Protectionism/Competitive devaluation

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound The Dollar Ought To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Chinese Monetary Conditions Point To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chinese Growth Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens After Carry Trades Lose Momentum, Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Second Worst Call Of 2017: Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular ...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Third Best Call Of 2017: Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. The risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to intervene aggressively to limit the rise. We recommend that investors stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade, for now. A breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely be a sufficient basis to close the trade at a healthy profit. Feature We last wrote about Taiwan in February of this year,1 when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). Our long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade has generated an impressive 19% return since its inception in February. The trade has become significantly overbought, but we recommend that investors stick with it, for now. A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. The Taiwanese Economy In 2017: What Has Changed? Real GDP growth in Taiwan has generally trended sideways in 2017, decelerating in the first half of the year and then recovering in the third quarter (Chart 1). While these fluctuations in its growth profile have been somewhat muted, overall GDP growth has masked a sizeable divergence between domestic demand and export growth. Taiwan is a highly trade-oriented economy, with exports of goods & services accounting for nearly 65% for its GDP, and a recent acceleration in real export volume has positively contributed to overall growth. Over 50% of Taiwan's exports are tech-based, and Chart 1 panel 2 highlights the close link between global semiconductor sales (which have risen sharply over the past year) and Taiwanese nominal exports. But as Chart 1 panel 3 shows, growth in real domestic demand has fallen back into contractionary territory, driven largely by a sharp decline in gross fixed capital formation. This decline in investment is somewhat surprising, given the close historical relationship between Taiwan's real exports and investment (Chart 2, panel 1). But the sharp drop may have been a lagged response to the export shock that occurred during the synchronized global growth slowdown in 2015, as it led to a non-trivial accumulation of inventory (Chart 2, panel 2). The recent acceleration of export growth and a renewed draw in inventories suggests that the severe pullback in investment is likely to reverse in the coming year. Chart 1A Divergence Between Domestic Demand##br## And Exports A Divergence Between Domestic Demand And Exports A Divergence Between Domestic Demand And Exports Chart 2Investment Likely To Rebound Over ##br##The Coming Year Investment Likely To Rebound Over The Coming Year Investment Likely To Rebound Over The Coming Year The evolution of Taiwanese capital goods imports is likely to provide an important confirming signal about the trend in real investment, given the close historical correlation between the two series. For now, the growth in capital goods imports is rebounding from negative territory (Chart 3), which is consistent with the view that investment is set to recover. Finally, while real consumer spending growth also decelerated in the first half of the year, the acceleration in Q3 has brought consumption back to its 5-year moving average. More importantly, Chart 4 highlights that the consumer confidence index in Taiwan is closely correlated with real spending, with the former heralding a rise in the latter over the coming months. Chart 3Capital Goods Signal An Investment Recovery Capital Goods Signal An Investment Recovery Capital Goods Signal An Investment Recovery Chart 4Consumption Also Set To Improve Consumption Also Set To Improve Consumption Also Set To Improve Bottom Line: Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The Taiwanese Dollar: Driven By Flows, Not Fundamentals Taiwanese stock prices have underperformed Greater China bourses since the beginning of the year (Chart 5), despite the recent improvement in real export growth and signs of an impending improvement in domestic demand. To us, this underperformance has been largely caused by the strength in the Taiwanese currency. The Taiwanese dollar has appreciated since early-2016, both against the U.S. dollar and in trade-weighted terms (Chart 6). Although the currency retreated from May to August of this year, it has since resumed its uptrend and currently stands between 8-9% higher than last year's low in trade-weighted terms. Chart 5Significant Underperformance Of ##br##Taiwan Vs Greater China Significant Underperformance Of Taiwan Vs Greater China Significant Underperformance Of Taiwan Vs Greater China Chart 6Material Currency Appreciation##br## Since Early-2016 Material Currency Appreciation Since Early-2016 Material Currency Appreciation Since Early-2016 Crucially, Chart 7 highlights that the rise in the TWD cannot be explained by relative monetary policy or by an improvement in the terms of trade. The chart shows how the USD/TWD began to decouple from the relative 2-year swap rate spread in early-2016, and how the trend in Taiwan's export price index has been negatively correlated with the trade-weighted exchange rate. The best explanation for the recent strength in Taiwan's currency appears to be a surge in capital inflows oriented towards Taiwan's equity market (Chart 8). Foreign ownership of Taiwanese stocks has increased significantly over the past few years and is currently at a record high of 43%. Given that Taiwan's equity market is enormously tech-focused, it appears that global investors have been attracted to Taiwanese stocks as part of a play on the global tech rally. As we will discuss below, this has become somewhat of a self-defeating strategy, at least in terms of Taiwan's relative performance vs Greater China bourses. While it is possible that monetary authorities will attempt to combat the appreciation of the Taiwanese dollar, Chart 9 highlights that there is little room to maneuver. First, Taiwan's policy rate of 1.375% is already extremely low, and is only 12.5 bps above the level that prevailed during the worst of the global financial crisis. Second, panels 2 and 3 suggests that while past central bank intervention was successful at depreciating the TWD, monetary authorities also seem reluctant to allow Taiwan to be labeled as a currency manipulator. Our proxy for central bank intervention is the rolling 3-month average daily depreciation in TWD/USD in the first 30 minutes of aftermarket trading, a period that the central bank has historically used to intervene in the foreign exchange market. The chart shows that periods of intervention have been associated with a subsequent decline in TWD/USD, but that intervention durably ended once Taiwan was added to the U.S. Treasury's watch list of potential currency manipulators (first vertical line). Taiwan was removed from the watch list in October of this year (second vertical line), after central bank intervention ceased. Chart 7Currency Strength Not Supported ##br##By Fundamentals Currency Strength Not Supported By Fundamentals Currency Strength Not Supported By Fundamentals Chart 8Equity-Oriented Capital Inflows##br## Are Pushing Up The TWD Equity-Oriented Capital Inflows Are Pushing Up The TWD Equity-Oriented Capital Inflows Are Pushing Up The TWD Chart 9Little Room For Policy ##br##To Push Down The Exchange Rate Little Room For Policy To Push Down The Exchange Rate Little Room For Policy To Push Down The Exchange Rate Bottom Line: The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. While there is scope for further central bank intervention to help depreciate the currency, the risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to act. The Relative Outlook For Taiwanese Equities Table 1 presents a simple performance attribution analysis for Taiwan's year-to-date stock returns relative to Greater China bourses,2 in an attempt to answer the following question: Has Taiwan underperformed because it is underweight sectors that have outperformed, or because its highly-weighted sectors underperformed? To test this question we calculate a "hypothetical" return for the Taiwanese stock market, which shows what would have occurred if Taiwan's tech and ex-tech sectors had earned the benchmark return instead of their own. Table 1Taiwan's Poor Performance This Year Is Due To Its Tech Sector Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst The table clearly shows that Taiwan would have substantially outperformed Greater China in this hypothetical scenario, underscoring that its sector weighting is not the source of the underperformance. While both Taiwan's tech and ex-tech indexes underperformed those of Greater China, it is apparent that most of the gap in performance can be linked to Taiwan's tech sector. Tech accounts for roughly 60% of Taiwan's equity market capitalization, and the sector significantly underperformed Greater China tech this year. Chart 10 highlights that Taiwan's tech sector underperformance is significantly explained by the rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted currency. Panels 2 & 3 of the chart shows Taiwan's rolling 1-year tech sector beta and alpha vs Greater China tech, both compared with the (inverted) year-over-year percent change in the trade-weighted exchange rate. Here, we define alpha using Jensen's measure, which is the difference between Taiwan's tech sector price return and what would have been expected given its beta and Greater China's tech sector performance. The chart clearly shows that the sharp rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate caused both a decline in Taiwan's tech sector beta (from a historical average of about 1) as well as a significantly negative alpha over the past year. Chart 10, in combination with the currency-driven downtrend in Taiwan's export prices shown in Chart 7, suggests that Taiwan's equity market has suffered in relative terms due to the outsized appreciation in its currency. This is somewhat ironic, as we noted above that the currency appreciation itself appears to be caused by capital inflow oriented towards Taiwan's tech sector, meaning that global investors have inadvertently contributed to Taiwan's equity market underperformance relative to Greater China bourses. Looking forward, there are cross-currents affecting the outlook for Taiwanese stock prices. Chart 11 shows that technical conditions and relative valuation argue against maintaining an underweight stance; Taiwanese stocks are heavily oversold vs Greater China, and have de-rated in relative terms since the beginning of the year. Taiwanese tech in particular is quite cheap in relative terms. In addition, panel 1 of Chart 10 suggests that Taiwanese tech (in relative terms) may have undershot the appreciation in the currency. Chart 10Taiwan's Tech Underperformance Is Explained By Currency Appreciation Taiwan's Tech Underperformance Is Explained By Currency Appreciation Taiwan's Tech Underperformance Is Explained By Currency Appreciation Chart 11Taiwan Vs China: Oversold, And Cheaper Than Usual Taiwan Vs China: Oversold, And Cheaper Than Usual Taiwan Vs China: Oversold, And Cheaper Than Usual However, Taiwan's tech sector is mostly made up of the semiconductors & semiconductor equipment industry group, and there are signs that the growth rate in global semiconductor sales is in the process of peaking. Chart 12 illustrates the close correlation between the growth of global semi sales and Taiwan's absolute 12-month forward earnings per share, with the recent gap likely having occurred due to the currency impact noted above. The chart suggests that earnings expectations for Taiwan are highly unlikely to accelerate if semi sales growth slows, meaning that Taiwanese stocks, particularly the tech sector, currently lack a catalyst to re-rate. Chart12Taiwan Is Lacking A Re-Rating Catalyst Taiwan Is Lacking A Re-Rating Catalyst Taiwan Is Lacking A Re-Rating Catalyst From our perspective, a lasting depreciation in the currency appears to be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating, as it would increase the odds that the relationship shown in Chart 10 would durably recouple. Until then, any exogenous rebound in relative tech sector performance is likely to be met with a self-limiting TWD appreciation. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors, for now, stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade. However, a breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely cause us to close the trade, and upgrade Taiwanese stocks to at least neutral within a greater China equity portfolio. Stay tuned. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Assistant linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan's 'Trump' Risk", dated February 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use MSCI's Golden Dragon index to represent Greater China, which includes China investable, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese stocks. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Overstated geopolitical risks in 2017 are giving way to understated risks in 2018; The reshuffle of China's government raises policy headwinds for global growth and EM assets; U.S. politics will be roiled by a leftward turn and Trump's protectionism and foreign policy; Italian politics, more than German, is the chief threat to European risk assets; Volatility and the USD will rise; shift to neutral on European risk assets; close tactical long on Chinese Big Banks. Feature BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has operated this year on a high conviction view that geopolitical risks would be overstated, thus generating considerable upside for risk assets. Our analysis focused on three particular "red herrings": European populism, U.S. politics, and Brexit.1 Meanwhile we identified North Korea as a genuine geopolitical risk, though not one that would cause us to change our "risk on" outlook. We therefore take issue - and perhaps offense - with the contemporary narrative that "geopolitics did not matter" in a year when the S&P 500 rose by 15% and VIX plumbed historic lows (Chart 1). Stocks rose and the VIX stayed muted precisely because geopolitical risks were overstated earlier in the year. Investors who correctly assessed the balance of geopolitical risks and opportunities would have known to "buy in May and enjoy your day."2 At the same time that we encouraged investors to load up on risk this year, we cautioned that 2018 would be a challenging year.3 Three themes are now coming into focus as 2017 draws to a close: Politics has become a headwind to growth in China as Beijing intensifies deleveraging and structural reforms; U.S. fiscal and monetary policy favor the USD, which will reignite trade protectionism from Washington D.C.; Italian elections may reignite Euro Area breakup risk. In this report, we update our view on these three risks. Data out of China are particularly concerning: broad money (M3) growth has decelerated sharply with negative implications for the economy (Chart 2).4 M3 is at last ticking up but the consequences of its steep drop have not yet translated to the economy. Our message to clients since 2016 has been that the nineteenth Party Congress would mark a turning point in President Xi Jinping's tenure, that he would see his political capital replenished, and that Beijing's pain threshold would therefore rise appreciably in 2018. Hence we do not expect any new stimulus to be quick in coming or very large. Chart 1Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Chart 2China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown What happens in China will not stay in China. Signs of cracks are emerging in the buoyant global growth narrative (Chart 3), with potentially serious consequences for emerging markets (EM) (Chart 4).5 Chart 3Signs Of Cracks Forming Signs Of Cracks Forming Signs Of Cracks Forming Chart 4EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over China: Ramping Up For The New Year Crackdown The aftermath of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress is unfolding largely as we expected: with a reboot of President Xi Jinping's reform agenda. Chinese economic data are starting to reflect the consequences of tighter policy since late last year (Chart 5), and BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown consumer-oriented sectors outperforming industrials and materials since the party congress, as the reform drive would have one expect.6 China's policymakers have already allowed the monetary impulse - the rate of growth in the supply of money - to slow to the lowest levels in recent memory. This bodes ill for Chinese imports and base metal prices (Chart 6), as BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has emphasized.7 Chart 5Expect More Disappointments From China Expect More Disappointments From China Expect More Disappointments From China Chart 6Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk It is true that policymakers will re-stimulate the economy when they reach their pain threshold, but with Xi Jinping's political capital replenished and the party and state unified under him, we expect that threshold to have moved higher than financial markets expect. Yes, the government will try to prevent its policies from being highly disruptive and destabilizing - as with the People's Bank of China injecting liquidity to ease rapidly rising bond yields (Chart 7) - but the bottom line is that it is pressing forward with tightening. How can we be so sure that this policy trajectory is set? The initiatives in the early stages of implementation after the congress confirm our view that the central government is hardening the line on several key economic-political fronts: Financial regulatory overhaul: People's Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan has made a series of dire comments about China's financial risks and the danger that it is reaching a "Minsky Moment," or accumulation of risks that will end in a catastrophe.8 Zhou's likeliest replacements are both financial reformers, and one of them, Guo Shuqing, is the hawkish regulator who has led the crackdown on shadow lending this year (Chart 8). Moreover, whoever heads the central bank will have the benefit of new financial oversight capabilities. The Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), a new entity charged with coordinating the country's various financial regulatory agencies, has just held its first meeting. Its inaugural chairman, Vice-Premier Ma Kai, is likely to retire soon, but rumors are swirling that his replacement will be Liu He, President Xi's top economic thinker and a reformist, who wrote an ominous article about excessive leverage in the People's Daily in May 2016 and has now made it onto the Politburo. If Liu He takes charge, given his very close relationship with Xi, the FSDC will be irresistible. If not, the FSDC will still be effective, judging by the fact that Ma Kai's replacement will likely be someone, like Ma, who sits on both the Politburo and State Council. Chart 7China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply Chart 8Shadow Banking Has Peaked Shadow Banking Has Peaked Shadow Banking Has Peaked Local government crackdown: Local government officials in two cities in Inner Mongolia have canceled urban metro projects due to excessive debt, reportedly under orders from the central government. Other cities in other provinces have suggested that approvals for such projects are being delayed.9 In other words, the central government is no longer endlessly accommodating debt-financed local government projects, even projects that support priority goals like urbanization and interior development. This news, so soon after the party congress, is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, which suggests that local government spending cannot be assumed to shake off its weakening trend anytime soon (Chart 9). Top officials pointed out local government leverage as a systemic risk, along with shadow banking, at the National Financial Work Conference in July, and both the outgoing finance minister and the outgoing central bank chief have called for reining in local governments. The latter's comments were formally endorsed by being included in the Communist Party's official "party congress study guide," suggesting that they are more than just the parting advice of a soon-to-be retiree. Property tightening: China's real estate sector, which provides 22% of investment in the country, is feeling the squeeze from financial tightening and targeted measures to drive out speculation since October 2016 (Chart 10). More, not less, of a squeeze is expected in both the short and long term. In the short term, inspections of commercial housing for corruption and speculative excesses could exert an additional dampening effect. In the medium and long term, the Xi administration plans to roll out a nationwide property tax, according to Huang Qifan, an economic policymaker tied to the legislature, "in the near future, not ... 10-20 years. It could happen in the next several years."10 The tax was delayed in 2016 amid economic turmoil. A national property tax would be an important fiscal reform that would tamp down on the asset bubble, rebalance the growth model, and enable the government to redistribute wealth from multiple homeowners to lower income groups. Chart 9Local Government Spending Is Weak Local Government Spending Is Weak Local Government Spending Is Weak Chart 10Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Property Tightening Continues Industrial restructuring: Environmental curbs on outdated and excess industrial capacity are continuing. Although China aggressively cut overcapacity in coal, steel and other sub-sectors over the past twelve months, it continues to face larger overcapacity than other economies (Chart 11), particularly in glass, cement, chemical fertilizers, electricity generation and home construction. It is also possible that SOE restructuring will become more aggressive. Currently, SOEs listed on the Shanghai exchange are rallying relative to the A-share market, as they have tended to do when the Communist Party reaffirms its backing of the state sector (Chart 12). However, announcements of SOE reforms in this administration have also triggered phases of under-performance. SOEs targeted for reforms face greater scrutiny of their finances and operations.11 Moreover, any SOE is vulnerable to the new wave of the anti-corruption campaign.12 National Supervision Commission: The new anti-corruption czar, Zhao Leji, will be a very influential figure if he is even to hold a candle to his predecessor, Wang Qishan. Zhao is to oversee the creation of a nationwide anti-corruption system that targets not only the Communist Party, as before, but every public official. The new commission will have branches at each level of administration (city, province, central government) and will combine the various existing anti-corruption agencies under one head. The purpose is not merely to root out political enemies (as administration critics, with some justice, would argue) but also to improve the effectiveness of policy implementation and address public grievances that threaten to undermine the regime. The latest environmental curbs have shown that employing anti-corruption teams to help enforce broader economic policy can be highly effective. Xi and Zhao Leji look set to extend this practice to state ministries, including financial regulators.13 It is not clear whether they will succeed in rebuilding the regime's legitimacy in public eyes, but in the short term an initiative like this should send a chilling effect throughout the state bureaucracy, similar to that which occurred among local government party chiefs in 2014 after the initial anti-corruption campaign was launched.14 Chart 11Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Chart 12SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms In short, preparations are under way for Xi's second five-year term in office. (Perhaps not his last term, as the party congress also made clear.)15 New agencies and personnel suggest that the administration is embarking on an intensification of policy tightening. Tougher policy is viewed as necessary, not optional: top leadership has repeatedly stated that a lack of action on systemic threats will lead to regime-threatening crises down the road.16 Chart 13China's Impact On Global Growth Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks How will this agenda impact the rest of the world? Our colleagues at China Investment Strategy hold that China may step up reforms but will not do so in a way that will negatively impact China's imports or key assets like base metal prices.17 However, from a political perspective, we view the combination of Xi's political capital with the new financial and anti-corruption commissions as likely to increase policy effectiveness to an extent that causes banks to lend less eagerly and local governments and SOEs to err on the side of less borrowing and spending. This will reduce demand for imports and commodities and will also raise the tail-risk of excessive tightening. China's contribution to global growth had fallen over the years, but has recently rebounded on the back of stimulus in 2015-16 (Chart 13). As such, it will not take much of a drag on import growth in 2018 to have a global impact. The most exposed commodity exporters to China (outside of oil) are Brazil, Chile and Peru (with Indonesia and South Africa also at risk), while the most exposed exporters of capital goods are Taiwan and South Korea, followed by Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand). Looking at the China-exposed countries whose stocks rallied the most while China stimulated in 2016, the prime candidates for a negative impact in 2018 will be Brazil and Peru, and less so Hungary and Thailand. Bottom Line: The Xi administration is rebooting its reform agenda and has a higher tolerance for pain than the market yet realizes. Centralization, deleveraging and industrial restructuring have been deemed necessary to secure the long-term stability of the regime. China's policy risks are understated and the next wave of stimulus will not be as rapidly forthcoming as financial markets expect. U.S.: Trouble In (GOP) Paradise Markets have rallied throughout the year despite a lack of policy initiatives from the U.S. Congress. Judging by the performance of highly taxed S&P 500 equities, the rally this year has not been about the prospects of tax reform (Chart 14).18 Rather, markets have responded to strong earnings data and a lack of policy initiatives. Wait, what? Yes, markets have rallied because nothing has been accomplished. Investors just want President Trump and the Republican-held Congress to maintain a pro-business regulatory stance (Chart 15) and not do anything anti-corporate. Doing nothing is just fine. Chart 14Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Chart 15Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Here Come The Socialists Dems The Democratic Party leads the 2018 generic Congressional vote polling by 10.8%, up from 5.9% in May (Chart 16). The generic ballot polling is notoriously unreliable as most U.S. electoral districts are politically designed to be safe seats - "gerrymandered" - and as such are unlikely to respond to nation-wide polling (Chart 17). However, Republican support has fallen and Democratic candidates have performed extremely well this year. Chart 16U.S. Public Leans Democratic U.S. Public Leans Democratic U.S. Public Leans Democratic Chart 17Electoral System Reduces Competition Electoral System Reduces Competition Electoral System Reduces Competition First, candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey have outperformed their polling in November elections. Second, in the four special elections this summer, Democrats narrowed Republican leads by 18%. If the electoral results from Table 1 are replicated in 2018, Republicans could face a massacre in the House of Representatives. In addition, Republicans are suddenly vulnerable in Alabama, where the anti-establishment Senate candidate, and Breitbart-endorsee, Roy Moore is struggling with accusations of pedophilia (Chart 18). Table 12017 Special Elections Are Ominous For The GOP Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Chart 18Republican Senate Majority May Lose A Seat Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks Why should investors fear a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives? Yes, the odds of impeachment proceedings against President Trump would rise, but we are on record saying that investors should fade any impeachment risk to assets.19 The greater risk is that the Democratic Party has turned firmly to the left with its new manifesto, "A Better Deal." A strong performance by unusually left-of-center Democratic candidates could spook financial markets that have been lulled into complacency by the lack of genuine populism from the (thus far) pluto-populist president. Protectionism While most investors are focused on the ongoing NAFTA negotiations - which we addressed in last week's Special Report20 - we would draw attention again to the shift towards protectionism by the Republicans in the Senate. Normally a bastion of pro-business free-traders, the Senate has turned to the left on free trade. Senator John Cornyn (R, Texas) has introduced a bill to make significant reforms to the process by which the United States reviews foreign investments for national security, led by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Two further bills, one in the House and another in the Senate, would also significantly tighten access to the U.S. by foreign investors. China is foremost in their sights. In early 2018, investors will also be greeted by two significant decisions. First, on tariffs: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. The International Trade Commission has already determined that imports of these goods can cause material injury to U.S. industries, so Trump merely has to decide whether to impose tariffs (likely from 35% to 50%), import quotas (which have never received limits from courts), or bilaterally negotiated export limitations from trade partners.21 The consequences would go beyond the current, country-specific tariffs on these items, setting a precedent that would expose a wide range of similar imports to punitive action, and more broadly would signal to the world that the U.S.'s protectionist turn under Trump is real.22 Second, the White House has allegedly completed a comprehensive review of China policy under way since June.23 The review is said to focus on economic rather than strategic matters and to call for the use of punitive measures to insist that China alter tactics long complained about by the United States, including intellectual property theft, export subsidies, and forced tech transfer from joint ventures in China. Already the U.S. is investigating China for intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, with results that could prompt tariffs no later than August 2018.24 As if on cue, Wang Yang, a new inductee on China's Politburo Standing Committee and a prominent reformer, wrote an editorial in the People's Daily declaring that China should protect intellectual property, not require tech transfers, and give foreign firms equal treatment under the "Made in China 2025" plan.25 China has made similar promises and the U.S. has made similar threats many times before, so decisions in the coming months will be telling. Ultimately we fear that President Trump may feel compelled to ratchet up protectionism in 2018 for two reasons. First, Americans within his populist base will grow restless as they do the math on the tax legislation and realize that their champion is not quite the populist they voted for. Trump will need to re-convince them of his protectionist credentials and independence from Washington elites and the policy status quo. Second, if our view on Chinese slowdown and American fiscal thrust is correct, the USD bull market should restart in 2018. This would hurt U.S. export competitiveness, expand the trade deficit, and motivate U.S. companies to invest abroad, a paradox of President Trump's tax and fiscal policy. The White House may, therefore, be compelled to reach for mercantilist solutions to an FX problem. Foreign Policy The final reason to worry is a "Lame Duck" presidency. Far more predictable presidents sought relevancy abroad late in their mandate. For example, President George H. W. Bush committed troops to Somalia on his way out of the White House. President Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia. Given Trump's dismal approval polling and a potentially historic "wave" election for the Democrats in November, President Trump could similarly shift focus to geopolitics. If that shift includes confronting regional powers like China (and/or North Korea), or Iran, risk premiums may rise. In the meantime, we expect tax cuts to pass. The going is getting tougher in the Senate. The decision to include the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate - designed to cut another $300 billion in government spending over the next ten years - will make it more difficult to secure 51 Senate votes. We maintain our view that the final legislation may need until Q1 to pass. Between now and then, legislators may need a failure or two in order to realize that the clock is ticking toward the midterms. Bottom Line: Markets have cheered lack of action from the Congress. However, the going will get tougher in 2018 as investors fret about protectionism, President Trump's itch to remain relevant, and a potential takeover of the House by the most left-of-center Democratic Party in a generation. Europe: Germany Is A Passing Risk, Focus On Italy The collapse of coalition talks in Germany is not a structural concern for Europe. The breakdown in the negotiations occurred because of the immigration debate, in which the right-of-center Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) struck out a different position from the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the liberal Green Party. Of course, the disagreement is not about immigration today, given that inflows of asylum seekers this year has been well below past flows (Chart 19A). Rather, the fundamental disagreement is over how the CDU and its leader Angela Merkel handled the 2015 migration crisis and how it will be handled in the future. Chart 19ANo Immigration Crisis Today No Immigration Crisis Today No Immigration Crisis Today Chart 19BGermans Love Europe Germans Love Europe Germans Love Europe For investors, what matters is that there is no substantive disagreement over the EU, European integration, or Germany's role in it. The mildly euroskeptic FDP did not draw any red lines. The reason is obvious: the German euroskeptic constituency is small, shrinking, and largely already captured by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) anti-establishment party (Chart 19B). Germans are objectively the most europhile people in Europe. Going forward, a new election would cause further political uncertainty. On the margin, it could cause business confidence to stall. However, Germany runs a 14 billion euro budget surplus and is not expected to launch any structural reforms or fundamental economic changes. As such, if the formation of a government is delayed by three-to-six months, the economic implications will be fleeting. In fact, the result of a new election could be a Grand Coalition between the CDU and Socialists, which would be positive for European integration. However, as we have argued before, hopes for a significant restart of integration have probably run ahead of reality.26 For us, Italy is the immediate concern. Italy passed a new electoral law in late October, setting the stage for the election due by May 2018. The consensus in the news media is that the president will call elections in January, with the vote taking place sometime in March.27 The consensus is that the new law will make it more difficult for the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) to win a majority of seats in the Italian Parliament. In addition, it will give a lift to the parties with strong regional ties - such as the governing Democratic Party (PD) and Lega Nord. Chart 20Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Italy Set For A Hung Parliament The nuances of the new law are largely irrelevant, however, given the close polling of the three electoral blocs. The most likely outcome will be a hung parliament (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we can still learn something from the law: the Italian establishment parties are cooperating to subvert the electoral chances of M5S. The ruling PD and the center-right Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are working together to design an electoral system that favors the pre-election norm of coalition-building and parties with strong regional representation. Neither of these factors fits M5S's profile. This suggests that the two centrist blocs will be able to put together an establishment coalition following the election. On one hand, this will give stability to the Euro Area for at least the duration of that government. On the other hand, the underlying data continues to point to structural euroskepticism in Italy. Unlike their European peers, Italians seem to be flirting with overt euroskepticism. When it comes to support for the common currency, Italians are clear outliers, with support levels around 55% (Chart 21). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appears to be confident in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 22). These are ominous signs for the future. Still, both M5S and the mildly euroskeptic Lega Nord have tempered their demands for an exit from the common currency union. The official stance of the M5S is that the exit from the Euro Area is only "option B," that is, an option if the bloc is not reformed. Meanwhile, Lega Nord is on record opposing a referendum on membership in the currency union because it is illegal.28 Chart 21Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 22Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU The stance of Italy's euroskeptics will change as soon as it is convenient. The country's establishment is likely making a mistake by contemplating a grand coalition alliance. Unless such a government develops a serious plan for painful structural reforms - it will not - it will likely waste its mandate and fall at the first sign of recession or crisis. At that point, the only alternative will be the M5S, which will stand alone in opposition to such an ineffective government. Investors can therefore breathe a sigh of relief in the medium term. Italy will likely not be a source of risk-off in 2018 or even 2019, although it is still the main risk in Europe for next year and bears monitoring. However, in the long term, we maintain that Italy will be a catalyst for a serious global risk-off episode within the next five years. We remain optimistic that such a crisis will ultimately strengthen Italy's commitment to the Euro Area, as we outlined in a recent Special Report.29 But that is a low conviction view that will require constant monitoring. Could there be another scenario? Several clients have asked us if an Emmanuel Macron could emerge in Italy? Our answer is that there already was an Emmanuel Macron: Matteo Renzi, the former prime minister and current PD leader, was Macron before Macron. And yet he failed to enact significant structural and constitutional reforms. Yet two potential candidates may be ready to swoop in from the "radical center" position that Renzi and Macron characterize. The first is ECB President Mario Draghi. He is widely respected in Italy and is seen as someone who not only allayed the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, but also stood up to German monetarist demands in doing so. The second is Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, one of the world's most recognizable business leaders and a media star inside and outside Italy. If the centrist coalition begins to fray by the end of 2019, both of these individuals may be available to launch a star-studded campaign to "save Italy." Bottom Line: We remain cautiously optimistic about the upcoming Italian elections. While our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a euroskeptic one, nevertheless risks abound and require monitoring. Investment Implications There are a lot of unknowns heading into 2018. What will become of U.S. tax cuts? How deep will the policy-induced slowdown become in China? What will President Trump do if he becomes the earliest "Lame Duck" president in recent U.S. history? Will he embark on military or protectionist adventures abroad? Asset implications are unclear, but we offer several broad takeaways. First, the VIX will not stay low in 2018. Second, the USD should rally. Both should happen because investors are far too complacent about the Fed's pace of hikes and because of potential global growth disappointments as Beijing tinkers with the financial and industrial sectors. Chart 23AEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Chart 23BEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Euro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Third, it is time to close our recommendation to be overweight European risk assets. European equities have a higher beta to global growth due to the continent's link to Chinese demand. As our colleague Mathieu Savary has pointed out, when Chinese investment slows, Europe feels it more acutely than the U.S. (Chart 23). Chart 24U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback We are also closing our tactical long position on China's big banks versus its small-to-medium-sized banks. This position has been stopped out at a loss of 5%, despite the riskier profile of the latter banks and the fact that their non-performing loans are rising. Faced with these challenges, Beijing decided to open the door to foreign investment and too ease regulations on these banks so that they can lend to small cap companies as part of the reform drive. These actions inspired a rally relative to the Big Banks that worked against our trade. As financial tightening will continue, however, we expect this rally to be short-lived, and for big banks to benefit from state backing. Our highest conviction view is that it is time to short emerging markets. Our two core views - that politics will become a tailwind to growth in the U.S. and a headwind to growth in China - should create a policy mix that will act as a headwind to EM (Chart 24). The year 2017 may therefore turn out to have been an anomaly. Emerging markets outperformed as China aggressively stimulated in 2016 and as both the U.S. dollar and bond yields declined. This mix of global fiscal and liquidity conditions proved to be a boon for EM, giving it a liquidity-driven year to remember. That year is now coming to an end. 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 Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 China's official broad money (M2) measure has also sharply decelerated, as have all measures of China's money. We prefer BCA's Emerging Market Strategy's broader M3 measure. The official M2 has underestimated the amount of new money in China because banks and shadow banks have done extensive off balance sheet lending. The M3 measure includes bank liabilities excluded from M2, it is calculated by taking the total of non-financial institution and household deposits, plus other financial corporation deposits, and other liabilities. Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Temporary Short-Term Risks," dated November 10, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Cracks Are Appearing," dated November 15, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Zhou's comments should not be interpreted merely as a farewell speech of a retiring central bank governor, since they echo the general policy shift in the administration since December 2016's Central Economic Work Conference, and April 2016's Politburo meeting, toward tackling financial risk. For Zhou's comments, please see "China's central bank chief lays out plans to avert future financial crisis," South China Morning Post, November 4, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 9 Xianyang in Shaanxi, and Wuhan in Hubei. Please see Wu Hongyuran and Han Wei, "Another City Halts Subway Projects Amid Financing Concerns," Caixin, November 13, 2017, available at www.caixinglobal.com. 10 Please see Kevin Yao, "China central bank adviser expects less forceful deleveraging in 2018," Reuters, November 15, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 11 The latest official announcement claims that an additional 31 SOEs will be listed for restructuring. Please see "More SOEs to be included in reform plan," People's Daily, November 16, 2017, available at en.people.cn. 12 We fully expect SOEs to be subjected to rigorous treatment from the National Supervision Commission. Note that the crackdown on overseas investment earlier this year merely touches the tip of the iceberg in terms of the SOE corruption that could be revealed by probes. See, for example, the following report on the National Audit Office's public notice on SOE fraud and irregularities, "20 Central Enterprises Overseas Investment Audit Revealed A Lot Of Problems," Pengpai News (Shanghai), June 26, 2017, available at news.163.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, and "Legacies Of 2014," dated December 17, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Xi Jinping has called financial security an important part of national security and declared that "safeguarding financial security is a strategic and fundamental task in the economic and social development of our country." Please see Wang Yanfei, "Leaders aim to fend off financial risks," China Daily, April 26, 2017, available at www.chinadailyasia.com. For Zhao Leji's post-congress comments on this topic in the People's Daily, please see "China faces historic corruption battle, new graft buster says," The Guardian, November 11, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 17 See footnote 6. 18 More anecdotally, a clear majority of our clients disagrees with our bullish prospects of tax cuts. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see Chad P. Bown, "Donald Trump Now Has The Excuse He Needs To Open The Floodgates Of Protectionism," Peterson Institute of International Economics, October 9, 2017, available at piie.com. 22 Other measures could follow thereafter. For instance, the Commerce Department will issue its final report on steel and aluminum in January and Trump could decide to take punitive actions on these goods under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Please see Ana Swanson, "Democrats Pressure Trump to Fulfill Promise to Impose Steel Tariffs," New York Times, October 26, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. 23 The review itself began in June, around the time when Trump's and Xi's initial "100-day plan" to improve trade relations expired. The report that the review is completed is from Lingling Wei et al, "Beyond Trump-Xi Bond, White House Looks to Toughen China Policy," Fox Business News, November 19, 2017, available at www.foxbusiness.com. See also Adam Behsudi et al, "White House conducting wide-ranging review of China policy," Politico, September 28, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 24 The U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is supposed to finish his investigation into intellectual property under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act within a year of August 18, 2017. Please see Gary M. Hnath and Jing Zhang, "Trump Administration Initiates Section 301 Investigation of China's Acts, Policies and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and Innovation," dated August 25, 2017, available at www.lexology.com. 25 Please see "Chinese vice premier pledges fair treatment of foreign firms as China opens up," Reuters, November 10, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Just in time to get a new government in place ahead of the World Cup! Oh wait... Too soon? 28 Which is an odd position to take given their supposed anti-establishment orientation. For example, the U.K. referendum on EU membership was non-binding, and yet it took place and had relatively binding political consequences. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, Instead of our Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Marko argues that while there is considerable risk that NAFTA is abrogated, the Trump administration would quickly move to alleviate the effects to trade flows. The risk to our view is that President Trump is a genuine populist, a view that his actions thus far do not support. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The "Great Gatsby" Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 Chart 11Mexico's Growing Population Is A Potential Market NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).1 0Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto##br## Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has ##br##Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment:##br## China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).10 Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,” dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S. Election: The Great White Hype,” dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency,” dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The U.S. dollar correction is entering its last innings as investors now only discount marginally more than one rate hike by the Fed over the next 12 months. The last leg of the USD's weakness is likely to be prompted by technical and political factors. Beyond this, the outlook for the U.S. economy remains healthy, yet investors have pared down their expectations, suggesting that positive surprises should emerge. The conciliatory tone of the so-called currency manipulator report suggests that the hopes of a Plaza 2.0 accord should get dashed. EUR/GBP has downside. Feature The dollar continues to decline. Doubts about President Trump's pro-growth agenda and higher borrowing costs are creating worries about future economic growth. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's admonition that fiscal reform may be delayed only added fuel to the fire. The reality is a bit more nuanced than this. The global economy just experienced one of its most broad-based periods of improvement in decades. Earlier this year, our global economic and financial diffusion index, based on 106 indicators, hit its highest level since 1999 (Chart I-1). This upswing caused global growth expectations to surge, as highlighted by large moves in the global and U.S. stock-to-bond ratios. Chart I-1Broad-Based Economic Upswing Has Lifted Growth Expectations Broad-Based Economic Upswing Has Lifted Growth Expectations Broad-Based Economic Upswing Has Lifted Growth Expectations Still, such a pace of improvement is hard to maintain. The handicap is even greater given one of the sharpest increases in global borrowing costs of the past thirty years. Thus, an almost unavoidable growth disappointment is currently underway, as illustrated by the sudden swoon in global economic surprises. As negative surprises accumulate, it is natural for investors to tame their growth expectations, and in the process, to have pulled down their expectations for the level of the Fed funds rate 12 months out (Chart I-2). Unsurprisingly, the dollar has corrected in the process. Going forward, the flattening yield curve and weak inflation expectations could cause market expectations for the Fed Funds rate to fall further (Chart I-3). A downgrade in Fed expectations could push the DXY toward 97 - particularly given that the greenback currently stands at a crucial support (Chart I-4). Chart I-2A Full Rate Hike Has Been ##br##Purged From Expectations A Full Rate Hike Has Been Purged From Expectations A Full Rate Hike Has Been Purged From Expectations Chart I-3The Source Of ##br##The Worry The Source Of The Worry The Source Of The Worry Chart I-4Dollar At ##br##Crucial Spot Dollar At Crucial Spot Dollar At Crucial Spot Moreover, while our dollar capitulation index is already flirting with oversold readings, it can remain in that territory for extended periods of time. In fact, as long as this indicator stays below its 13-week moving average, the dollar tends to remain under downward pressure (Chart I-5). This would suggest that the window of weakness in the dollar has yet to be closed and that a break toward 98-97 in DXY is still very likely. Chart I-5Momentum Still A Headwind For The Dollar Momentum Still A Headwind For The Dollar Momentum Still A Headwind For The Dollar Outside of growth considerations, politics could also contribute to a last wave of selling in the dollar against the euro. Macron, the centrist candidate for the French presidency, is currently polling 25% of voting intentions for the first electoral round this weekend, ahead of Marine Le Pen. Yet the press continues to focus on Jean-Luc Mélanchon's surge in the polls, despite the fact that his popularity gains have stalled at 19%. This means that markets may get positively surprised Sunday night when French electoral results come in as the implied probability of a Le Pen / Mélanchon second round has risen. If as is more likely, Macron, not Mélanchon, makes it to the second round, it is important to remember that in head-to-head polls, he currently scores 64% vs 36% for Marine Le Pen (Chart I-6). Beyond these short-term dynamics, the outlook for the dollar continues to look brighter. To begin with, major leading indicators of the U.S. economy still point to a rebound later this year: The ISM manufacturing highlights that the decline in credit growth may be a temporary episode (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Positive Euro Stock This Weekend? Positive Euro Stock This Weekend? Positive Euro Stock This Weekend? Chart I-7U.S. Credit Growth Will Pick Up U.S. Credit Growth Will Pick Up U.S. Credit Growth Will Pick Up The U.S. CEO Confidence survey is at a 12 year high, and points toward both stronger capex and GDP growth (Chart I-8). The soft job number in March is likely to have been an aberration, as various indicators suggest that job growth will remain perky (Chart I-9). Moreover, this is happening in an environment where labor market slack is likely to prove limited. Not only is the headline U-3 unemployment rate now in line with NAIRU, but also hidden labor market slack - as approximated by discouraged workers and part-time workers for economic reasons - has greatly normalized (Chart I-10), suggesting that healthy job creation should result in accelerating wage growth this year. The elevated level of consumer confidence along with the healthy state of household finances - debt to disposable income still stands near 15-year lows and debt-service payments are at multi-generational lows - are together pointing toward stronger consumer spending. Chart I-8When CEOs Are Happy, ##br##So Is The Economy When CEOs Are Happy, So Is The Economy When CEOs Are Happy, So Is The Economy Chart I-9Soft March Payrolls: ##br##An Aberration Soft March Payrolls: An Aberration Soft March Payrolls: An Aberration Chart I-10U.S. Labor Market ##br##Slack Is Limited U.S. Labor Market Slack Is Limited U.S. Labor Market Slack Is Limited U.S. Labor Market Slack Is Limited U.S. Labor Market Slack Is Limited These developments are important as our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge for the United States has now firmly moved into no-slack territory (Chart I-11). As such, improvements in the U.S. economy later this year will give the Fed plenty of ammunition to increase rates. Thus, we think that markets are ultimately underestimating the FOMC's capacity to lift rates by only anticipating marginally more than one rate hike over the next 12 months. Chart I-11U.S. Capacity Constraints Are Getting Hit U.S. Capacity Constraints Are Getting Hit U.S. Capacity Constraints Are Getting Hit As a result, buy any further dips in the dollar. We are already long the USD against commodity currencies, but will use any weakness to close our short USD/JPY trade and begin accumulating the dollar against the euro. In terms of level, we will close our short USD/JPY position at 107 and look to open a short EUR/USD bet at 1.10. Bottom Line: Markets are revising down their expected path for U.S. interest rates, causing a correction in the dollar in the process. After a period of robust and widespread growth improvement, expectations had become lofty and a period of indigestion was all but inevitable. However, forward looking indicators for U.S. growth are still healthy. With U.S. spare capacity becoming increasingly limited, investors are in the process of overdoing their downward adjustment in future U.S. rates. Use any further pull back in the U.S. dollar to buy the greenback. Currency Manipulators On Notice? Not Really This week, the U.S. Treasury published its annual report on Forex policies for the U.S.'s major trading partners, the so-called currency manipulator report. This time around, the report was especially interesting in light of the aggressive campaign rhetoric from President Trump. Chart I-12Conditions For Inflation Are ##br##Emerging In Japan Conditions For Inflation Are Emerging In Japan Conditions For Inflation Are Emerging In Japan Six countries were highlighted as hitting two of the three criteria necessary to be labeled currency manipulators. These were China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan. Most interesting was the tone of the discussion around China and Japan. Regarding China, the Treasury acknowledged that the PBoC is intervening in the currency market, however not to depress the value of the yuan, but to support it. The discussion was centered on the need for China to ease import restrictions and promote household consumption in order to narrow both the overall current account surplus and the bilateral trade surplus with the United States. These would be steps in the right direction to normalize the Sino-U.S. trade disequilibrium without entering in an all-out trade war. The discussion vis-à-vis Japan was also nuanced. Obviously, Japan's US$69 billion trade surplus with the U.S. was flagged, but the Treasury also acknowledged that the country's 3.7% current account surplus mostly reflected a very large positive income balance. Additionally, the Treasury also recognized that the large surplus was a reflection of Japan's poor domestic demand and that Japan needed to complement its very accommodative monetary policy with further fiscal boost and reforms. We interpreted this comment as a tacit acceptance that Abenomics and the BoJ's policy were squarely domestically focused and that the weak yen was a casualty, not the ultimate end-goal of these policies. With this recognition, it seems unlikely that the calls for a Plaza 2.0 accord would go anywhere. Instead, we expect similar demands to the one exerted on China to take precedence: more opening of the domestic market to imports and more Japanese FDI in the U.S. With this, the U.S. will live with a very dovish BoJ. In this optic, a key development emerged this week in Japan. Two BoJ governors have been replaced by two Abe philosophical allies, Mr. Hitoshi Suzuki and Mr. Goshi Kataoka. Therefore, Japan's monetary policy will remain very accommodative going forward as the near total control of the board by ultra-doves reinforces the institution's commitment to "irresponsible" monetary policy. Most importantly, our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge for Japan is now in the zone where core inflation should accelerate (Chart I-12). This suggests that inflationary dynamics are likely to emerge after the current wave of global negative economic surprises abates. This should result in exactly what the BoJ wants: lower real rates and higher inflation expectations. This would be poisonous for the yen. Any further yen rally should be used to once again short the JPY. With regards to Germany, the Treasury acknowledged that ECB monetary policy is out of Berlin's control, but it would like to see more efforts to boost domestic demand, and a higher real exchange rate. In other words, at this point the Treasury seems to be hoping for higher German inflation more than for a higher euro. This too is re-assuring considering the initial aggressive stance of the Trump administration toward Germany. Switzerland, Korea, and Taiwan are in slightly more precarious conditions as all have been engaging in open market operations to depress the value of their currencies in recent years. However, with the softened tone exhibited toward China, Japan, and Germany, there is a high chance that the Treasury will find ways to turn a blind eye on these countries going forward. Bottom Line: The current U.S. administration is softening its tough rhetoric on trade and it is coming to grips with the reality that it may not be able to bully its trading partners into appreciating their currencies. Instead, Trump is likely to have to be content with fewer trade barriers to access these nations, and further efforts to stimulate domestic demand, which indirectly may help U.S. exports to these countries. We see these developments as steps in the right direction that should decrease the risks currently hanging over global trade. Politics Abound: What To Do With The Euro And The Pound? This week, Theresa May called for a snap election on June 8. The market perceived this announcement as very positive for the U.K.: it will decrease the risk of a very harsh form of Brexit. A larger Conservative victory, which seems highly likely based on current polls, implies that May will be less reliant on the most extremist Brexiters to govern. As such, the U.K. is perceived to be more likely to concede on some key EU demands such as Brussels's request that London pays the GBP 60 billion it owes to the EU's 2014-2020 budget. If these demands are met by the U.K., it is expected that the EU will be less intransigent when it comes to negotiating transitional agreements. On these dynamics, GBP/USD rallied 2.2% on Tuesday and now stands above its 200-day moving average for the first time since that fateful June 2016 night. EUR/GBP too was hurt by the pound rally, retesting its post referendum lows. What is the outlook for GBP/USD and EUR/GBP? The picture for EUR/GBP is the cleanest. A quick rally next week if Macron clenches a spot in the second round of the French election is very likely, especially as investors might have discounted the positive implications of the election on the pound too quickly. Any such rally should be used to begin building short EUR/GBP positions. EUR/GBP is currently trading 12% above its PPP fair value, but it is also trading at a large premium to real interest rate differentials (Chart I-13, top panel). Moreover, investors are starting to adjust upward the expected path of short rates in the U.K. relative to the euro area. This historically has been associated with a stronger pound (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Additionally, as we have argued, the negative factors affecting the U.K. economy are well known. Yet, the stability of long-term U.K. household inflation expectations suggests that the adjustment in consumption in response to high inflation caused by the lower pound could be limited as households may look through any temporary bump in inflation.1 Finally, positioning and sentiment on EUR/GBP are extremely stretched. Historically, such extended levels of bullishness toward the euro relative to the pound have been followed by sharp sell-offs in EUR/GBP (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Real Rates Points To ##br##EUR/GBP Downside Real Rates Points To EUR/GBP Downside Real Rates Points To EUR/GBP Downside Chart I-14Investors Are Positioned For##br## Further Euro Strength Investors Are Positioned For Further Euro Strength Investors Are Positioned For Further Euro Strength When it comes to the GBP/USD, the pound may continue to rebound in the short term toward 1.35. However, the upside in GBP/USD is likely to be capped if our bullish view on the dollar does pan out. This is why we prefer to express positive views on the pound via a short position in EUR/GBP. Bottom Line: The June 8 U.K. general election is important as it does increase the probability that Theresa May will be able to soften the U.K.'s negotiating stance on key budgetary points regarding Brexit. This means that longer and smoother transitional agreements between the U.K. and the EU are likely to emerge at the end of the Article 50 negotiations. Meanwhile, EUR/GBP is expensive relative to PPP metrics and rate differentials. The risk of a breakdown below 0.83 is growing, especially as investors are not positioned for a rally in the pound against the euro. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a more detailed discussion of the U.K. economy, please refer to the Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "GBP: Dismal Expectations", dated January 13, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 The greenback's weakness has been a result of declining price and wage pressures this month. A weaker than expected jobless claims and Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Survey are both indications of the current economic soft patch. However, this is a temporary setback that will do little to alter the Fed's intended hiking cycle. The DXY is currently at a crucial technical level and could face significant pressure from an appreciating euro in the run-up to the French elections. After the outcome of these elections is digested, a return to robust U.S. data will likely propel the greenback upwards as the Fed will keeping lifting rates relative to the rest of the G10. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 The euro strengthens on the back of an optimistic interpretation of Praet's speech in New York. The central banker alluded to diminishing growth risks, but pointed out that short-term risks still remain. It seems that markets have priced in the end of the ECB's easing cycle. Further lifting the euro is expectations that Emmanuel Macron is on his way to the second round of the French election. However, it remains true that peripheral economies are stumbling along with high unemployment and little-to-no wage growth, which points toward widening U.S./European real rate differentials in the longer term. Inflation figures remained unchanged in March both in monthly and annual terms. An annual core inflation figure of 0.7% implies that inflationary pressures remain muted. A bearish outlook on the euro after the French elections is warranted. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 ECB: All About China? - April 7, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 On Tuesday the Japanese parliament nominated Hitoshi Suzuki and Goshi Kataoka to replace two members of the BoJ who had been serial dissenters of Governor Kuroda. This development is important as both of the nominees are known reflationists, which confirms our thesis that the Abe government is committed to support Kuroda's agenda. As the BoJ becomes increasingly dominated by doves, Kuroda will have more leeway in implementing radical reflationary measures, which is bearish for the yen on a cyclical basis. On a tactical basis, we believe the downtrend in USD/JPY might be approaching its last legs, given that we expect the dollar correction to end soon. On the other hand, a risk-off period in the markets seems probable, thus we will stay short NZD/JPY to capture investor's risk aversion. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Cable surged following Theresa May's call of a snap election as the market became less bearish on the U.K. economy given that the election provides an opportunity for the Prime Minister to assert her power over the more radical MPs, and thus set the stage for a softer Brexit. We continue to be relatively optimistic on the pound, particularly against the euro, as we believe that the market is too pessimistic on the U.K. economy. Furthermore, the BoE has shown much less dovish than the ECB as Governor Carney has stated that they will undergo "some modest withdrawal of stimulus" in the next few years, while many members seem to be leaning towards a rate hike. Taking these factors into account, as well as the overly bullish positioning on the euro relative to the pound, we are now confident in shorting EUR/GBP. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 The antipodean currency experienced significant downside amidst dovish remarks by the RBA. Highlighted in the minutes were worries associated with the labor market, with members citing higher unemployment and underemployment as contributors to faltering wage growth. As a corollary, the rise in underlying inflation is expected to be "more gradual", with headline inflation expected to reach its 2% target sometime this year. However, members also stressed the role of energy prices, which could complicate the process. An important observation is the adverse impact of Hurricane Debbie on coal production, a major export for Australia. In merrier news, China's economy outperformed expectations, achieving a growth rate of 6.9% in Q1. However, this is a backward looking indicator and likely corroborates the AUD's strength in Q1, while the recent weakness in Chinese capital spending plans and residential property prices are more accurate indicators of future AUD development. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 This week, kiwi headline inflation came at 2.2%, not only surpassing expectations but also reaching the upper half of the 1%-3% target inflation range for the RBNZ. This confirms our suspicion that inflationary pressures in New Zealand are much stronger than what the RBNZ would lead you to believe, and opens the possibility that the RBNZ could abandon its neutral bias for a more hawkish one. This should help the NZD outperform the AUD on a cyclical basis, given that the Australia's domestic inflationary pressures are much weaker. On a tactical basis, we continue to be short the NZD relative to the JPY, given that a China induced risk-off episode will boost safe heavens and hurt carry currencies. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Within the commodity space, CAD should benefit against other commodity currencies. Oil is likely to face relatively consistent global demand vis-a-vis other commodities, such as industrial metals, as it is more insusceptible to the "unwinding of the Trump trade". Moreover, BCA foresees an extension of the OPEC production cuts for the remainder of the year, which will support oil-based currencies. Faltering capital expenditure in China will work against industrial metal demand, further accentuating this development. Limiting the CAD's upside, however, is a stronger USD this year, most probably after April is over. Real rate differentials will evolve in favor of the USD, limiting the upside to commodity prices in general. The result will be an outperformance of CAD relative to AUD and NZD. Finally, the recent non-resident tax implemented by Ontario my cause hick-ups in Canada's largest housing market. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Economic data in Switzerland continues to improve as various measures such as manufacturing PMI, employment PMI and purchase prices have reached 2011 highs. These developments along with rising inflation, will reassure the SNB that the unofficial floor under EUR/CHF has been effective. Nevertheless, we expect the SNB to keep this floor in place until the end of the year, as not only do French elections pose a short term risk, but core inflation and wage growth would have to stay high for a sustainable period of time for the SNB to consider removing accomodation. Moreover, the removal of the floor would likely be gradual, as the SNB has learned from 2015 that a sharp appreciation in the franc could quickly undo any economic progress. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Although USD/NOK has been quite uncorrelated with oil in recent months, EUR/NOK continues to be highly correlated with oil prices. Overall, we expect the NOK to exhibit weakness against the dollar on a cyclical basis given that dollar bull markets tend to weigh on this cross. Moreover, the Norges Bank will continue to have a dovish bias, given that inflation is falling sharply and economic conditions remain weak. However, on a tactical basis, it is possible that the NOK outperforms the AUD, given that base metals are more sensitive to weaknesses in the Chinese economy. Oil, on the other hand, should stay relatively resilient, given that an extension of the OPEC deal until the end of the year seems very likely. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has largely been trading on the news flow from the U.S. and the euro area following a quiet week in Sweden. Similar to the DXY, USD/SEK is at a crucial technical spot, and EUR/SEK is likely to continue its uptrend in the run-up to the French election. Next week's Riksbank meeting is the last meeting before asset purchases end in June. As inflationary pressures are unlikely to subside substantially, we firmly believe that asset purchases will not be extended further. Nevertheless, while not shifting the policy rate, the Riksbank is likely to reiterate that a future cut is more likely than a future hike, especially as recent inflation figures have disappointed. This is likely to help USD/SEK in the longer run. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending once-severely tested bilateral relations. The risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to show to his working-class electorates, while Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap". This offers space for compromises. Unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Feature The summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago last week was hailed by both sides as an "ice breaking" success. Even though no substantive details have been offered, the two countries have formulated a new mechanism for senior-level dialogue, and established a 100-day process for addressing bilateral trade frictions. The risk still exists that Trump could unilaterally impose punitive measures against Chinese goods with his administrative powers, and it is overly simplistic to draw too much information from one particular event. However, the Trump-Xi summit confirms a developing trend: that some of President Trump's highly controversial remarks on his campaign trail are being quickly rolled back. The risk of escalating trade tensions between the world's two largest economies has on margin abated. Trump Goes Mainstream? America's China policy under recent administrations can best be described as "congagement" - an ambiguous mixture of containment and engagement by varying degrees. Trump's remarks on the campaign trail and in his early days in office suggested he was mainly interested in confrontation. But the Trump-Xi summit, along with some recent developments, implies that Trump's China policy is coming back to the middle ground, at least for now. After setting off a fierce firestorm on the Taiwan issue late last year, Trump reaffirmed the "One China" policy in a February phone call with President Xi, re-stating long-standing U.S. policy and easing a key source of diplomatic tensions. Taiwan is still re-emerging as a source of risk.1 But it is unquestionably positive in the short-term that Trump backed away from his initial, highly provocative approach. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated in February that the Trump administration will stick to the existing statutory process in judging whether China manipulates its currency, a marked departure from Trump's repeated campaign pledges. It is almost certain that China will not be named a currency manipulator in the U.S. Treasury's upcoming semi-annual assessment due later this week.2 In his visit to Beijing last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson used Chinese verbiage to characterize the U.S.-China relationship. This verbiage was not repeated by other officials during Xi's visit to Florida, so it is unclear whether it signals the Trump administration's adoption of China's idea of a "new model of great power relations." Nonetheless, it is a drastic change from Tillerson's aggressive remarks at his congressional confirmation hearings, when he suggested blockading Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea. Separately, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, on his first trip abroad to Japan and South Korea, said he did not anticipate any "dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea. More recently, Steve Bannon, White House Chief Strategist, was removed from the National Security Council. It is futile to try to understand all the internal power struggles within the new administration. Nevertheless, Bannon's departure from the NSC is probably a positive development, viewed through the Chinese lens. Bannon not long ago openly identified China as a major threat to the U.S. and predicted a war in the South China Sea as inevitable. In short, President Trump's summit with President Xi marked continued "mainstreaming" of his China policy. Some strong anti-China rhetoric from him and his inner circle has apparently been sanded off, setting the stage for constructive negotiations with Beijing. Can China Accommodate? The restructuring of the Sino-U.S. comprehensive dialogue and the declaration of a 100-day process for addressing economic frictions are probably the most tangible outcomes from the discussions between the two leaders during the summit. Further detail deserve close attention in order to map out how relations between the world's two largest economies will evolve in the near future. In our view, China is likely to make concessions and avoid confrontations. First, trade appears to be front and center in President Trump's grand dealings with China, an important change compared with previous U.S. administrations that also focused heavily on values and ideological issues, such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. From China's perspective, the government has a lot more flexibility in making concessions on trade and economic fronts than in dealing with ideological differences. In the past, China has almost always yielded to U.S. pressure on trade-related issues. For instance, China depegged the RMB from the dollar in 2005 and allowed the RMB to continue to appreciate after the global economic recovery began, all under American political pressure. Chinese senior officials routinely led massive commercial delegations touring the U.S. with big procurement orders for everything from aircraft to agricultural goods in order to address American complaints. Both the U.S. and China understand that bilateral trade imbalances favor the U.S. in the event of an all-out trade war, which China will try its best to avoid. Strategically, President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to deliver on promises to his working-class electorate, while Xi is more interested in establishing a cooperative and productive strategic standing with the world's sole superpower. Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap" - the likelihood of conflict between a rising power and a currently dominant one - by convincing the U.S. to grant China greater global sway. In this vein, Trump's withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been viewed as an important positive development from Xi's perspective, and it is likely that Beijing will offer incentives to further discourage President Trump to "pivot to Asia". It is already rumored that Beijing has drafted investment plans in the U.S. that could create 700,000 jobs, as well as further opening up agricultural goods imports and financial market access. We suspect these deals will be announced during the 100-day negotiation period, which should give Trump a much-needed boost in his approval ratings. Economically, Trump's resentment of China's trade practices is based on the old growth model that the country no longer adheres to. Trump's version of Chinese manufacturers - "sweat shops" operating in "pollution heaven" heavily dependent on state subsidies and a cheap currency - is increasingly out of touch with today's reality, as discussed in detail in a previous report.3 In a nutshell, Chinese manufacturers have quickly climbed up the value-add ladder due to rapidly rising labor costs, and pollution control has become an urgent social issue. Meanwhile, the RMB has been under constant downward pressure in recent years, and the Chinese authorities may welcome coordinated efforts to weaken the dollar and support the yuan. In short, China will not find it too painful to accept Trump's terms and conditions, as the "sick parts" of the Chinese economy will inevitably be cleansed regardless of pressure from the U.S. The risk to this view is that Trump finds China's progress too slow and grows impatient. Previous American presidents have come to accept China's gradualism and have demurred from punitive measures. Trump, with his populist base and promises, may at some point find it politically expedient to exact a price on China for failing to deliver the desired results on his electoral timeline. Across the board tariffs on Chinese imports are unlikely, but highly symbolic sanctions and anti-dumping measures remain distinct possibility. The End Game Of Sino-U.S. Trade Imbalances However, any immediate concessions from China on trade will do little to fundamentally change the U.S.'s external imbalances. It is well known that a country's current account balance is the residual of its national savings and domestic capital spending. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect a meaningful reduction in the country's current account deficit without lifting America's domestic savings rate. Chart 1 shows the chronic nature of America's external deficit. It is worth noting that the "Nixon shock" in 1971 - the policy package of closing the gold window and imposing across-the-board tariffs on imports - was triggered when the U.S. was on track to have its first annual trade deficit since the 19th century. Fast forward 46 years later, various attempts by American administrations have failed to rescue the deteriorating trend. Many countries over the years such as Germany, Japan and newly-industrialized economies in Asia were all singled out as conducting unfair trade practices with the U.S., but none of the bilateral and multi-lateral efforts were effective with lasting impact. A fundamental change in global trade over the past four decades has been the rapid industrialization of China. In essence, China has become the final point of an increasingly integrated global assembly line, and therefore America's chronic deficit has been transferred from other countries to China. Chart 2 shows China's surplus with the U.S. has ballooned, while other countries' surpluses have dwindled. This has put China squarely under the spotlight, replacing previous scapegoats. Chart 1America's Secular Deficit... America's Secular Deficit... America's Secular Deficit... Chart 2... From Changing Sources ... From Changing Sources ... From Changing Sources From China's perspective, the country will continue to run a surplus with the U.S. so long as it remains in the most manufacturing-intensive phase of its development curve, though the product mix will continue to shift from lower-value-added goods to higher-value-added ones. Meanwhile, the Chinese corporate sector will shift production capacity to even lower cost countries, similar to what Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan have done in relation to China since the early 1980s when China began to open up. Already, China's direct investment to Vietnam has surged in recent years, which partially explains the sharp increase in Vietnam's trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In fact, Vietnamese trade surplus with the U.S. account for 15% of the country's GDP, even though its overall trade balance is barely positive. This means that America's demand for cheap consumer goods is the main driving forces for its deficit, rather than any particular country's unfair trade practices. The fact is that the U.S. has moved beyond industrialization and become a post-industrial society, where the service sector generates more wealth than the manufacturing sector. China's shrinking share of imports from the U.S. is the mirror image of America's shrinking share of the manufacturing sector in the overall economy (Chart 4). Furthermore, the self-imposed restrictions on some high-tech goods exports to China further limits American firms growth potential, as this is the most competitive segment of America's manufacturing sector in the global market. Without removing these restrictions, it is unrealistic to expect a material increase in sales to China. Chart 3The "China Factor" In Vietnam's##br## Growing Trade Surpluses The "China Factor" In Vietnam's Growing Trade Surpluses The "China Factor" In Vietnam's Growing Trade Surpluses Chart 4America's Deindustrialization And ##br##Shrinking Market Share In China America's Deindustrialization And Shrinking Market Share In China America's Deindustrialization And Shrinking Market Share In China For now, the Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending severely tested bilateral relations and that the risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. Trump may adopt a "good cop / bad cop" strategy that creates greater volatility. Longer term, unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Imposing tariffs on Chinese imports only pushes Chinese surpluses to other less-competitive countries; it does not bring jobs back to the U.S. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB: Back In The Spotlight," dated March 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global political risks are understated in 2018; U.S. policy will favor the USD, as will global macro trends; Trump's trade protectionism will re-emerge; China will slow, and may intensify structural reforms; Italian elections will reignite Euro Area breakup risk. Feature In our last report, we detailed why political risks are overstated in 2017.1 First, markets are underestimating President Trump's political capital when it comes to passing his growth agenda. Second, risks of populist revolt remain overstated in Europe. Third, political risks associated with Brexit probably peaked earlier this year. Next year, however, the geopolitical calendar is beset with potential systemic risks. First, we fear that President Trump will elevate trade to the top of his list of priorities, putting fears of protectionism and trade wars back onto the front burner. In turn, this could precipitate a serious crisis in the U.S.-China relationship and potentially inspire Chinese policymakers to redouble their economic reforms - so as not to "let a good crisis go to waste." That, in turn, would create short-term deflationary effects. Meanwhile, we fear that investors will have been lulled to sleep by the pro-market outcomes in Europe this year. The series of elections that go against populists may number seven by January 2018 (two Spanish elections, the Austrian presidential election, the Dutch general election, the French presidential and legislative elections, and the German general election in September). However, the Italian election looms as a risk in early 2018 and investors should not ignore it. Investors should remain overweight risk assets for the next 12 months. Our conviction level, however, declines in 2018 due to mounting geopolitical risks. Mercantilism Makes A Comeback Fears of a trade war appear distant and alarmist following the conclusion of the Mar-a-Lago summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. We do not expect the reset in relations to last beyond this year. Trump has issued a "shot across the bow" and now the two sides are settling down to business - but investors should avoid a false sense of complacency.2 Investors should remember that candidate Trump's rhetoric on China and globalization was why he stood out from the crowd of bland, establishment Republican candidates. Despite the establishment's tenacious support for globalization, Americans no longer believe in the benefits of free trade, at least not as defined by the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" of the past two decades (Chart 1). We take Trump's views on trade seriously. They certainly helped him outperform expectations in the manufacturing-heavy Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Chart 2). And yet, Trump's combined margin of victory in the three states was just 77,744 votes -- less than 0.5% of the electorate of the three states! That should be enough to keep him focused on fulfilling his campaign promises to Midwest voters, at least if he wants to win in 2020.3 Chart 1America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Chart 2Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt In 2017, Trump's domestic agenda has taken precedent over international trade. The president is dealing with several key pieces of legislation, including the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive tax reform, the repeal of Obama-era regulations, and infrastructure spending. However, there is considerable evidence that trade will eventually come back up: President Trump's appointments have favored proponents of protectionism (Table 1) whose statements have included some true mercantilist gems (Table 2). Table 1Government Appointments Certifying That Trump Is A Protectionist Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Table 2Protectionist Statements From The Trump Administration Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, who is not known as a vociferous proponent of protectionism, prevented the G20 communique from reaffirming a commitment to free trade at the March meeting of finance officials in Baden-Baden, Germany.4 Such statements were staples of the summits over the past decade. The Commerce Department - under notable trade hawk Wilbur Ross - looks to be playing a much more active role in setting the trade agenda under President Trump. Ross has already imposed a penalty on Chinese chemical companies in a toughly worded ruling that declares, "this is not the last that bad actors in global trade will hear from us - the games are over." He is overseeing a three-month review of the causes of U.S. deficits, planning to add "national security" considerations to trade and investment assessments, proposing a new means of collecting duties in disputes, and encouraging U.S. firms to bring cases against unfair competition. Ross is likely to be joined by a tougher U.S. Trade Representative (who has historically been the most important driver of trade policy in the executive branch). In addition, we believe that Trump's success on the domestic policy front, in combination with the global macro environment, will lead to higher risk of protectionism in 2018. There are three overarching reasons: Domestic Policy Is Bullish USD: We do not know what path the White House and Congress will take on tax reform. We think tax reform is on the way, but the path of least resistance may be to leave reform for later and focus entirely on tax cuts in 2017. Whatever the outcome, we are almost certain that it will involve greater budget deficits than the current budget law augurs (Chart 3). Even a modest boost to government spending will motivate the Fed to accelerate its tightening cycle at a time when the output gap is nearly closed and unemployment is plumbing decade lows (Chart 4). This will perpetuate the dollar bull market. Chart 3Come What May, Trump Will Increase The Budget Deficit Come What May, Trump Will Increase The Budget Deficit Come What May, Trump Will Increase The Budget Deficit Chart 4A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation Chinese Growth Scare Is Bullish USD: At some point later this year, Chinese data is likely to decelerate and induce a growth scare. Our colleague Yan Wang of BCA's China Investment Strategy believes that the Chinese economy is on much better footing than in early 2016, but that the year-on-year macro indicators will begin to moderate.5 This could rekindle investors' fears of another China-led global slowdown. Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have gone forward with property market curbs and begun to tighten liquidity marginally on the interbank system. The seven-day repo rate, a key benchmark for Chinese lending terms, has surged to its highest level in two years, according to BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy. It could surge again, dissuading small and medium-sized banks from bond issuance (Chart 5). Falling commodity demand and fear of another slowdown in China will weigh on EM assets and boost the USD. European Political Risks Are Bullish USD: Finally, any rerun of political risks in Europe in 2018 will force the ECB to be a lot more dovish than the market expects. With Italian elections to be held some time in Q1 or Q2 2018 - more on that risk below - we think the market is getting way ahead of itself with expectations of tighter monetary policy in Europe. The expected number of months till an ECB rate hike has collapsed from nearly 60 months in July 2016 to just 20 months in March, before recovering to 28 months as various ECB policymakers sought to dampen expectations of rate hikes (Chart 6).6 In addition, our colleague Mathieu Savary of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has noted that a relationship exists between EM growth and European monetary policy (Chart 7), which suggests that any Chinese growth scares would similarly be euro-bearish and USD-bullish.7 Chart 5Interbank Volatility Will ##br##Dampen Chinese Credit Growth Interbank Volatility Will Dampen Chinese Credit Growth Interbank Volatility Will Dampen Chinese Credit Growth Chart 6Market Is Way Ahead Of ##br## Itself On ECB Hawkishness Market Is Way Ahead Of Itself On ECB Hawkishness Market Is Way Ahead Of Itself On ECB Hawkishness Chart 7EM Spreads, ECB Months-To-Hike: ##br##Same Battle EM Spreads, ECB Months-To-Hike: Same Battle EM Spreads, ECB Months-To-Hike: Same Battle The combination of Trump's domestic policy agenda and these global macro-economic factors will drive the dollar up. At some point in 2018, we assume that USD strength will begin to irk Donald Trump and his cabinet, particularly as it prevents them from delivering on their promise of shrinking trade deficits. We suspect that President Trump will eventually reach for the "currency manipulation" playbook of the 1970s-80s. There are two parallels that investors should be aware of: 1971 Smithsonian Agreement - President Richard Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."8 Less understood, but also part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. As president, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks, including Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in favor of threatening a reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan to force Berlin and Tokyo to the negotiating table.9 Economists in the cabinet opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, but policymakers favored brinkmanship.10 The eventual surcharge was said to be "temporary," but there was no explicit end date. The U.S. ultimately got other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen, but not as much as it wanted. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt Trans-Atlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination between allies. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge by December without meeting most of its other objectives, including increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the exchange-rate outcomes of the deal dissipated within two years. 1985 Plaza Accord - The U.S. reached for the mercantilist playbook again in the early 1980s as the USD rallied on the back of Volcker's dramatic interest rate hikes. The subsequent dollar bull market hurt U.S. exports and widened the current account deficit (Chart 8). U.S. negotiators benefited from the 1971 Nixon surcharge because European and Japanese policymakers knew that Americans were serious about tariffs. The result was coordinated currency manipulation to drive down the dollar and self-imposed export limits by Japan, both of which had an almost instantaneous effect on the Japanese share of American imports (Chart 9). Chart 8Dollar Bull Market And ##br## Current Account Balance Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance Dollar Bull Market And Current Account Balance Chart 9The U.S. Got What It ##br##Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The U.S. Got What It Wanted From Plaza Accord The Smithsonian and Plaza examples are important for two reasons. First, they show that Trump's mercantilism is neither novel nor somehow "un-American." It especially is not anti-Republican, with both Nixon and Reagan having used overt protectionism as a negotiating tool in recent history. In fact, Trump's Trade Representative, the yet-to-be-confirmed Robert Lighthizer, is a veteran of the latter agreement, having negotiated it for President Ronald Reagan.11 Second, the experience of both negotiations in bringing about a shift in the U.S. trade imbalance will motivate the Trump administration to reach for the same "coordinated currency manipulation" playbook. The problem is that 2018 is neither 1971 nor 1985. The Trump administration will face three constraints to using currency devaluation to reduce the U.S. trade imbalance: Chart 10Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 11Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Economy: Europe and Japan were booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s and had the luxury of appreciating their currencies at the U.S.'s behest. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that engineers structural bull markets in the euro and RMB respectively. For Europe, the risk is that peripheral economies may not survive a back-up in yields. For China, monetary policy tightness would imperil the debt-servicing of its enormous corporate debt horde. Apex of Globalization: U.S. policymakers could negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because the promise of increased trade remained intact. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization. In 2017, however, this promise has been muted. Global trade has peaked as a percent of GDP (Chart 10), average tariffs appear to have bottomed (Chart 11), and the number of preferential trade agreements signed each year has collapsed (Chart 12). Temporary trade barriers have ticked up since 2008 (Chart 13). To be clear, these signs are not necessarily proof that globalization is reversing, but merely that it has reached its apex. Nonetheless, America's trade partners will be far less willing to agree to coordinated currency manipulation in an era where the global trade pie is no longer growing. Geopolitics: During the Cold War, the U.S. had far greater leverage over Europe and Japan than it does today over Europe and China. While the U.S. is still involved in European defense, its geopolitical relationship with China is hostile. What happens when the Smithsonian/Plaza playbook fails? We would expect the Trump administration to switch tactics. Two alternatives come to mind: Protectionism: As the Nixon surcharge demonstrates, the U.S. president has few legal, constitutional constraints to using tariffs against trade partners.12 As the Trump White House grows frustrated in 2018 with the widening trade imbalance, it may reach for the tariff playbook. The risk here is that retaliation from Europe and China would be swift, hurting U.S. exporters in the process. Dovishness: There is a much simpler alternative to a global trade war: inflation. Our theory that the USD will rally amidst domestic fiscal stimulus is predicated on the Fed hiking rates faster as inflation and growth pick up. But what if the Fed decides to respond to higher nominal GDP growth by hiking rates more slowly? This could be the strategy pursued by the next Fed chair, to be in place by February 3, 2018. We do not buy the conventional wisdom that "President Trump will pick hawks because his economic advisors are hawks" for two reasons. First, we do not know that Trump's economic advisors will carry the day. Second, we suspect that President Trump will be far more focused on winning the 2020 election than putting a hawk in charge of the Fed. Chart 12Low-Hanging Fruit Of Globalization Already Picked Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Chart 13Temporary Trade Barriers Ticking Up Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Bottom Line: Putting it all together, we expect that U.S. trade imbalances will come to the forefront of the political agenda in 2018. This will especially be the case if the USD continues to rally into next year, contributing to the widening of the trade deficit. We expect any attempt to reenact the Smithsonian/Plaza agreements to flame out quickly. America's trade partners are constrained and unable to appreciate their currencies against the USD. This could rattle the markets in 2018 as investors become aware that Trump's mercantilism is real and that chances of a trade war are high. On the other hand, Trump may take a different tack altogether and instead focus on talking down the USD. This will necessitate a compliant Fed, which will mean higher inflation and a weaker USD. Such a strategy could prolong the reflation trade through 2018 and into 2019, but only if the subsequent bloodbath in the bond market is contained. China Decides To Reform Presidents Trump and Xi launched a new negotiation framework on April 6 that they will personally oversee, as well as a "100 Day Plan" on trade that we expect will result in a flurry of activity over the next three months. One potential outcome of the meeting is a rumored plan for massive Chinese investment into the U.S. that could add a headline 700,000 jobs, complemented with further opening of China's agricultural, automotive, and financial sectors to U.S. investment and exports. Investors may be fêted with more good news, especially with President Trump slated to visit China before long. President Trump, a prominent China-basher, may decide that the deals he brings home from China will be enough to convince the Midwest electorate that he has gotten the U.S. a "better deal" as promised. This would enable him to stabilize China relations in order to focus on other issues, as all presidents since Reagan have done. However, we doubt that the Sino-American relationship can be resolved through short-term trade initiatives alone. There is too much distrust, as we have elucidated before.13 The 100-day plan is a good start but it carries an implicit threat of tariffs from the Trump administration if China fails to follow through; and China is not likely to give Trump everything he wants. Moreover, strategic and security issues are far from settled, despite some positive gestures. As such, we expect both economic and geopolitical tensions to resurface in 2018. Meanwhile Chinese policymakers may decide to use tensions with the U.S. as an opportunity to redouble efforts towards structural reforms at home. Since the Xi Jinping administration pledged sweeping pro-market reforms in 2013, the country has shied away from dealing with its massive corporate debt hoard (Chart 14) and has only trimmed the overcapacity in sectors like steel and coal (Chart 15). It fears incurring short-term pain, albeit for long-term gain. However, if Beijing can blame any reform-induced slowdown on the U.S. and its nationalist administration, it will make it easier to manage the political blowback at home, providing a means of rallying the public around the flag. Chart 14China's Corporate Debt Pile Still A Problem... China's Corporate Debt Pile Still A Problem... China's Corporate Debt Pile Still A Problem... Chart 15...And So Is Industrial Overcapacity ...And So Is Industrial Overcapacity ...And So Is Industrial Overcapacity China has, of course, undertaken significant domestic reforms under the current administration. It has re-centralized power in the hands of the Communist Party and made steps to improve quality of life by fighting pollution, expanding health-care access, and loosening the One Child policy. These measures have long-term significance for investors because they imply that the Chinese state is responsive to the secular rise in social unrest over the past decade. The political system is still vulnerable in the event of a major economic crisis, but the party's legitimacy has been reinforced. Nevertheless, what long-term investors fear is China’s simultaneous backsliding on key components of economic liberalization. Since the global financial crisis, the government has adopted a series of laws that impose burdens on firms, especially foreign and private firms, relating to security, intellectual property, technology, legal (and political) compliance, and market access. Moreover, since the market turmoil in 2015-16, the government has moved to micromanage the country’s stock market, capital account, banking and corporate sectors, and Internet and media. The general darkening of the business environment is a major reason why investors have not celebrated notable reform moves like liberalizing deposit interest rates or standardizing the business-service tax. These steps require further reforms to build on them (i.e. to remove lending preferences for SOEs, or to provide local governments with revenues to replace the business tax). But all reforms are now in limbo as the Communist Party approaches its “midterm” party congress this fall. Most importantly for investors, the government has still not shown it can "get off the train" of rapid credit growth that has underpinned China's transition away from foreign demand (Chart 16). The country's relatively robust consumer-oriented and service-sector growth remains to be tested by tighter financial conditions. And the property sector poses an additional, perpetual financial risk, which policymakers have avoided tackling with reforms like the proposed property tax (a key reform item to watch for next year).14 The PBoC's recent tightening efforts come after a period of dramatic liquidity assistance to the banks (Chart 17), and even though interbank rates remain well below their brief double-digit levels during the "Shibor Crisis" in 2013 (see Chart 5 above, page 6), any tightening serves to revive fears that financial instability could re-emerge and translate to the broader economy. Chart 16China's Savings Fueling Debt Buildup China's Savings Fueling Debt Buildup China's Savings Fueling Debt Buildup Chart 17PBoC Lends A Helping Hand PBoC Lends A Helping Hand PBoC Lends A Helping Hand What signposts should investors watch to see whether China re-initiates structural reforms? Already, personnel changes at the finance and commerce ministries, as well as the National Development and Reform Commission and China Banking Regulatory Commission, suggest that the Xi administration may be headed in this direction. Table 3 focuses on the steps that we think would be most important, beginning with the party congress this fall. Given current levels of overcapacity and corporate leverage, we suspect that genuine structural reform will begin with a move toward deleveraging, and involve a mix of bank recapitalization and capacity destruction, as it did in the 1990s and early 2000s. These reforms included the formation of new central financial authorities, like policy banks, regulatory bodies, and asset management companies, to oversee the cleaning up of bank balance sheets and the removal of numerous inefficient players from the financial sector.15 They eventually entailed transfers of funds from the PBoC, from foreign exchange reserves, and from public offerings as major banks were partially privatized. On the corporate side, the reforms witnessed the elimination of a range of SOEs and layoffs numbering around 40% of SOE employees, or 4% of the economically active workforce at the time. Table 3Will China Launch Painful Economic Restructuring Next Year? Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Political Risks Are Understated In 2018 Chinese President Jiang Zemin launched these reforms after the party congress of 1997, just as his successor, Hu Jintao, attempted to launch similar reforms following the party congress of 2007. The latter got cut short by the Great Recession. The question now for Xi Jinping's administration is whether he will use his own midterm party congress to launch the reforms that he has emphasized: namely, deep overcapacity cuts and financial and property market stabilization through measures to mitigate systemic risks.16 Bottom Line: China may decide to use American antagonism as an "excuse" to launch a serious structural reform push following this fall's National Party Congress. Short-term pain, which is normal under a reform scenario in any country, could then be blamed on an antagonistic U.S. trade and geopolitical policy. While reforms in China are a positive in the long term, we fear that a slowdown in China would export deflation to still fragile EM economies. And given Europe's high-beta economy, it could also be negative for European assets and the euro. Europe's Divine Comedy Investors remain focused on European elections this year. The first round of the French election is just 11 days away and polls are tightening (Chart 18). Although Marine Le Pen is set to lose the second round in a dramatic fashion against the pro-market, centrist Emmanuel Macron (Chart 19), she could be a lot more competitive if either center-right François Fillon or left-wing Jean-Luc Mélenchon squeaks by Macron to get into the second round.17 Chart 18Melenchon's Rise: Comrades Unite! Melenchon's Rise: Comrades Unite! Melenchon's Rise: Comrades Unite! Chart 19Le Pen Cruisin' For A Bruisin' Le Pen Cruisin' For A Bruisin' Le Pen Cruisin' For A Bruisin' The risk of someone-other-than-Macron getting into the second round is indeed rising. However, Mélenchon's rise thus far appears to be the mirror image of Socialist Party candidate Benoît Hamon's demise. At some point, this move will reach its natural limits: not all Hamon voters are willing to switch to Mélenchon. At that point, the Communist Party-backed Mélenchon will have to start taking voters away from Le Pen. This is definitely possible, but would also create a scenario in which it is Mélenchon, not Le Pen, that faces off against a centrist candidate in the second round. As such, we see Mélenchon's rise primarily as a threat to Le Pen, not Macron.18 While we remain focused on the French election, we think that any market relief from that election - and the subsequent German one - will be temporary. By early next year, investors will have to deal with Italian elections. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no clarity in terms of who will win the Italian election. If elections were held today, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) would gain a narrow victory (Chart 20). However, it is not clear what electoral law will apply in the next election. The current law on the books, which the Democratic Party-led (PD) government is attempting to reform by next February, would give a party reaching 40% of the vote a majority-bonus. As Chart 20 illustrates, however, no party is near that threshold. As such, the next election may produce a hung parliament with no clarity, but with a Euroskeptic plurality. Meanwhile, the ruling center-left Democratic Party is crumbling. Primaries are set for April 30 and will pit former PM Matteo Renzi against left-wing factions that have coalesced into a single alliance called the Progressive and Democratic Movement (DP). For now, DP supports the government of caretaker PM Paolo Gentiloni, but its members have recently embarrassed the government by voting with the opposition in a key April 6 vote in the Senate. If Renzi wins the leadership of the Democratic Party again, DP members could formally split and contest the 2018 election as a separate party. The real problem for investors with Italy is not the next election, whose results are almost certain to be uncertain, but rather the Euroskeptic turn in Italian politics. First, aggregating all Euroskeptic and Europhile parties produces a worrying trend (Chart 21). And we are being generous to the pro-European camp by including the increasingly Euroskeptic Forza Italia of former PM Silvio Berlusconi in its camp. Chart 20Five Star Movement Set For Plurality Win Five Star Movement Set For Plurality Win Five Star Movement Set For Plurality Win Chart 21Euroskeptics Take The Lead Euroskeptics Take The Lead Euroskeptics Take The Lead Unlike its Mediterranean peers Spain and Portugal, Italian support for the euro is still plumbing decade lows -- no doubt a reflection of the country's non-existent economic recovery (Chart 22). It is difficult to see how Italians can regain confidence in European integration given that they are unwilling to pursue painful structural reforms. Chart 22Italian Economic Woes Hurt Euro Support Italian Economic Woes Hurt Euro Support Italian Economic Woes Hurt Euro Support The question is not whether Italy will face a Euroskeptic crisis, but rather when. It may avoid one in 2018 as the pro-euro centrists cobble together a weak government or somehow entice the center-right into forming a grand coalition. But even in that rosy scenario, such a government is not going to have a mandate for painful structural reforms that would be required to pull Italy out of its low-growth doldrums. As such, it is unlikely that the next Italian government will last its full five-year term. Bottom Line: Investors should prepare for a re-run of Europe's sovereign debt crisis, with Italy as the main event. We expect this risk to be delayed until after the Italian election in 2018, maybe later. However, it is likely to have global repercussions, given Italy's status as the third-largest sovereign debt market. Will Italy exit the euro? Our view is that Italy needs a crisis in order to stay in the Euro Area, as only the market can bring forward the costs of euro exit for Italian voters by punishing the economy through the bond market. The market, economy, and politics have a dynamic relationship and Italian voters will be able to assess the costs of an exit first hand, as yields approach their highs in 2011 and Italian banks face a potential liquidity crisis. Given that support for the euro remains above 50% today, we would expect that Italians would back off from the abyss after such a shock, but our conviction level is low.19 Housekeeping This week, we are taking profits on our long MXN/RMB trade. We initiated the trade on January 25, 2017 and it has returned 14.2% since then. The trade was a play on our view that Trump's protectionism would hit China harder than Mexico. Given the favorable conclusion to the Mar-a-Lago summit - and the likely easing of risks of a China-U.S. trade war in the near term - it is time to book profits on this trade. We still see short-term upside to MXN and investors may want to pair it by shorting the Turkish lira. We expect more downside to TRY given domestic political instability, which we expect to continue beyond the April 15 constitutional referendum. We see both the yes and no outcomes of the referendum as market negative. In addition, we are closing our short Chinese RMB (via 12-month non-deliverable forwards) trade for a profit of 5.89% and our long USD/SEK trade for a gain of 1.27%. Our short U.K. REITs trade has been stopped out for a loss of 5%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For this negotiating sequence, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington," dated November 24, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Trump loves to win. 4 Please see Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany, "Communique - G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting," dated March 18, 2017, available at www.bundesfinanzministerium.de. 5 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead," dated April 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 The head of the Lithuanian central bank, Vitas Vasiliauskas, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal in early April stating that "it is too early to discuss an exit because still we have a lot of significant uncertainties." This was followed by the executive board member Peter Praet dampening expectations of even a reduction in the bank's bond-buying program and President Mario Draghi stating that the current monetary policy stance remained appropriate. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?" dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org, and Barry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936 and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 9 Treasury Secretary John Connally was particularly protectionist, with two infamous mercantilist quips to his name: "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first," and "the dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." 10 Paul Volcker, then Undersecretary of the Treasury, provided some color on this divide: "As I remember it, the discussion largely was a matter of the economists against the politicians, and the outcome wasn't really close." 11 We highly recommend that our clients peruse Lighthizer's testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Beginning at p. 29, he recommends three key measures: using the 1971 surcharge as a model (p. 31); going beyond "WTO-consistent" policies (p. 33); and imposing tariffs against China explicitly (p. 35). Please see Robert E. Lighthizer, "Testimony Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission: Evaluating China's Role in the World Trade Organization Over the Past Decade," dated June 9, 2010, available at www.uscc.gov. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also the recent Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Market Equity Sector Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Is Beijing About To Blink?" in Monthly Report, "What Geopolitical Risks Keep Our Clients Awake?" dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 At a meeting of the Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs, which Xi chairs, the decision was made to make some progress on these structural issues this year, but only within the overriding framework of ensuring "stability." The question is whether Xi will grow bolder in 2018. Please see "Xi stresses stability, progress in China's economic work," Xinhua, February 28, 2017, available at news.xinhuanet.com. 17 That said, the most recent poll - conducted between April 9-10 - shows that Mélenchon may be even more likely to defeat Le Pen than Macron. He had a 61% to 39% lead in the second round versus Le Pen. 18 In the second round, Macron is expected to defeat Mélenchon by 55% to 45%, according to the latest poll, conducted April 9-10. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights ­­The U.S. Treasury is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment in April. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers. The risk of that at the moment is low. The current episode of Chinese capital outflow can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade". The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Beyond the near term, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Feature As we go to press this week, the Federal Reserve has just released its interest rate decision. The 25-basis-point rate hike was well anticipated, and the markets should be assuaged by the fact that the Fed does not anticipate a more rapid pace of rate hikes than it did in December. As far as China is concerned, the RMB, which has been put on the backburner by global investors in recent months, is once again back in the spotlight, as its descent against the dollar has resumed after a relatively calm period. Both Chinese interest rates and the USD/CNY have been pushed higher by the latest moves in U.S. Treasury prices and the broad dollar trend (Chart 1). Chart 1The U.S. Connection The U.S. Connection The U.S. Connection Beyond The Currency Manipulator U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signaled late last month that he wants to use a regular review process of foreign-exchange markets to identify currency manipulators, which means the U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal procedure to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from President Donald Trump's repeated campaign trail promises, and has reduced the odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB. If the Treasury follows the formal process laid out in statutory law, it is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the conditions required for being charged with currency manipulation, as discussed in detail in our previous report.1 Even if China was indeed labeled a currency manipulator in the April assessment, the existing procedure does not authorize the administration to immediately impose punitive measures. Instead, the law requires the Treasury to negotiate with the allegedly "guilty" party to correct the currency manipulation and remove unfair trade practices. Even if negotiations fail, the punitive measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are largely symbolic for a country like China. The recommended remedial measures such as prohibiting federal procurement from offending countries and seeking additional surveillance through the International Monetary Fund are hardly biting for China. In short, a "currency manipulation" charge, even if it were imposed, would mostly be a symbolic move, and the real economic consequences would be limited. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers, which would be far more unpredictable and would inevitably lead to harsh retaliation from the Chinese side. The risk of that at the moment is low. President Trump appears to be occupied with domestic issues and has notably toned down his anti-China rhetoric. Meanwhile, President Xi is reportedly scheduled to visit the U.S. next month, at which time he will likely seek to improve bilateral ties. We expect both sides will try to set up a new high-level mechanism for effective communication and negotiations over key policy issues to replace the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialog (S&ED) under the Obama administration. Given the numerous "China hawks" in President Trump's inner circle, trade frictions between the two countries will likely increase, but the risks appear to be pushed out to at least next year. Where Did The Money Go? China's official foreign reserves have stabilized at around US$3 trillion in recent months, compared with a peak of over US$4 trillion in the second quarter of 2014. The common perception is that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has been fighting a constant bleed of domestic capital, and the rapid decline in its foreign reserves means an ever-smaller war chest, which will eventually force the PBoC to surrender. There has been open debate within China's policy-making circles and prominent think-tanks on whether the PBoC should protect the RMB exchange rate or preserve its official reserves. While the decimal changes in China's official reserves have been grabbing headlines among the financial media of late, much less known is China's total international investment positions. In fact, China having a hefty current account surplus means the country's domestic savings exceed its domestic investment, and subsequently the excess savings become holdings of foreign assets - the PBoC's official reserves are just a part of the country's growing total foreign claims. Therefore, it is important to have a closer look at China's total foreign investment positions to understand cross-border capital flows. On the asset side, since the second quarter of 2014 when official reserves peaked out, China's total foreign assets have continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace (Chart 2). The decline in official reserves has been more than offset by increases in other forms of investments. Specifically, direct overseas investments, foreign loans and holdings for foreign securities increased by US$503 billion, US$170 billion and US$79 billion, respectively, between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016, the latest available data points, compared with a US$792 billion decline in official reserves during the same period. In other words, the country as a whole has continued to accumulate foreign assets, but the corporate sector and households have been increasing their holdings at the same time that the public sector has been trimming positions. On the liability side, the Chinese corporate sector has been paying back foreign debt aggressively since Q2 2014, which also increased demand for foreign currencies and contributed to the decline in the PBoC's official reserves. Loans and trade credit taken by Chinese firms dropped by US$423 billion between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016. The outstanding balance of total foreign loans and trade credit at the end of Q3 2016 stood at US$583 billion, almost half the US$1 trillion peak in Q2 2014 (Chart 2, bottom panel). Regarding foreigners' claims in China, the RMB fluctuation has had no meaningful impact on both foreign direct investments (FDIs) and foreigners' investments in Chinese domestically listed securities such as stocks and bonds. In fact, both FDIs and foreign investments in Chinese securities have continued to rise despite heightened anxieties on the RMB (Chart 3). However, foreigners' liquid holdings of Chinese financial assets, cash and savings deposits have dropped by US$100 billion from a peak of US$441 billion in Q2 2014 to US$340 billion at the end of Q3 2016. This could well be the withdrawal of foreign "hot money" that flew into China in previous years. Chart 2Where Did The Money Go? Where Did The Money Go? Where Did The Money Go? Chart 3Foreign Investment In China: The Ins And Outs Foreign Investment In China: The Ins And Outs Foreign Investment In China: The Ins And Outs Taken together, the decline in China's official reserves appears less disconcerting. Chinese companies' debt repayments and foreign "hot money" repatriation accounted for the lion's share of the decline in Chinese foreign reserves since 2014. Therefore, the current episode can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade": In previous years, when the RMB was appreciating against the dollar, Chinese firms undertook loans in dollars and foreign 'hot money" also rushed into China - the tide has been reversing as the USD/CNY trend has shifted. The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Chinese Foreign Reserves: The Big Picture While the dominant concern at the moment is that Chinese official reserves, still by far the largest in the world, are not enough to maintain exchange rate stability, easily forgotten is that the consensus was the opposite a mere three years ago (Chart 4). Back then the prevailing view was that the country had too much foreign reserves, which was both a waste of resources and an economic burden. While popular perceptions in the marketplace always swing dramatically, it is important to keep the big picture in mind. At the onset, official reserves currently account for 50% of China's total international investment positions. This is a notable decline from a peak of 71% in 2009, but still far higher than any other major economy (Chart 5). For example, Japanese official reserves account for 16% of total international claims, 26% for Taiwan, and a mere 2% for the U.S. Chart 4Chinese Official Reserves Are ##br##Still By Far The Largest Chinese Official Reserves Are Still By Far The Largest Chinese Official Reserves Are Still By Far The Largest Chart 5Chinese International Assets Are ##br##Primarily Official Reserves Chinese International Assets Are Primarily Official Reserves Chinese International Assets Are Primarily Official Reserves As China's foreign assets are primarily represented in official reserves, the return of China's foreign claims is extremely low, as official reserves are mainly invested in risk-free highly liquid assets, with achieving higher returns always having been of secondary consideration. The average return of Chinese foreign assets has been hovering around 3%, not much higher than U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 6). By contrast, foreign investments in China are primarily engaged in the real economy and are able to garner much higher yields. This mismatch, ironically, has led to a net loss in China's international investment position. In other words, even though China is a massive net creditor to the rest of the world, the country's net investment income has in fact been negative, as the country pays a lot more to foreign investors than it gets from its own overseas investments. Chart 6China Gets Less Than It Pays China Gets Less Than It Pays China Gets Less Than It Pays This mismatch has been one of the key reasons why the PBoC in previous years tried to encourage domestic entities to hold foreign assets directly rather than through official channels in the form of foreign reserves. The more recent rapid increase in capital outflows from the Chinese corporate sector and households has challenged the PBoC's near-term priority to maintain exchange rate stability, prompting the authorities to tighten capital account controls to support the RMB. From a big-picture point of view, however, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. All in all, the near term CNY/USD cross rate will remain largely determined by the Fed action and the broad trend of the dollar, but the PBoC will continue to intervene to prevent major currency depreciation. The RMB is unlikely to depreciate against the greenback more than other major currencies in a period of dollar strength. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?," dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations