest coverage fare worse than in previous recessions. Of course, there are many other financial ratios and statistics that the rating agencies employ, but our results suggest that downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning south. Moreover, banks may tighten C&I lending standards earlier and more aggressively because they will also be finely attuned to the first hint of economic trouble given the leverage of the companies in their portfolio. Recovery rates may be particularly low in the next recession because the equity cushion has been squeezed via buybacks, which will intensify widening pressure in corporate spreads. Tighter lending standards would generate more corporate defaults, even wider spreads and a greater overall tightening in financial conditions. Corporate leverage could therefore intensify the pullback in business spending in the next recession. The good news is that we do not see any other major macro-economic imbalances, such as areas of overspending, that could turn a mild recession into a nasty one. As long as growth remains solid, the market and rating agencies will ignore the leverage issue. Indeed, ratings migration has improved markedly following the energy related downgrades in 2014 and 2015. An improving rating migration ratio is usually associated with corporate bond outperformance relative to Treasurys (Chart I-13). We remain overweight U.S. investment-grade and high-yield bonds within fixed-income portfolios for now. The European corporate sector is further behind in the leverage cycle (Chart I-14). Europe does not appear to be nearly as vulnerable to rising interest rates. Nonetheless, our European Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has deteriorated over the past couple of years due to some erosion in profit margins, debt coverage and the return on capital. Meanwhile, the U.S. CHM has improved in recent quarters because the favorable earnings backdrop has temporarily overwhelmed rising leverage (top panel of Chart I-14). For the short-term, at least, corporate health is moving in favor of the U.S. at the margin. Chart I-13Ratings Migration Is Constructive For Now Ratings Migration Is Constructive For Now Ratings Migration Is Constructive For Now Chart I-14Corporate Health Trend Favors U.S. Corporate Health Trend Favors U.S. Corporate Health Trend Favors U.S. The implication is that, while we see trouble ahead for the U.S. corporate sector in the next economic downturn, in the short term we now favor the U.S. over Europe in the credit space. We are watching our Equity Scorecard, bank lending standards, the yield curve and our profit margin proxy in order to time our exit from both corporate bonds and equities (see last month's Overview section). We are also watching for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will get more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate. Powell Doesn't Rock The Boat The Fed took a measured approach when reacting to the fiscal stimulus that is in the pipeline. The FOMC lifted rates in March and marginally raised the 'dot plot' for 2019 and 2020. Policymakers shaved the projection for unemployment to 3.6% by the end of 2019. This still appears too pessimistic, unless one assumes that the labor force participation rate will rise sharply. Table I-1 provides estimates for when the unemployment rate will reach 3½% based on different average monthly payrolls and participation rates. Our base case scenario, with 200k payrolls per month and a flat participation rate, sees the unemployment rate reaching 3½% by March 2019. Table I-1Dates When 3.5% Unemployment Rate Threshold Is Reached April 2018 April 2018 The soft-ish February reports for consumer prices and average hourly earnings took some of the heat off the FOMC. Core CPI, for example, rose 'only' 0.2% from the month before. Still, when viewed on a 3-month rate-of-change basis, underlying inflation remains perky; the core CPI inflation rate increased from 2.8% in January to 3% in February (Chart I-15). Inflation in core services excluding medical care and shelter, as well as in core goods, have also surged on a 3-month basis. We expect the latter to continue to pressure overall inflation higher, following the upward trend in import prices. The recent downtrend in shelter inflation should also stabilize due to the falling rental vacancy rate. Chart I-15U.S. Inflation Is Perky U.S. Inflation Is Perky U.S. Inflation Is Perky Moreover, the NFIB survey of U.S. small businesses shows that the gap between the difficulties of finding qualified labor versus demand problems is close to record highs. The ISM manufacturing survey shows that companies are paying more for their inputs and experiencing delays with suppliers. This describes a late-cycle environment marked with rising inflationary pressures. We expect that core inflation will grind up to the 2% target by early next year. By the first quarter of 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below its estimate of the non-inflationary limit. Policymakers will then attempt a 'soft landing' in which they tighten policy enough to nudge up the unemployment rate. Unfortunately, the Fed has never been able to generate a soft landing. Once unemployment starts to rise, the next recession soon follows. Our base case is that the next recession begins in 2020. Bond Bear In Hibernation For Now The bond market showed that it can still intimidate in February, but things have since calmed down as the U.S. mini inflation scare ebbed, some economic data disappointed and trade friction created additional macro uncertainty. Bearish sentiment and oversold technical conditions suggest that the consolidation period has longer to run. Nonetheless, unless inflation begins to trend lower, the fact that even the doves on the FOMC believe that the headwinds to growth have moderated places a floor under bond yields. Fair value for the 10-year Treasury is 2.90% based on our short-term model, but we expect it to reach the 3.3-3.5% range before the cycle is over. Both real yields and long-term inflation expectations have room to move higher. Private investors will also have to absorb US$680 billion worth of bonds this year from governments in the U.S., Eurozone, Japan and U.K., the first positive net flow since 2014 (see last month's Overview). Yields may have to fatten a little in order for the private sector to make room in their portfolios for that extra government supply. In the Eurozone, the net supply of government bonds available to the private sector will still be negative this year, even if the ECB tapers to zero in September as we expect. Some investors are concerned about a replay in the European bond markets of the Fed's 'taper tantrum' of 2013, when then-Chair Bernanke surprised markets with a tapering announcement. The ECB has learned from that mistake and has given several speeches recently highlighting that policymakers will be making full use of forward guidance to avoid "...premature expectations of a first rate rise."2 We think they will be successful in avoiding a similar tantrum, but the flow effect of waning bond purchases will still place some upward pressure on the term premium in Eurozone bonds (Chart I-16).3 Chart I-16ECB: End Of QE Will Pressure Term Premium ECB: End Of QE Will Pressure Term Premium ECB: End Of QE Will Pressure Term Premium The bottom line is that monetary policy will undermine global bond prices in both the U.S. and Eurozone, but we expect U.S. yields to lead the way higher this year. Japanese bond prices will be constrained by the 10-year yield target. Investors with a horizon of 6-12 months should remain overweight JGBs, at benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and underweight Treasurys within hedged global bond portfolios. We recommend hedging the currency risk because we continue to expect the dollar to rebound this year. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the cyclical factors that will support the dollar: interest rate differentials, a rebound in U.S. productivity growth and a shift in international growth momentum back in favor of the U.S. In terms of the longer-term view, the Special Report makes the case that the U.S. dollar's multi-decade downtrend will persist. This does not mean, however, that long-term investors will make any money by underweighting the greenback. The 30-year U.S./bund yield spread of 190 basis points means that the €/USD would have to rise to more than 2.2 to offset the yield disadvantage of being overweight the euro versus the dollar over the next 30-years. Indeed, once it appears that the U.S. yield curve has discounted the full extent of the Fed tightening cycle (perhaps 12 months from now), it will make sense for long-term investors to go long U.S. Treasurys versus bunds on an unhedged basis. Conclusion Recent data releases suggest that global growth is peaking, especially in the manufacturing sector. Nonetheless, we do not believe that this heralds a slowdown in growth meaningful enough to negatively impact the profit outlook in the major countries. Indeed, the major fiscal tailwind in the U.S. will lift growth and extend the runway for earnings to expand at least through 2019. That said, fiscal stimulus at this stage of the U.S. business cycle will serve to accentuate a boom/bust cycle, where stronger growth in 2018/19 gives way to higher inflation a hard landing in 2020. The Fed is willing to sit back and watch the impact of fiscal stimulus unfold in the near term. But by early 2019, the Fed will find itself behind the curve with rising inflation and an overheating economy. The monetary policy risk for financial markets will then surge, setting up for a classic end to this expansion. The consequences of years of corporate releveraging will come home to roost. This year, trade skirmishes will be a headwind for risk assets and will no doubt generate further bouts of volatility. Nonetheless, recent signals from both the U.S. and China suggest that the situation will not degenerate into a trade war. The bottom line is that, while the economic expansion and equity bull market are both in late innings, investors should stay overweight risk assets and short duration for now. Stay overweight cyclical stocks versus defensives, overweight corporate bonds versus governments, overweight oil-related plays, and modestly long the U.S. dollar against most currencies except the yen. Our checklist of items to time the exit from risk is not yet flashing red. We would change our mind if our checklist goes south, our forward-looking indicators turn sharply lower or U.S. inflation suddenly picks up. We are also watching closely the situation in Iran, the U.S./China trade spat and NAFTA negotiations. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 29, 2018 Next Report: April 26, 2018 1 For more information on why we believe that Sino-American conflict will be a defining feature of the 21st century, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 ECB President Mario Draghi. Speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_1.en.html 3 For more information, please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms," dated March 20, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? In this Special Report, we review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar. The long-term structural downtrend in the dollar is intact. This trend reflects both a slower underlying pace of U.S. productivity growth relative to the rest of the world and a persistent external deficit. The U.S. shortfall on its net international investment position, now at about 40% of GDP, is likely to continue growing in the coming decades. Fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, but the situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding sustainability. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see little reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are some parallels today with the Nixon era, but we do not expect the same outcome for the dollar. The Fed is unlikely to make the same mistake as it made in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There are risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. While the underlying trend in the dollar is down, cyclical factors are likely to see it appreciate on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Growth momentum, which moved in favor of the major non-U.S. currencies in 2017, should shift in the greenback's favor this year. U.S. fiscal stimulus is bullish the dollar, despite the fact that this will worsen the current account balance. Additional protectionist measures should also support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. The U.S. dollar just can't seem to get any respect even in the face of a major fiscal expansion that is sure to support U.S. growth. Nonetheless, there are a lot of moving parts to consider besides fiscal stimulus: a tightening Fed, accumulating government debt, geopolitical tension and growing trade protectionism among others. The interplay of all these various forces can easily create confusion about the currency outlook. Textbook economic models show that the currency should appreciate in the face of stimulative fiscal policy and rising tariffs, at least in the short term, not least because U.S. interest rates should rise relative to other countries. However, one could also equate protectionism and a larger fiscally-driven external deficit with a weaker dollar. Which forces will dominate? In this Special Report, we sort out the moving parts. We review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar in the short- and long-term. Tariffs And The Dollar Let's start with import tariffs. In theory, higher tariffs should be positive for the currency as long as there is no retaliation. The amount spent on imports will fall as consumer spending is re-directed toward domestically-produced goods and services. A lower import bill means the country does not need to export as much to finance its imports, leading to dollar appreciation (partially offsetting the competitive advantage that the tariff provides). Tariffs also boost inflation temporarily, which means that higher U.S. real interest rates should also lift the dollar to the extent that the Fed responds with tighter policy. That said, the tariffs recently announced by the Trump Administration are small potatoes in the grand scheme. The U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. The positive impact on U.S. growth is also modest as the tariffs benefit only two industries, and higher domestic prices for steel and aluminum undermine U.S. consumers of these two metals. A unilateral tariff increase could be mildly growth-positive if there is no retaliation by trading partners. This was the result of a Bank of Canada study, which found that much of the growth benefits from a higher import tariff are offset by an appreciation of the currency.1 Even a short-term growth boost is not guaranteed. A detailed analysis of the 2002 Bush steel tariff increase found that the import tax killed many more jobs than it created.2 Shortages forced some U.S. steel-consuming firms to source the metal offshore, while others made their steel suppliers absorb the higher costs, leading to job losses. A recent IMF3 study employed a large macro-economic model to simulate the impact of a 10% across-the-board U.S. import tariff without any retaliation. It found that tariffs place upward pressure on domestic interest rates, especially if the economy is already at full employment (Chart II-1). This is because the central bank endeavors to counter the inflationary impact with higher interest rates. However, a stronger currency and higher interest rates eventually cool the economy and the Fed is later forced to ease policy. This puts the whole process into reverse as interest rate differentials fall and the dollar weakens. Chart II-1At Full Employment, Import Tariffs Raise Rates April 2018 April 2018 The economic outcome would be much worse if U.S. trading partners were to retaliate and the situation degenerates into a full-fledged trade war involving a growing number of industries. In theory, the dollar would not rise as much if there is retaliation because foreign tariffs on U.S. exports are offsetting in terms of relative prices. But all countries lose in this scenario. China is considering only a small retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs as we go to press, but the trade dispute has the potential to really heat up, as we discuss in the Overview section. The bottom line is that the Trump tariffs are more likely to lead to a stronger dollar than a weaker one, although far more would have to be done to see any meaningful impact. Fiscal Stimulus And The Dollar Traditional economic theory suggests that fiscal stimulus is also positive for the currency in the short term. The boost in aggregate demand worsens the current account balance, since some of the extra government spending is satisfied by foreign producers. The U.S. dollar appreciates as interest rates increase relative to the other major countries, attracting capital inflows. The currency appreciation thus facilitates the necessary adjustment (deterioration) in the current account balance. The impact on interest rates is similar to the tariff shock shown in Chart II-1. All of the above market and economic adjustments should be accentuated when the economy is already at full employment. Since the domestic economy is short of spare capacity, a vast majority of the extra spending related to fiscal stimulus must be imported. Moreover, the Fed would have to respond even more aggressively to the extent that inflationary pressures are greater when the economy is running hot. The result would be even more upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Reality has not supported the theory so far. The U.S. dollar weakened after the tax cuts were passed, and it did not even get a lift following the Senate spending plan that was released in February. The broad trade-weighted dollar has traded roughly sideways since mid-2017. Judging by the market reaction to the fiscal news, it appears that investors are worried about a potential replay of the so-called Nixon shock, when fiscal stimulus exacerbated the 'twin deficits' problem, investors lost confidence in policymakers and the dollar fell. Twin deficits refers to a period when the federal budget deficit and the current account deficit are deteriorating at the same time. Chart II-2 highlights that the late 1960s/early 1970s was the last time that the federal government stimulated the economy at a time when the economy was already at full employment. Seeing the parallels today, some investors are concerned the dollar will decline as it did in the early 1970s. Chart II-2A Replay Of The Nixon Years? A Replay Of The Nixon Years? A Replay Of The Nixon Years? Current Account And Budget Balances Often Diverge... The two deficits don't always shift in the same direction. In fact, Chart II-3 highlights that they usually move in opposite directions through the business cycle. This is not surprising because the current account usually improves in a recession as imports contract more than exports, but the budget deficit rises as tax revenues wither. The process reverses when the economy recovers. Chart II-3Twin Deficits And The Dollar Twin Deficits And The Dollar Twin Deficits And The Dollar The current account balance equals the government financial balance (i.e. budget deficit) plus the private sector financial balance (savings less investment spending). Thus, swings in the latter mean that the current account can move independently of the budget deficit. Even when the two deficits move in the same direction, there has been no clear historical relationship between the sum of the fiscal and current account balances and the value of the trade-weighted dollar (shaded periods in Chart II-3). In the early 1980s, the twin deficits exploded on the back of the Reagan tax cuts and the military buildup, but the dollar strengthened. In contrast, the dollar weakened in the early 2000s, a period when the twin deficits rose in response to the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and a booming housing market. ...But Generally Fiscal Expansion Undermines The Current Account Over long periods, a sustained rise in the fiscal deficit is generally associated with a sustained deterioration in the external balance. Numerous academic studies have found that every 1 percentage-point rise in the budget deficit worsens the current account balance by an average of 0.2-0.3 percentage points over the medium term. One study found that the current account deteriorates by an extra 0.2 percentage points if the fiscal stimulus arrives at a time when the economy is at full employment (i.e. an additional 0.2 percentage points over-and-above the 0.2-0.3 average response, for a total of 0.4 to 0.5).4 Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment today, these estimates imply that the expected two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline over 2018 and 2019 could add almost a full percentage point to the U.S. current account deficit (from around 3% of GDP currently to 4%). It could be even worse over the next couple of years because the private sector is likely to augment the government sector's drain on national savings. The mini capital spending boom currently underway will lift imports and thereby contribute to a further widening in the U.S. external deficit position. Nonetheless, theory supports the view that the dollar will rise in the face of fiscal stimulus, at least in the near term, even if this is accompanied by a rising external deficit. Theory gets fuzzier in terms of the long-term outlook for the currency. However, the traditional approach to the balance of payments suggests that the equilibrium value of the dollar will eventually fall. An ongoing current account deficit will accumulate into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt that must be serviced. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-4). The dollar will eventually have to depreciate in order to generate a trade surplus large enough to allow the U.S. to cover the extra interest payments on its growing stock of foreign debt. Chart II-4Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar The structural depreciation of the U.S. dollar observed since the early 1980s supports the theory, because it has trended lower along with the NIIP/GDP ratio. However, the downtrend probably also reflects other structural factors. For example, U.S. output-per-employee has persistently fallen relative to its major trading partners for decades (Chart II-4, third panel). The bottom line is that, while the dollar is likely to remain in a structural downtrend, it should receive at least a short-term boost from the combination of fiscal stimulus and higher tariffs. What could cause the dollar to buck the theory and depreciate even in the near term? We see three main scenarios in which the dollar could fall on a 12-month investment horizon. (1) Strong Growth Outside The U.S. First, growth momentum favored Europe, Japan and some of the other major countries relative to the U.S. in 2017. This helps to explain dollar weakness last year because the currency tends to underperform when growth surprises favor other countries in relative terms. It is possible that momentum will remain a headwind for the dollar this year. Nonetheless, this is not our base case. European and Japanese growth appears to be peaking, while fiscal stimulus should give the U.S. economy a strong boost this year and next (see the Overview section). (2) A Lagging Fed The Fed will play a major role in the dollar's near-term trend. The Fed could fail to tighten in the face of accelerating growth and falling unemployment, allowing inflation and inflation expectations to ratchet higher. If investors come to believe that the Fed will remain behind-the-curve, rising long-term inflation expectations would depress real interest rates and thereby knock the dollar down. This was part of the story in the Nixon years. Under pressure from the Administration, then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns failed to respond to rising inflation, contributing to a major dollar depreciation from 1968 to 1974. We see this risk as a very low-probability event. Today's Fed acts much more independently of Congress beyond its dual commitment on inflation and unemployment. And, given that the economy is at full employment, there is nothing stopping the FOMC from acting to preserve its 2% inflation target if it appears threatened. Chair Powell is new and untested, but we doubt he and the rest of the Committee will be influenced by any political pressure to keep rates unduly low as inflation rises. Even Governor Brainard, a well-known dove, has shifted in a hawkish direction recently. President Trump would have to replace the entire FOMC in order to keep interest rates from rising. We doubt he will try. (3) Long-Run Sustainability Concerns It might be the case that the deteriorating outlook for the NIIP undermines the perceived long-run equilibrium value of the currency so much that it overwhelms the impact of rising U.S. interest rates and causes the dollar to weaken even in the near term. This scenario would likely require a complete breakdown in confidence in current and future Administrations to avoid a runaway government debt situation. Historically, countries with large and growing NIIP shortfalls tend to have weakening currencies. The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. One could argue that the external deficit represents the U.S. "living beyond its means," because it consumes more than it produces. Another school of thought is that global savings are plentiful, and investors seek markets that are deep, liquid and offer a high expected rate of return. Indeed, China has willingly plowed a large chunk of its excess savings into U.S. assets since 2000. If the U.S. is an attractive place to invest, then we should not be surprised that the country runs a persistent trade deficit and capital account surplus. But even taking the more positive side of this debate, there are limits to how long the current situation can persist. The large stock of financial obligations implies flows of income payments and receipts - interest, dividends and the like - that must be paid out of the economy's current production. This might grow to be large enough to significantly curtail U.S. consumption and investment. At some point, foreign investors may begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We are not suggesting that foreign investors will suddenly dump their U.S. stocks and bonds. Rather, they may demand a higher expected rate of return in order to accept a rising allocation to U.S. assets. This would imply that the dollar will fall sharply so that it has room to appreciate and thereby lift the expected rate of return for foreign investors from that point forward. Chart II-5 shows that a 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. Any deficit above this level would imply a rapidly deteriorating situation. A 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040. The fact that the current account averaged 4.6% in the 2000s and 2½% since 2010 confirms that the NIIP is unlikely to stabilize unless major macroeconomic adjustments are made (see below). Chart II-5Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Academic research is inconclusive on how large the U.S. NIIP could become before there are serious economic consequences and/or foreign investors begin to revolt. Exorbitant Privilege The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The U.S. is also able to get away with offering foreign investors a lower return on their investment in the U.S. than U.S. investors receive on their foreign investment. Chart II-6 provides a proxy for these two returns. Relatively safe, but low yielding, fixed-income investments are a large component of foreign investments in the U.S., while U.S. investors favor equities and other assets that have a higher expected rate of return when investing abroad (Chart II-7). This gap increased after the Great Recession as U.S. interest rates fell by more than the return U.S. investors received on their foreign assets. Today's gap, at almost 1½ percentage points, is well above the 1 percentage point average for the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. Chart II-6U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns Chart II-7Composition Of Net International ##br##Investment Position April 2018 April 2018 A yield gap of 1.5 percentage points may not sound like much, but it has been enough that the U.S. enjoys a positive net inflow of private investment income of about 1.2% of GDP, despite the fact that foreign investors hold far more U.S. assets than the reverse (Chart II-6, top panel). In Chart II-8 we simulate the primary investment balance based on a persistent 3% of GDP current account deficit and under several scenarios for the investment yield gap. Perhaps counterintuitively, the primary investment surplus that the U.S. currently enjoys will actually rise slightly as a percent of GDP if the yield gap remains near 1½ percentage points. This is because, although the NIIP balance becomes more negative over time, U.S. liabilities are not growing fast enough relative to its assets to offset the yield differential. Chart II-8Primary Investment Balance Simulations Primary Investment Balance Simulations Primary Investment Balance Simulations However, some narrowing in the yield gap is likely as the Fed raises interest rates. Historically, the gap does not narrow one-for-one with Fed rate hikes because the yield on U.S. investments abroad also rises. Assuming that the yield gap returns to the pre-Lehman average of 1 percentage point over the next three years, the primary investment balance would decline, but would remain positive. Only under the assumption that the yield gap falls to 50 basis points or lower would the primary balance turn negative (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Crossing the line from positive to negative territory on investment income is not necessarily a huge red flag for the dollar, but it would signal that foreign debt will begin to impinge on the U.S. standard of living. That said, the yield gap will have to deteriorate significantly for this to happen anytime soon. What Drives The Major Swings In The Dollar? While the dollar has been in a structural bear market for many decades, there have been major fluctuations around the downtrend. Since 1980, there have been three major bull phases and two bear markets (bull phases are shaded in Chart II-9). These major swings can largely be explained by shifts in U.S./foreign differentials for short-term interest rates, real GDP growth and productivity growth. A model using these three variables explains most of the cyclical swings in the dollar, as the dotted line in the top panel of Chart II-9 reveals. Chart II-9U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors The peaks and troughs do not line up perfectly, but periods of dollar appreciation were associated with rising U.S. interest rates relative to other countries, faster relative U.S. real GDP growth, and improving U.S. relative productivity growth. Since the Great Recession, rate differentials have moved significantly in favor of the dollar, although U.S. relative growth improved a little as well. Productivity trends have not been a factor in recent years. Note that the current account has been less useful in identifying the cyclical swings in the dollar. Looking ahead, we expect short-term interest rate differentials to shift further in favor of the U.S. dollar. We assume that the Fed will hike rates three additional times in 2018 and another three next year. The Bank of Japan will stick with its current rate and 10-year target for the foreseeable future. The ECB may begin the next rate hike campaign by mid-2019, but will proceed slowly thereafter. We expect rate differentials to widen by more than is discounted in the market. As discussed above, we also expect growth momentum to swing back in favor of the U.S. economy in 2018. U.S. productivity growth will continue to underperform the rest-of-world average over the medium and long term. Nonetheless, we expect a cyclical upturn in relative productivity performance that should also support the greenback for the next year or two. Conclusion Reducing the U.S. structural external deficit to a sustainable level would require significant macro-economic adjustments that seem unlikely for the foreseeable future. We would need to see some combination of a higher level of the U.S. household saving rate, a balanced Federal budget balance or better, and/or much stronger growth among U.S. trading partners. In other words, the U.S. would have to become a net producer of goods and services, and either Europe or Asia would have to become a net consumer of goods and services. Current trends do not favor such a role reversal. Indeed, the U.S. twin deficits are sure to move in the wrong direction for at least the next two years. Longer-term, pressure on the federal budget deficit will only intensify with the aging of the population. The shortfall in terms of net foreign assets will continue to grow, which means that the long-term structural downtrend in the trade-weighted value of the dollar will persist. Other structural factors, such as international productivity trends, also point to a long-term dollar depreciation. It seems incongruous that the U.S. dollar is the largest reserve currency and that U.S. is the world's largest international debtor. The situation is perhaps perpetuated by the lack of an alternative, but this could change over time as concerns over the long-run viability of the Eurozone ebb and the Chinese renminbi gains in terms of international trade. The transition could take decades. The U.S. twin-deficits situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is anywhere close to the point where investors would begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see no reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are other risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. In 2018, we expect the dollar to partially unwind last year's weakness on the back of positive cyclical forces. Additional protectionist measures should support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Mathieu Savary Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy 1 A Wave of Protectionism? An Analysis of Economic and Political Considerations. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2008-2. Philipp Maier. 2 The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002. Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman. February 4, 2003. 3 See footnote to Chart II-1. 4 Fiscal Policy and the Current Account. Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 7859 September 16, 2010. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The earnings backdrop remains constructive for the equity market. In the U.S., bottom-up forward earnings estimates and the net earnings revisions ratio have spiked on the back of the tax cuts. Unfortunately, many of the other equity-related indicators in this section have moved in the wrong direction. The monetary indicator is shifting progressively into negative territory as the Fed gradually tightens the monetary screws. Valuation in the U.S. market improved a little over the past month, but our composite Valuation Indicator is still very close to one sigma overvalued. Technically, our Speculation Indicator is still in frothy territory, but our Composite Sentiment Indicator has pulled back significantly toward the neutral line. Our Technical Indicator broke below the 9-month moving average in March (i.e. a 'sell' signal). These are worrying signs. Nonetheless, at this point we believe they are a reflection of the more volatile late-cycle period that the market has entered. An equity correction could occur at any time, but a bear market would require a significant and sustained economic downturn that depresses earnings estimates. Our checklist does not warn of such a scenario over the next 12 months. It is also a good sign that our Willingness-to-Pay indicator is still rising, at least for the U.S. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. While this suggests that investor flows remain positive for the U.S. equity market, the WTP appears to have rolled over in both Europe and Japan. This goes against our overweight in European stocks versus the U.S. in currency hedged terms (see the Overview section). Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained on its bullish equity signal in March. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. So far, the indicator has not flashed 'red'. Treasurys are hovering on the 'inexpensive' side of fair value, but are not cheap based on our model. Extended technicals suggest that the period of consolidation will persist for a while longer. Value is not a headwind to a continuation in the cyclical bear phase. Little has changed on the U.S. dollar front. It is expensive by some measures, but is on the oversold side technically. We still expect a final upleg this year, before the long-term downtrend resumes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The current U.S.-China trade skirmish is essentially the beginning of a new cold war. The U.S. and China are engaged in a struggle for supremacy, so trade conflicts will persist. The conflict could evolve into a "game of chicken" - the most dangerous type of game. The U.S. needs Europe's help against China - but an adventure in Iran could cost it that help. Geopolitical risks will cap the rise in bond yields over the next six months, push up oil, and give a tailwind to global defense stocks. Feature The opening salvo of the U.S.-China trade war has caught the investment community by surprise as the market is quickly repricing the odds of a global trade war.1 Nervousness over the breakdown of globalization comes at the same time as our key China view - that Beijing's structural reforms will constrain growth - are beginning to have an impact on global growth (Chart 1).2 Chart 1China Reforms Dragging On Global Growth China Reforms Dragging On Global Growth China Reforms Dragging On Global Growth Fortuitously, we found ourselves in Asia at the onset of "hostilities" and were thus able to see regional investors' reactions in real time. Our clients focused their questions on the economic impact of the announced tariffs (yet to be determined, in our view), constraints facing President Trump (minimal as well), and potential Chinese retaliation (understated). The focus, however, should be on the big picture. The March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on around $50 billion worth of Chinese imports is not just the opening salvo of a trade war. Rather the emerging trade war is the opening salvo of a new cold war, a global superpower competition between the U.S. and China that will define the twenty-first century. Put simply, the U.S. and China are now enemies. Not rivals, competitors, or sparing partners. Enemies. It will take the market some time for investors to internalize this idea and price it properly. Meanwhile, in the short term, fears of a full-born global trade war are overblown. The trade tensions are really only about two countries, with uncertain global implications. Investors are right to be cautious, but risks to global earnings are overstated at this time. How Did We Get Here? The ongoing trade tensions are not merely a product of a nationalist Trump administration that decided to call out China for decades of unfair trade practices. They are also the product of the geopolitical context, which we have defined through three "big picture" themes. These three themes allowed us to correctly forecast that the defining feature of the twenty-first century would be a Sino-American conflict. We would be thrilled to see this culminate merely in a trade war. The themes are: Multipolarity (Chart 2)3 Apex of globalization (Chart 3)4 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics (Chart 4)5 Chart 2Multipolarity Is Messy And Volatile Multipolarity Is Messy And Volatile Multipolarity Is Messy And Volatile Chart 3When Hegemony Declines, Globalization Declines When Hegemony Declines, Globalization Declines When Hegemony Declines, Globalization Declines Chart 2 elucidates a key lesson of history: the collapse of British hegemony at the end of the nineteenth century ushered in two world wars. Political science, game theory, and history teach us that periods of multipolarity are rarely peaceful.6 Today's world is not exactly multipolar, as the U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, regional powers - such as China, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and perhaps Turkey and Brazil - have a lot more room to maneuver within their spheres of influence. This means that global rules written by the U.S. at the conclusion of the Second World War are being rewritten for regional contexts. Normatively there is nothing wrong with this process. But practically, multipolarity means that "challenger powers" - such as China today or the German empire in the late nineteenth century - seek to undermine rules and norms of behavior that they had little or no say in setting up. And such rules are necessary to underpin geopolitical stability and grease the wheels of globalization. As Chart 3 shows, trade globalization peaked in the past when the hegemon could no longer enforce global rules. We have therefore emphasized to clients since 2014 that, if we are right that the world is multipolar, then we are essentially at the apex of globalization. A parallel process has seen the breakdown of the laissez-faire consensus, which underpinned the expansion of trade in goods, labor, and capital across sovereign borders. Economic globalization has lifted many boats around the world, but outsourcing - combined with technological innovation - has seen the lower middle class in developed nations face diminishing returns (Chart 4). Chart 4Globalization: No Friend To Developed-Market Middle Class We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now That said, a revolt against globalization and "globalists" is thus far mainly an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, and particularly an American one. Why? Because the particularities of the U.S. laissez-faire economic model, with its scant social protections, laid its middle class bare to the vagaries of globalization and technological change (Chart 5). However, there is no guarantee that other DM countries will not succumb to the same pressures down the line. Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve: Or, How Anglo-Saxons Turned Against Laissez Faire We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now This background is important for investors because merely blaming a nationalist Trump administration or a mercantilist Beijing for today's tensions ignores the underlying context. President Trump can change his mind on a dime, but the geopolitical context can only evolve slowly.7 Mercantilism is here to stay; it is a feature, not a bug, of a multipolar world. Contrast today's tensions with those of the 1970s and 1980s between the U.S. and its major trade partners. The 1971 Smithsonian Agreement and the 1985 Plaza Accord ended overt trade protectionism by the U.S. (in 1971), and threats thereof (in 1985), by securing the compliance of these trade partners with Washington's currency and trade demands. Japan further conceded to U.S. demands in 1989 after a two-year trade war. Today, the U.S. and China are not geopolitical allies huddled under the same nuclear umbrella for protection against an ideologically fueled rival. They are ideological rivals. The reason it took a decade for the conflict to erupt is two-fold. First, the U.S. became entangled in the global war on terror after 9/11, which took its focus off of its emerging competitor in Asia. Second, the consensus view - that China would asymptotically approach a Western democracy as it embraced capitalism - has proven to be folly.8 Bottom Line: The China-U.S. trade conflict is a product of today's particular geopolitical context. At heart, it is a conflict for geopolitical primacy in the twenty-first century and thus unlikely to end quickly. Sino-American Conflict Is Intractable The current U.S.-China trade tensions are more of a skirmish than a war. We think that there is considerable room for a step-down in tensions over the next 12 months. First, the Trump administration has not launched an economic war against China. Not only has the U.S. restricted its list of Chinese goods under tariff consideration to just $50 billion of imports - roughly 12% of total Chinese exports to the U.S. - but it has decided to bring a case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter is hardly a move by a mercantilist administration dead-set on across-the-board economic nationalism. Second, China has responded almost immediately by offering several concessions, including renewing pledges to open its economy to inward investment and to protect intellectual property (IP) rights. While these may seem like boilerplate concessions that Beijing has floated before, the current context of trade tensions and domestic structural reforms makes it more likely that Chinese policymakers will follow through on their promises. As such, we can see the current round of tensions tapering off, especially after the U.S. midterm elections. However, we doubt that the structural trajectory of Sino-American relations will be significantly altered even if current tensions subside. First, from China's perspective, its extraordinary economic ascent (Chart 6) is merely the return of the millennium's status quo (Chart 7). The last 180 years - roughly from the beginning of the First Opium War in 1839 to today - were the aberration. During this short period of Chinese weakness, the West - with Britain and then the U.S. at the helm - conspired to restructure global rules and norms of geopolitical and economic behavior without input from the Middle Kingdom. Chart 6China's Economic Rise Has Been Extraordinarily Fast... We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 7China Sees Its Success As A Return To The Status Quo We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now As such, China's influence in key post-WWII economic institutions like the WTO and the IMF is limited while its military has second-class status even in its own "Caribbean Sea," the South China and East China Seas. From the U.S. perspective, China's growth over the past two decades was made possible by U.S. hegemony. The U.S. secured the global rules and norms that enabled China to integrate seamlessly into the global marketplace and then compete its way to the top. Not only did the U.S. allow China to access its credit-fueled markets, but the U.S. Navy protected China's maritime trade, including vital energy supplies transiting from the Middle East. As a thank you for these efforts, China reneged on its WTO commitments, periodically suppressed its currency, stole American intellectual property, and withheld market access from U.S. corporations via tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Washington policymakers, and not only Trump's hawkish advisors, are turning against China. There is an emerging consensus among the U.S. foreign policy, defense, intelligence, and economic policy elites that: Sino-American economic symbiosis is over (Chart 8); Chart 8U.S.-China ##br##Symbiosis Is Dead U.S.-China Symbiosis Is Dead U.S.-China Symbiosis Is Dead Chart 9The U.S. Is Least##br## Exposed To Trade The U.S. Is Least Exposed To Trade The U.S. Is Least Exposed To Trade Chart 10China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed China's Share Of Global Exports Has Skyrocketed China's Share Of Global Exports Has Skyrocketed The U.S. can afford to confront China over trade because it is the least exposed major economy to global trade (Chart 9); The Chinese have acquired a massive share of global exports without a commensurate opening of their domestic market (Chart 10); Arresting Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft is a national security issue (Chart 11); The U.S. can confront China because it has emerged victorious from every global conflagration in the past (Chart 12). Chart 11China Imports Conspicuously Little U.S. IP We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Chart 12America Is Chaos-Proof America Is Chaos-Proof America Is Chaos-Proof Fundamentally, American policymakers want to see China's rapid economic growth slow, they want to see China's capital markets and companies constrained by openness to global competition, and they want to put a leash on China's catch-up in the technological and manufacturing value chain (Chart 13). This is not their stated objective as it would imply that the U.S. wants to see China weakened, and the Chinese leadership miss its decade and century economic development goals. But this is precisely what the U.S. establishment wants. As such, the political and economic visions of American and Chinese policymakers are directly at odds with one another. What does this mean for investors? Over the past several years we have developed a reputation of being sanguine about geopolitics. While many of our peers in the political analysis industry overstate the probability of geopolitical risk, we have (successfully) bet against the worst-case scenario in several prominent crises.9 We like to think that this is because we combine game theory with an understanding of the underlying power dynamics. By emphasizing constraints, we have successfully identified how power dynamics constrain the worst-case outcome.10 When it comes to Sino-American tensions, however, we have always been alarmists. This is because we believe the constraints to conflict are overstated, not understated. Furthermore, the potential market impact of a new cold war is unclear and potentially very large. Both the U.S. and China fundamentally think they can win a trade war. This means that they are engaged in a "regular game of chicken," named after the 1950s practice of racing hot rods head-on in order to prove one's manhood.11 Game theory teaches us that a game of chicken is the most unpredictable game because it can create an equilibrium in which all rational actors have an incentive to keep driving head on - to stick to their guns - despite the risks. In Diagram 1, we can see that continuing to drive carries the greatest risk, but also the greatest reward, provided that your opponent swerves. Chart 13China's Steady Climb Up##br## The Value Ladder Continues We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Diagram 1A Regular ##br##Game Of Chicken We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Since all actors in a game of chicken assume the rationality of their opponents, they also expect them to eventually swerve. In the current context, this means that the U.S. assumes that China is driven by economic rationality and will not dare face off against the U.S., which has far less to lose given its modest exposure to global trade. Chinese policymakers, however, also think they can win. They look over the Pacific and see a country riven by political polarization (Chart 14) where half of the country thinks the other is "a threat to the nation's well-being" (Chart 15).12 China, meanwhile, has just consolidated its political leadership and feels confident enough in its domestic stability to dabble with growth-constraining economic reforms. Beijing can use any trade tensions with the U.S. to further justify painful reforms. Chart 14Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 15Live And Let Die We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now Who is right? We do not know. And that scares us as it means that the most sub-optimal equilibrium - the bottom-right quadrant of Diagram 1 - is more probable than people think. An important difference maker, one that would alter Beijing's risk calculus considerably, is Europe. Despite being highly leveraged to China's growth, the EU still exports nearly double the value of goods to the U.S. than China (Chart 16). In addition, Europe's trade surplus with the U.S. mostly pays for its deficit with China (Chart 17). Chart 16The EU Exports More To U.S. Than China The EU Exports More To U.S. Than China The EU Exports More To U.S. Than China Chart 17EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China Over the next several months, investors will be able to gauge whether the Trump administration is filled with ideological nationalists who believe in Fortress America or wily realists who know how to get things done. The key question is whether Trump will embrace America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harness it for the trade war with China. If he embraces it, we will predict that the combined forces of U.S. and Europe will successfully force China to concede to the pressure. If Trump fails, however, we could have a prolonged U.S.-China trade war. Early indications are optimistic. The U.S. gave the EU an exemption from tariffs on steel and aluminum imports on March 22, a delay that will end on May 1. This followed a March 21 meeting between EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. We suspect, but have no evidence, that the U.S. asked the EU to join in its effort to force China to change its trade practices at the WTO. As an exporting bloc, the EU has a lot more to lose from attacking China than the U.S. But it also has much to lose from unabated Chinese mercantilism and technological theft, and much to gain if China opens its doors wider. As such, we posit that Europe will, in the end, join the U.S. and Japan in a concerted effort to pressure China. This will increase the probability that Beijing ultimately gives in to trade pressure. In the long term, it will also ensure that President Trump does not break the critical transatlantic alliance with Europe, which would be paradigm shifting. But, on the other hand, it will set China and the West on a collision course. China's and the West's suspicions of each other will ossify. Bottom Line: In the short term, trade tensions are likely overstated as U.S. actions against China are largely muted and restrained. In the long term, the U.S.-China trade war could potentially devolve into a "game of chicken," the most dangerous type of conflict. The key variable will be whether the U.S. administration is savvy enough to arrange European collaboration against China. If the U.S. treats the EU harshly and ignores its transatlantic ally on other issues - such as conflict with Iran, discussed below - we could be in for a wild ride in the coming months and years. Either way, Europe stands to gain from a conflict between China and the U.S. Both sides are likely going to try to enlist the EU on their side. As such, we are opening a long Europe industrials / short U.S. industrials trade. Meanwhile, growing trade tensions, policy-induced slowdown in China, and repricing of geopolitical risks in East Asia and the Middle East should cap global bond yields over the next six months. We take 50.4bps and 54.4bps profits on our short U.S. 10-year government bond vs. German bund and short Fed Funds December 2018 futures trades. Iran: The Next Target Of Trump's "Maximum Pressure" Policy President Trump's North Korea policy worked brilliantly in 2017. The policy of "maximum pressure" combined military maneuvers, economic sanctions, and extremely bellicose rhetoric to convince Pyongyang and regional powers that the U.S. has lowered its threshold for full-scale war on the Korean peninsula. China reacted swiftly, starving North Korea of hard currency through economic sanctions (Chart 18). The result was a declaration by Pyongyang in late November that it had finally completed its quest to obtain a nuclear deterrent (an exaggeration at best), an olive branch for the Olympics, and an offer by Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un to meet with President Trump. Chart 18China Gives Kim To Trump China Gives Kim To Trump China Gives Kim To Trump The policy of "maximum pressure" yielded such extraordinary results with North Korea that President Trump is now eager to trademark the process and apply it to Iran and potentially other global issues. Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has replaced two establishment advisors with hawks. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been replaced with CIA Director and noted Iran-hawk Mike Pompeo. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has been replaced by conservative pundit (and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN) John Bolton. Bolton is on record arguing that the U.S. should bomb Iran. The role of the national security advisor varies with the president. Some presidents rely on the position more than others. However, given this administration's inexperience with foreign policy, the role is critical in shaping the White House worldview. The national security advisor manages the staff of the National Security Council (NSC), whose role is to coordinate with the vast network of U.S. intelligence agencies and filter information to the president. Given how large America's foreign, defense, and intelligence establishment is, and given the nature of human and signals intelligence, U.S. presidents often have to act upon diametrically opposing pieces of intelligence. As such, the national security advisor and the NSC can play a critical role in deciding what intelligence makes it to the president's desk and in what context. Staffers in the National Security Council (NSC) are often apolitical. We have been told that several current experts are leftovers from the Obama administration. It is likely that an ideological pundit like John Bolton, who served briefly in the George W. Bush administration, will set out to quickly eliminate non-partisan staffers on the NSC and tilt the information flow away from the empirical to the conspiratorial. With Bolton and Pompeo effectively in charge of U.S. foreign policy it is possible that the U.S. will misapply "maximum pressure" policy to Iran and bungle the complicated coordination with geopolitical allies on China. In particular, the U.S. has to endear itself to the EU if it wants a global economic alliance against China. But the EU also does not want to renegotiate Iran sanctions. Abrogating the 2015 nuclear deal - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - would throw the tentative Middle East equilibrium into chaos. While Iran has played a role in preserving the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it has largely kept its vast network of Shia militias and allies in check, particularly in Lebanon and Iraq. Ironically, it was the Obama administration's "flawed" JCPA that has allowed Trump to focus on China in the first place. As we argued when the deal was signed, the conservative critics of the deal itself were correct. The JCPA did not degrade Iran's nuclear capability but merely arrested it.13 The point of the deal was implicitly to give Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East so that the U.S. could extricate itself and focus on China. The Obama administration assessed, in our view non-ideologically, that the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time. If the Trump administration decides not to waive sanctions on May 12, it will be in abrogation of the deal. Unlike North Korea, however, Iran has multiple levers it can deploy against the U.S. and its allies' interests in the region. As such, the policy of "maximum pressure" will create much greater risks when applied to Iran. At the very end, it could be as successful as when applied to North Korea, but our conviction view is much lower (and to remind clients, we were optimists about the strategy when applied to North Korea!).14 Furthermore, and again unlike North Korea, Iran is beset with domestic risks. This actually makes it less likely that Tehran will cooperate with the U.S. North Korea is a simple domestic political system where Kim Jong Un can alter policy on a whim without much domestic pushback. In Iran, the dovish and moderate President Hassan Rouhani has to contend for power with hawks who have been critical of the JCPA. Meanwhile, the restive youth population could rise up at the first sign of elite division or weakness. This complicated domestic dynamic is why we cautioned clients back in January that Iran would likely add geopolitical risk premium to the oil markets.15 Bottom Line: It appears that President Trump, motivated by the success of his "maximum pressure" strategy against North Korea, now thinks he can apply it as successfully to Iran. This raises the prospect that Trump will discontinue the waiver of economic sanctions on May 12, effectively re-imposing a slew of economic sanctions against Iran and foreign companies looking to conduct business with it. Geopolitical risks are likely to rise in the Middle East as a result of U.S.-Iran tensions. As we go to publication, Saudi authorities have intercepted another Houthi missile heading towards Riyadh just days after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman visited Washington, D.C. The White House appears to relish the opportunity to fight a war on two fronts, a trade war with China and a geopolitical war with Iran. Expect volatility and an elevated geopolitical risk premium in oil markets. Stay overweight global defense companies across markets. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001). 7 Would President Hillary Clinton have avoided a trade war with China? We do not think so. Secretary Clinton was considered a "China Hawk" while at the State Department and pushed for the "Pivot to Asia." Jennifer Harris, the lead architect of Clinton's economic statecraft agenda in the U.S. State Department, recently penned a book that called for greater use of economic tools for geopolitical ends. The book, War By Other Means, introduces the term geoeconomics and calls for the U.S. to use economic instruments to promote and defend national interests. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Blog, "We Read (And Liked)... War By Other Means," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 In 2000, while campaigning on behalf of China's WTO entry, President Bill Clinton remarked, "economically, this agreement (China's WTO entry) is the equivalent of a one-way street. It requires China to open its markets ... to both our products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to maintain the present access which China enjoys ..." Please see "Full Text of Clinton's Speech On China Trade Bill," dated March 9, 2009, available at nytimes.com. 9 To name just a few: the risk of an Israeli attack against Iran, the risk of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the risk of Euro Area collapse, the risk of Saudi-Iranian war, the risk of Russian-Turkish war, etc. 10 For the best example of how game theory is combined with our constraint-based paradigm, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 See James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, and "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.