Sectors

Highlights The 50bps spike in the JPM global government bond yield since August constitutes one of the most aggressive tightenings since the Great Recession. Higher bond yields weaken credit growth, and weaker credit growth almost always depresses subsequent GDP growth. Maintain at most a neutral weighting to equities. Lean against the aggressive sell-offs in Healthcare, Consumer Goods, Telecoms and government bonds. Lean against the aggressive rally in Financials. Feature November 9 is an important date in the annals of history. November 9, 1989 was the day that the Berlin Wall came down. Chart of the WeekGlobalization Has Been Good For Profits, Bad For Wages Globalization Has Been Good For Profits, Bad For Wages Globalization Has Been Good For Profits, Bad For Wages Through 1961-89, the Berlin Wall divided a city. More significantly, it symbolized a divided world. So when the wall came down on November 9, 1989, it marked a new era of globalization. Goods, services, capital and people started to move around the world much more freely, resulting in greater efficiencies and lower costs. In developed economies, profits surged. Using the United States as an example, in the 27 years since the Berlin Wall came down, stock market real earnings per share have gone up 200% (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Backdrop For Populism bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c2 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c2 But globalization has exacted a heavy price: the pressure on wages means that in the 27 years since the Berlin Wall came down, U.S. median household real income has gone up just 10%. By comparison, in the 28 years that the Berlin Wall stood, the median household real income went up 60% (Chart of the Week). November 9 is also the date that Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States. So exactly 27 years after one symbolic wall fell, is another one about to go up? Will Mr. Trump's promised wall with Mexico symbolize a new era of anti-globalization, and a reversal of the economic and financial trends since the Berlin Wall came down? Flaws In The Trump Plan Economists are almost unanimous that protectionism, trade barriers and tariffs - in other words, "building walls" - depresses long-term global growth. It is conceivable that protectionism could help some parts of the U.S. economy, though other parts might lose out as trading partners retaliated. It is inconceivable that protectionism would be good for the world economy as a whole. Chart I-3One Of The Most Aggressive Tightenings ##br##Since The Great Recession bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c3 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c3 But what about Trump's noise about fiscal stimulus, and specifically infrastructure spending - why would anybody not get excited about that? The two word answer is: crowding out. If a dollar that is borrowed and spent by the government (or even forecast to be borrowed and spent by the government) pushes up the bond yield (Chart I-3), it makes it more expensive for the private sector to borrow and spend. If, as a result, the private sector scales back its borrowing by a dollar, the dollar of government spending would have no impact on GDP. This is because the dollar of government spending has crowded out a dollar of private sector spending. The fiscal multiplier would be zero. But doesn't the euro area debt crisis provide compelling evidence of the power of fiscal thrust and a very high fiscal multiplier? No, not exactly. The fiscal multiplier was high through the debt crisis because euro area austerity - a fiscal tightening - very unusually coincided with sharply rising bond yields - which killed private sector borrowing. In other words, fiscal tightening and private sector tightening were reinforcing each other. Through 2009-12, when the euro area debt crisis escalated, the relationship between fiscal tightening and growth in GDP per capita in 13 sampled economies had a near-perfect explanatory power (r-squared of 0.9); and its slope of 1.5 indicated an extremely high average fiscal multiplier (Chart I-4). But through 2012-15, after Mario Draghi "did whatever it takes" the unusual combination of fiscal tightening and higher bond yields no longer existed, and both the explanatory power of the relationship and fiscal multiplier collapsed (Chart I-5). Chart I-4A Very Strong Connection Between Fiscal Policy And Growth Through 2009-12... From Berlin Wall To Mexican Wall From Berlin Wall To Mexican Wall Chart I-5...But No Connection Between Fiscal Policy And Growth Through 2012-15 From Berlin Wall To Mexican Wall From Berlin Wall To Mexican Wall The lesson is that the efficacy of fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending crucially depends on its impact on the bond yield - and thereby on private sector borrowing. Now note that the 6-month increase in the U.S. (and global) 10-year bond yield constitutes one of the sharpest tightenings since the Great Recession. Higher borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the 6-month credit impulse (Chart I-6). A weaker 6-month credit impulse then almost always depresses subsequent 6-month GDP growth (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Higher Borrowing Costs Depress##br## Credit Growth... bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c6 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c6 Chart I-7...And Weaker Credit Growth Depresses ##br##Subsequent GDP Growth bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c7 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c7 So yes, fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending could be effective as long as the bond yield is anchored, as it is in Japan. But if the bond yield goes up sharply, the consequent drag from the private sector will partly or entirely negate any putative boost from the government. Explaining Market Shocks And Electoral Shocks In his seminal book Thinking, Fast And Slow psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman1 proposed that the human brain has evolved two separate and independent systems for decision making: a fast, rapid-response, associative way of thinking which he calls "System 1" and a slow, analytical, measured way of thinking which he calls "System 2". The two ways of thinking, fast and slow, have evolved to protect us from two types of threat to our survival: immediate, and long-term. Thousands of years ago, the immediate threat to survival might have been a sudden noise in the bushes suggesting that a predator was stalking. Today, for a bond investor, the immediate threat might be a sudden noise about aggressive U.S. fiscal stimulus, suggesting that the end of deflationary pressures is nigh. Faced with this immediate but uncertain threat, using the slow and measured thinking of System 2 could be fatal. So we obey the fast-thinking, associative, emotional System 1 and run for cover - or sell bonds. Thousands of years ago, a long-term threat might have been a war of attrition against an enemy tribe. Today, for the bond investor, the long-term threat might be the end of the debt super cycle, suggesting that deflationary pressures will persist. Faced with this long war of attrition, an over-reliance on the impulsive decisions of System 1 could also be fatal. We must use the measured analysis and strategies of slow-thinking System 2. Kahneman's System 1 and 2 is also an excellent framework to help explain how the simple messages of the Brexiteers and Donald Trump led to stunning success at the ballot box. Faced with job destruction and stagnant real wages, many people intuitively believe that less globalization, less competition and less immigration must mean more jobs and a better standard of living. Associative and emotional System 1 immediately identifies with simple messages such as "take back control" or "build a wall". The success of the Brexiteers and Donald Trump was to acknowledge the deep malaise that many people are feeling and offer simple and intuitive cures. To be absolutely clear, this is neither an endorsement nor a criticism of the Brexiteers or Donald Trump, but simply an explanation of why their message hit home. Still, as we have argued, the more analytical and measured System 2 will find that the simple and intuitive cures that the Brexiteers and Donald Trump offer are not the panaceas that they might first seem. The Immediate Investment Decision Short-term traders generally use the rapid-response, associative, emotional System 1 for their decision making. Long-term investors generally use the slow, analytical, measured System 2. But after a shock, disoriented long-term investors may also switch from System 2 to System 1 and just follow the herd. Eventually though, System 2 switches back on, and the excessive herding and trend-following reverses. At the moment, several sector trends are at or near such a point of reversal according to our excessive groupthink indicator (Chart I-8, Chart I-9, Chart I-10, Chart I-11, Chart I-12). Chart I-8Healthcare Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Healthcare Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Healthcare Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-9Consumer Goods Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c9 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s1_c9 Chart I-10Telecoms Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Telecoms Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Telecoms Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-11Financials Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Financials Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Financials Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Chart I-12Government Bond Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Government Bond Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Government Bond Reversals After Excessive Trend-Following Specifically, on a 3-month trading view, we would lean against the aggressive sell-offs in Healthcare, Consumer Goods, Telecoms and government bonds; and we would lean against the aggressive rally in Financials. More generally, what does the Trump victory mean for European equities? In today's highly-connected financial markets, mainstream investments in Europe overwhelmingly depend on global developments, and not on parochial issues. The dominant components of the Eurostoxx600, FTSE100, DAX30, CAC40, AEX, SMI, and other major indices, are multinationals with a truly global footprint. So the answer rests on two subsidiary questions: What does the Trump victory mean for global monetary conditions? What does the Trump victory mean for global growth? As already mentioned, global monetary conditions have tightened significantly in recent months, and in accelerated fashion after the Trump victory. The 50bps tightening in the JPM global government bond yield since August constitutes one of the sharpest 3-month spikes since the Great Recession. But as in previous cases, the spike may be self-limiting given its squeeze on credit sensitive sectors and emerging markets. Since August, the dividend yield on equities is little changed - meaning that equities have become more expensive relative to bonds. But this is hard to justify as short-term growth prospects have, if anything, worsened. To repeat the powerful messages from Chart 6 and Chart 7, higher bond yields weaken credit growth; and weaker credit growth almost always depresses subsequent GDP growth. Putting all this together, asset allocators should maintain at most a neutral weighting to equities. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2002 for his work on decision making. Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. After the big recent moves in markets, four open positions were closed at their trading-rule limits, two at profit targets, two at stop-losses. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart 1-13 Copper Vs. Tin Copper Vs. Tin * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c1 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c1 Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c2 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c2 Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c3 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c3 Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c4 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c4 Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c5 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c5 Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c6 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c6 Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c7 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c7 Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c8 bca.eis_wr_2016_11_17_s2_c8

Feature Today’s Insight is a Special Report written by BCA’s Senior Technology Strategist, Brian Piccioni. Brian discusses the reasons for ongoing M&A in the semiconductor industry, and the investment implications. We trust you will find this report insightful and informative. Semiconductor Consolidation Makes Sense But Changes Little We have written extensively about our stance against financial engineering through M&A in the high tech sector.1 However, we view the semiconductor space as somewhat of an anomaly. Unlike most tech goods, a large portion of semiconductor products generate revenues for many years, even decades, after they are first released. Although most of the development costs of these devices are depreciated in the first few years after introduction, price deflation continues. This means that for most such devices, margins do not rise to a very high level. In addition, incremental costs may be associated with "die shrinks" (making smaller devices with the same function), and changes in IC packaging, as the cost of the package can be more than the semiconductor itself. In addition to the inherent benefits of buying a company that makes a product line with long duration revenues, most semiconductors are sold through the same channels and have similar, if not identical, customers. This can allow for the rationalization of sales and marketing efforts. On the surface it might appear there is an opportunity for economies of scale in manufacturing, but these can prove elusive. It is often not worth the effort to consolidate manufacturing for an acquired company due to large differences in manufacturing processes. This is especially true since it would require an investment in R&D for a catalog of mostly dated products. These products would have to be "re-qualified" by customers, as there is no guarantee parts produced in a different factory will function the same as the old one. While most high tech M&A destroys shareholder value, that is less likely to be the case when two mature semiconductor companies combine (Chart 1). However, industry consolidation is not likely to lead to pricing power or unusual profitability post consolidation because: Semiconductor buyers are reluctant to adopt a product made by only one vendor; There is a powerful push for the adoption of technologies based upon Open Standards in order to avoid semiconductor vendors having too much power over customers; and For the most part, with the exception of leading edge process technology used in CPU and commodity memory devices, semiconductor expertise is well understood and widely available, as are the tools for the development of new devices. Total Intangible Asset Writedowns And Restructuring Charges As A Percent ##br##Of Assets By S&P 500 Tech Sub-Sector, 2000 - 2016 Feeding Frenzy: Semiconductor M&A Feeding Frenzy: Semiconductor M&A Semiconductor Buyers Are Reluctant To Adopt A Product Made By Only One Vendor Large device manufacturers always had an aversion to single sourced semiconductors but exceptions were made when there was a critical need or simply no other choice. For example, if you are going to design a PC you are either going to use a single-sourced device from Intel or AMD. Things changed after the "Dot Com" bubble when equipment manufacturers found themselves unable to ship finished products because a single-source vendor had declared bankruptcy and the parts were no longer being made. Even when a single source part is specified, an effort is made to ensure there are substitutes available. This hedges against the possibility the part may no longer be available and also reduces vendor pricing power. Powerful Push For The Adoption Of Technologies Based Upon Open Standards Open standards are standards where form, fit, and function, are both defined and easily referenced. The standard itself is typically inexpensive to license and any related Intellectual Property is available for license on "fair and equitable" terms, meaning that the price is reasonable and the same for all licensees. Open standards have a long history in the semiconductor industry. The market for certain devices such as memory chips would likely have never developed if every vendor had a different way of doing things. Nevertheless, companies such as Intel were able to establish a proprietary standard CPU architecture and profited handsomely as a result. Similarly, purported abuses by companies such as Rambus and Qualcomm have resulted in all players being leery of patent suits. It is now very difficult to get manufacturers to accept a new standard unless it is open. Difficult To Benefit From Competitive Advantage, Even For Largest Players The components sold by most small semiconductor companies do not require cutting edge process technology or expertise. The largest companies such as Intel, Samsung, and TSMC may have an advantage due to their process R&D, but competition among themselves limits returns. In addition, there are very few "must have" products nowadays, and consumers and businesses can typically decide to simply not purchase a new PC, video game, etc., if prices get out of hand. Industry Consolidation Will Not Fuel Growth As we have frequently noted, semiconductor industry growth has slowed to GDP plus or minus a few points (Chart 2). The industry operates within the context of chronic high price deflation, meaning many more units have to be sold each year just to keep revenues flat. Some end markets allowed for the sale of higher value-add components with increased functionality, offsetting some of the deflation. However, the era of hyper growth in PCs, networking gear and smartphones is in the past. This places downward pressure on pricing through the value chain. Chart 2Semiconductor Industry Growth Has Slowed, ##br##Now Near GDP Growth Rate Semiconductor Industry Growth Has Slowed, Now Near GDP Growth Rate Semiconductor Industry Growth Has Slowed, Now Near GDP Growth Rate Loosely speaking the industry can be separated into commodity semiconductors and proprietary ones. Commodity devices are exact functional equivalents to devices sold by multiple vendors. Examples might be discrete devices such as transistors and diodes, memory chips, logic devices, and so on. The competition in commodity semiconductors is so extreme that for some products package costs can be similar to the cost of the semiconductor itself and saving a small amount of plastic or using slightly thinner leads influences profit margins. The product life of many commodity products extends to decades. The market for proprietary semiconductors is somewhat more complicated than for commodity devices. Intel is the prototypical example of a company that makes mostly proprietary devices, though Qualcomm, Xilinx, and others exist. Some companies such as Texas Instruments are a sort of hybrid, offering both commodity and proprietary products. It would be a mistake to assume that proprietary vendors have no competition, because substitutes are typically available. A smartphone vendor can select a high end ARM-based microprocessor from Qualcomm, make its own, or buy from any number of licensees selling similar devices, depending on the market segment and price range it is targeting. This has the effect of limiting the price of a proprietary device and the associated margins. As with any M&A transaction the opportunity arises to take associated restructuring charges, write-downs, and all manner of "one-time" items which can make "non-GAAP" earnings look better than before. Similarly, management may decide to cut costs by reducing R&D and other expenses to improve near-term performance at the expense of long term results. Company managers typically highlight "synergies" and "complimentary businesses" when selling their latest M&A transactions. Nevertheless, it is rare that the combination of two semiconductor companies actually amounts to something greater than what the two were apart. Instead, what tends to result is a mix of products and activities with varying degrees of margins and growth potential. Like any overly diversified portfolio, the combined companies are more likely to grow at the same rate as the industry than to become high-tech powerhouses. In summary there is no reason to believe that organic revenue growth will arise as a consequence of any particular semiconductor M&A transaction and it is far more likely that revenue growth and margins will trend towards the mean for the industry, setting aside the impact of "non-GAAP" adjustments. Why Is There A Buyer's Panic? As we have shown, in most cases industry consolidation will not provide much in the way of operational leverage to the consolidator's results. Similarly there is little reason to believe that companies which remain independent will be affected positively or negatively from the trend.2 This raises the question of why these transactions are occurring at such a frenetic pace. Most likely the answer has more to do with capital market trends than objective business decisions. Investors have elected to reward high tech companies for financial engineering on an equal footing with organic growth (i.e. innovation), and the capital is very cheap nowadays (Chart 3). As we have addressed previously, increasingly imaginative "non-GAAP" financial presentation means that overpaying for an acquired product line is better for the bottom line than developing it in house, so managers are focusing more on financial engineering than actual engineering. Cheap capital and less-than-rational capital markets mean that companies become acquirers or targets. As companies get larger, the targets need to be large enough to "move the needle" with respect to financial impact. This goes all the way down the food chain as mid-cap companies buy small-cap companies and large cap-companies buy mid-cap companies. There are a finite number of target firms for any given company and this creates a sort of "buyer's panic" which stimulates the buyers to move quickly before the target is acquired by a rival (Chart 4). As acquirers get bigger they become the targets of larger acquirers, as they are now large enough to provide the illusion of growth. Chart 3Capital For Financial Engineering Is Cheap bca.tech_wr_2016_11_15_c3 bca.tech_wr_2016_11_15_c3 Chart 4'Buyer's Panic' In Semiconductor Industry "Buyer's Panic" In Semiconductor Industry "Buyer's Panic" In Semiconductor Industry Non-S&P 500 Semiconductor Companies Are Also Targets Unless the cost of capital rises significantly or investors suddenly get concerned about actual operating results rather than "non-GAAP" performance, consolidation will continue until there is a relatively modest number of large semiconductor companies. As we explained above, this does not mean these companies will have superior margins or revenue growth. Indeed we believe the end of the consolidation period will have negative impact for semiconductor industry valuations because: Opportunities for financial engineering of revenue growth and managing "non-GAAP" earnings will be limited; Balance sheets will typically be highly leveraged; and Valuation premiums associated with M&A activity will disappear. Until the consolidation phase runs its course investors should be able to profit by assembling a portfolio of smaller names since these are more likely to be acquired. This is a major reason we have most of the smaller members of the S&P 500 Semiconductor sub-index rated Overweight. Table 1Summary Of Potential Semiconductor Targets Feeding Frenzy: Semiconductor M&A Feeding Frenzy: Semiconductor M&A We have identified 14 additional small semiconductor firms that are not included in the S&P 500 as likely targets (Table 1). This list is not exhaustive but represents companies which are both likely to be acquired and large and liquid enough to be investible. We selected the most attractive companies based on the Price-Earnings-to-Growth (PEG) ratio, which attempts to adjust valuation for growth prospects. These companies, which have a PEG ratio close to or below 1, are bolded in Table 1 above. We are adding these 10 companies to our Overweight list, and will track these recommendations as an equally-weighted index (Chart 5). Chart 5Small Semiconductor Companies Should ##br##Outperform Due To M&A Small Semiconductor Companies Should Outperform Due To M&A Small Semiconductor Companies Should Outperform Due To M&A However, due to the "buyer's panic" described above, companies that appear expensive or exhibit deteriorating financial performance are also potential acquisition targets. As such, it is important to note that our recommendations in this sub-sector are not driven by company fundamentals. Alternatively, investors might consider playing consolidation through the iShares PHLX Semiconductor ETF (SOXX). The structure of this ETF limits the weight of each constituent to approximately 8%, effectively overweighing smaller firms. Brian Piccioni, Vice President Technology Sector Strategy brianp@bcaresearch.com Paul Kantorovich, Research Analyst paulk@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Tech Company Red Flags Part 2: Intangible Assets And Restructuring Charges," dated July 12, 2016, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 That would not be the case if, for example, Hynix and Samsung, two major DRAM manufacturers, were to merge which would be problematic for the #3 player Micron. However, we doubt regulators would permit such a merger.

Financials have celebrated the modest upshift in the interest rate structure and hopes for a reversal of the regulatory framework that has been a structural noose on profitability, and risk premiums. These factors, along with our domestic vs. global bias, pushed us to move up to a neutral sector weighting. As part of this shift, we moved to an overweight stance in the asset management and custody bank (AMCB) group. Even modestly higher interest rates would reduce a major profit impediment. Fees on funds held in trust have been decimated by ZIRP, underscoring that the latest uptick in short-term Treasury yields is a plus. Relative performance had already diverged negatively from the stock-to-bond ratio, the equity risk premium and global economic sentiment. This gap could close if the rate outlook has firmed. There is still structural downward pressure on fees as low cost ETFs gain market share, but that is being partially offset by renewed growth in total mutual fund assets. If flows into bonds shift into higher margin equity products, this will provide another offset to the structural downward pressure on fees. In sum, despite our concerns about overall financial sector productivity growth, we lifted sector weightings to neutral and the sub-component S&P AMCB index to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5AMGT - BK, BLK, STT, AMP, TROW, NTRS, BEN, IVZ, AMG, LM. bca.uses_in_2016_11_15_002_c1 bca.uses_in_2016_11_15_002_c1

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Retail food stocks are deep into the buy zone. Deflating food costs augur well for profit margins in the coming quarters. Lift the financial sector to neutral, via the asset manager and investment bank indexes. Recent Changes S&P Financials Sector - Raise to neutral, recording a loss of 8%. S&P Asset Manager & Custody Bank Index - Raise to overweight from underweight, locking in a profit of 5%. S&P Investment Bank & Brokerage Index - Raise to neutral, recording a loss of 3%. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) The Teflon Market The Teflon Market Equity markets celebrated the surprise Republican U.S. election victory. Investors believe the regime shift will entail fiscal stimulus and a lifting in regulatory constraints that stir animal spirits and lift the economy out of its growth funk. The reality is that it is premature to make long-term assumptions. Meanwhile, the underlying fragility of the U.S. economic expansion will be tested in the coming quarters. Indeed, it is easy to envision a hit to business confidence, causing delays in decision making and investment, especially given Trump's anti-trade rhetoric and penchant for profligacy. Policy uncertainty and confidence have been reliable leading indicators for valuations, and slippage would put upward pressure on the Equity Risk Premium (Chart 1). It will be critical to monitor aggregate financial conditions. The Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions index has tentatively edged up (Chart 1), and if corporate bond spreads, long-term yields and the U.S. dollar move much higher, upside risks will intensify. The low level of overall potential growth has made the economy increasingly sensitive to swings in financial conditions and deflationary impulses from abroad. Both the high yield and investment-grade corporate bond index are languishing, perhaps picking up on the deflationary signal from U.S. dollar strength and growth drag from higher Treasury yields (Chart 2, bottom panel). It is notable that emerging markets currencies have pulled back. These exchange rates are typically pro-cyclical. Sustained currency weakness typically leads to domestic corporate bond spread widening (Chart 2, CDX spreads shown inverted). In the past five years, it has paid to bet on defensive over cyclical sectors when EM currencies weaken and CDX spreads are this tight, i.e. contrarians should take note. At a minimum, it may be a signal that global growth is less robust than the rise in global bond yields implies. As a result, forecasts for double-digit profit growth in the next twelve months look very aggressive, even if our economic outlook proves too cautious. The tentative trough in third quarter S&P 500 profits has not yet been validated by other indicators. For example, tracking tax revenue provides a good real-time gauge on corporate sector cash flows. Federal income tax receipts have dropped into negative territory. Corporate income taxes are contracting. Previous major and sustainable overall profit recoveries have been either led by, or coincident with, corporate income tax growth (Chart 3). This argues against extrapolating positive third quarter earnings growth in the S&P 500. Chart 1Watch Confidence And Financial Conditions Watch Confidence And Financial Conditions Watch Confidence And Financial Conditions Chart 2Don't Get Caught Up In The Hype Don’t Get Caught Up In The Hype Don’t Get Caught Up In The Hype Chart 3Taxes And Profits bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c3 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c3 Rather than get overly excited about the potential for a new fiscal spending impulse, it may be more appropriate to view the latter as truncating downside economic risks, given that the corporate sector remains a key headwind to stronger growth, even excluding its balance sheet stress. Consequently, we still expect undervalued defensives to retake a leadership role from overvalued cyclical sectors and we also retain a domestic vs. global bias. If the U.S. dollar breaks above its recent trading range, the odds of the broad market making further liquidity fueled gains will diminish significantly. Importantly, the last few days of market moves have been massively exaggerated, as industrials and materials have rallied as if fiscal stimulus is about to hit next month. Even when implemented, it is not a panacea for sector earnings. Drug and biotech stocks have soared as if pricing pressures will evaporate, when in reality price pressures emerged prior to any political interference. Tech stocks have been crushed because of fears they will be forced to move production back to the U.S. All of these knee-jerk reactions should be treated with caution, with the exception of financials, where a step function reduction in the risk premium may be underway. There Is A New Sheriff In Town: Lift Financials To Neutral Financials have celebrated the modest upshift in the interest rate structure and hopes for a reversal of the regulatory framework that has been a structural noose on profitability, and risk premiums. These factors, along with our domestic vs. global bias, argue against maintaining a below benchmark weighting on a tactical basis. As discussed last week, our view on banks remains cautious, however, asset managers and investment banks have lower odds of falling back toward recent lows even after election euphoria inevitably fades. The largest earnings drags from the past year have eased. M&A activity has troughed. New and secondary stock offerings have hooked back up and margin debt is back to new highs, suggesting that investor risk appetites have stopped shrinking (Chart 4). Thus, capital formation is unlikely to dry up, even if upside is limited given poor corporate sector balance sheet health and an upward creep in the cost of capital. In terms of asset managers and custody banks (AMCB), even modestly higher interest rates would reduce a major profit impediment. Fees on funds held in trust have been decimated by ZIRP, underscoring that the latest uptick in short-term Treasury yields is a plus. Relative performance had already diverged negatively from the stock-to-bond ratio, the equity risk premium and global economic sentiment (Chart 5). This gap could close with a prospective thawing in relations between lawmakers and the industry. There is still structural downward pressure on fees as low cost ETFs gain market share, but that is being partially offset by the renewed growth in total mutual fund assets (Chart 4, bottom panel). Bear in mind that both groups tend to do well when the stocks outperform bonds, as seems likely in the near run given creeping protectionism. In sum, despite our concerns about overall financial sector productivity growth, mainly owing to rising bank cost structures, and the risks of a renewed deflationary impulse from U.S. dollar strength, we are lifting sector weightings to neutral. This will put us onside with the objective message from our Cyclical Macro Indicator, the buy signal from our Technical Indicator (Chart 6) and our broader theme of favoring domestic vs. global industries. Chart 4Earnings Drivers Have Stabilized bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c4 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c4 Chart 5Recovery Candidate Recovery Candidate Recovery Candidate Chart 6Following Our Indicators Following Our Indicators Following Our Indicators Bottom Line: The Republican victory has provided a fillip to the financials sector, and underweight positions putting underweight positions offside. We are lifting allocations to neutral, via the S&P AMCB and S&P investment banks & brokerage indexes. AMCB moves to overweight, and the latter to neutral, with an eye to downgrading again once euphoria fades and investor focus returns to economic durability. Food Retailers: Too Cheap To Overlook Food retailers offer attractive value, defensive and domestic equity exposure with the potential for upside profit surprises. This group will benefit if U.S. wage inflation persists. The latter would boost consumer purchasing power and could lead to tighter financial conditions, either through U.S. dollar strength and/or a tighter Fed. The defensive appeal of retail food equities would shine through under that scenario. The starting point for grocery stocks is extremely appealing. The price ratio is extraordinarily oversold. It fell farther below its 200-day moving average than at any time since 2002, before recently bouncing (Chart 7). Valuations are cheap, return on equity is solid and share prices have diverged negatively from a number of macro indicators. For instance, relative performance has been tightly linked with the U.S. dollar, but the former plunged even as the currency firmed (Chart 8, top panel). A strong exchange rate will keep a lid on imported food costs, boost the allure of domestically-oriented industries while lifting consumer spending power. Chart 7Extraordinarily Oversold bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c7 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c7 Chart 8Top-Line Improvement Ahead bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c8 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c8 Outlays on food products have climbed as a share of total spending in the past six months, reversing a long-term downtrend (Chart 8). If consumer confidence stays firm as a consequence of rising wage growth and a positive wealth effect, then it is conceivable that store traffic and total grocery spending will accelerate. The surge in capital spending in recent years reflects store upgrades and a refreshed shopping experience, which could also translate into faster sales growth. Now that capital spending growth is cooling, it will reduce a profit margin drag. Profitability should also benefit from cost deflation. The food manufacturing PPI is contracting, reflecting shrinking raw food prices (Chart 9, top panel, shown inverted). It is normal for food stocks to outperform when raw food prices fall. Importantly, capacity utilization rates in the packaged food industry are very low (Chart 9), which augurs well for ongoing pricing pressure among suppliers. Tack on deflation in industry wage inflation, and it is no wonder profit margins have been able to grind back toward previous highs without a strong sales impulse. If sales rebound, as seems likely given evidence of market share gains away from hypermarkets (Chart 10, bottom panel), then grocery stores should continue to demonstrate decent pricing power gains (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 9Cost Deflation Cost Deflation Cost Deflation Chart 10Gaining Market Share Gaining Market Share Gaining Market Share Adding it up, the ingredients for a powerful rally in the S&P retail food store index exist, with good downside protection should the economy disappoint on the back of tighter financial conditions. Bottom Line: We recommend an overweight position in the S&P retail food store index (BLBG: S5FDRE - KR, WFM). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights We remain positive on Chinese stocks both from structural and cyclical point of view, especially on H shares. In the near term, stay on the sidelines due to developing global uncertainty. The Q3 earnings scorecard of listed companies confirms an upturn in the Chinese profit cycle. Earnings momentum will likely be carried forward to at least early next year. The Chinese economy has improved notably, especially in the industrial sector. We expect the economy will likely continue to surprise to the upside. Feature Tuesday's U.S. election surprise sent strong shockwaves to global risk assets, including Chinese stocks. We tactically downgraded our "bullishness" rating on Chinese H shares in early October,1 partly due to brewing global uncertainty, but were still caught off guard by the election result. World financial markets have yet to fully grasp the implication and consequences of a President Trump. Yesterday, we sent clients a Special Report titled "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications" prepared by Marko Papic, our Chief Geopolitical Strategist, providing our initial assessment on these important issues. As far as China is concerned, the biggest threat is the harsh anti-China trade policies that dominantly featured Mr. Trump's election campaign. A full-blown protectionist backlash is undoubtedly bearish for China and the rest of the world; this is a disturbing uncertainty that has to be carefully monitored and assessed going forward. However, it is also worth noting that anti-China rhetoric has been regularly featured in all U.S. presidential election campaigns by candidates from both parties as soon as the diplomatic tie between these two countries was established in 1979, but the economic integration has continued to deepen. For now, we do not advocate any kneejerk adjustment to investment strategy, as it is utterly unpredictable how much of Mr. Trump's campaign rhetoric will become real policy. An easier bet over the near term is that the Chinese authorities will likely maintain policy support to boost domestic demand in the wake of rising external uncertainty. Strategically, China will likely press forward its ongoing long-term initiatives to expand its global influence, such as the "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) project and Asian Infrastructure Development Bank. Meanwhile, China will continue to explore bilateral and multi-lateral free trade deals with its major trade partners to foster a more predictable global trade environment. We will follow up on these issues in our future research. While Chinese stocks have suffered badly from global contagion this week, Chinese domestic factors have, ironically, continued to turn more positive of late, with an improving cyclical economic profile, a largely accommodative policy stance and a strong recovery in profits. In the near term we are staying on the sidelines, as the uncertainty unleashed by the U.S. presidential elections continues to play out. Nonetheless, barring a major protectionist backlash, we remain positive on Chinese H shares both from a structural and cyclical perspective, and expect this asset class to outperform both global and EM peers. A Strong Earnings Recovery From an investor's stand point, the most important development is the sharp recovery in earnings reported by Chinese domestically listed A-share companies in the third quarter. Specifically: A share-listed companies' average earnings increased by 22% in the third quarter from Q3 2015, or by 3% for the first three quarters compared with a year ago (Table 1). Excluding financials and petroleum firms, earnings jumped by almost 50% in Q3, according to our calculations, or 21% year-to-date. While the sharp earnings recovery in Q3 is partially attributable to last year's low base, our model suggests that earnings momentum will likely be carried forward to at least early next year (Chart 1). Table 1Earnings Scorecard Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty The earnings recovery reflects both top-line growth and margin expansion. Improving producer prices have eased deflationary pressure in the economy, particularly for the corporate sector. Total sales of A share-listed firms have benefited from the pickup in nominal GDP growth, and profit margins have also continued to widen in the last quarter, both of which are conducive for earnings growth (Chart 2). Cash flow positions have also continued to improve, especially in select sectors. Overall cash and cash equivalents held by Chinese non-bank firms as a share of assets currently stand at elevated levels, underscoring an overall cautious stance on business expansion and liquid balance sheets (Chart 3).2 Specifically, real estate developers' operating cash flow continues to increase sharply, boosted by strong sales, but capital expenditures have been muted, leading to a significant hoarding of cash. This will likely reduce financial stress among developers, even if housing policies begin to be tightened. Chart 1Strong Earnings Grow... bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c1 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c1 Chart 2... Due To Rising Sales And Improving Margin bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c2 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c2 Chart 3Developers' Improving Cash Flow And Balance Sheet bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c3 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c3 In short, the Q3 earnings scorecard confirms our long-held view of an upturn in the Chinese profit cycle.3 We expect bottom-up analysts will continue to upgrade earnings expectations, which will provide a positive cyclical backdrop for Chinese stocks (Chart 4). The Economy Will Remain Resilient China's recent macro numbers have largely come in stronger than expected, albeit modestly. Overall, the economy has maintained positive momentum, especially in the industrial sector. The Keqiang Index - a combination of bank loan growth, railway freight activity and electricity consumption - has strengthened sharply, underscoring significant improvement in industrial activity (Chart 5). Looking forward, we expect the economy will likely continue to surprise to the upside. Chart 4Net Earnings Revision Will Continue To Improve bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c4 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c4 Chart 5Keqiang Index Versus GDP Growth bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c5 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c5 Business managers have largely been cautious, and have been focused on inventory destocking instead of business expansion. Industrial production has so far been muted, despite improvement in some leading indicators (Chart 6). Meanwhile, slowing capital spending among private enterprises has been one of the key reasons for slower growth in recent years; this should turn around as profitability improves (Chart 7). At minimum, downward pressure on private sector investment should diminish going forward. This, together with government-sponsored infrastructure construction, should underpin overall capital spending. Chart 6Industrial Production Has Been Muted bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c6 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c6 Chart 7Profit Recovery Helps Capex bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c7 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c7 On the policy front, monetary conditions continue to be accommodative. The trade-weighted exchange rate has remained low, and real interest rates have continued to drift lower through nominal declines and rising producer prices. Furthermore, inflation is unlikely to become a meaningful policy constraint anytime soon. Headline CPI picked up slightly last month, driven by food prices (Chart 8). However, this was largely due to the base effect. Agricultural wholesale prices have been mostly flat in recent years, and there is no case for generalized food inflation. The risk of any near term policy tightening has further diminished in the wake of the global uncertainty. Meanwhile, previous stimulative policies should continue to allow the economy to build forward momentum. The housing tightening policies imposed last month have begun to have a negative impact on home sales, which introduces a new risk factor for the economy, as discussed in a previous report. Anecdotal evidence suggests that property transactions in some major cities have dropped notably, even though home sales nationwide appear to remain buoyant (Chart 9).4 In addition, new housing construction has rolled over in the past few months, as developers have also focused on destocking inventories despite rising sales. However, inventories were already headed lower, which will eventually support new construction. Already, developers' land purchases have turned positive in recent months. In short, the impact of tightened housing policies should continue to be closely monitored. For now, our base case remains that housing construction will likely remain sluggish, but will not go through another major downturn. This view is further reinforced by the strong earnings and cash positions of real estate developers in the last quarter. Chart 8No Case For Food Inflation bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c8 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c8 Chart 9Housing: Another Major Downturn Is Unlikely bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c9 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c9 Chinese Stocks And Global Risk Aversion As far as Chinese stocks are concerned, we are positive both from structural and cyclical point of view, especially on H shares. Structurally, this asset class has been deeply depressed in recent years with an unduly high risk premium, which will eventually be renormalized through multiples expansion. Cyclically, the economy's budding forward momentum, strong profit recovery and accommodative policy stance are all supportive for stock prices. At a minimum, Chinese H shares should continue to outperform their global and EM peers. Tactically, however, we remain cautious as knee-jerk reactions in the stock market following the U.S. election surprise will continue to dominate the broader market trends. Furthermore, even as the impact of the election shock begins to fade, investors' focus may shift back over to a possible December rate hike by the Federal Reserve and another up leg in the U.S. dollar - both of which are negative for global liquidity and risk assets. Chart 10 shows that our proxy of global dollar liquidity has deteriorated significantly of late, which historically has often been accompanied by an increase in volatility in stocks. This time around, however, the market appears to have so far been rather sanguine, and is vulnerable to negative surprises. This is especially true, as global bellwether U.S. stocks are not cheap. In addition, Chinese stocks are overbought in the near term, and a period of consolidation or even correction is overdue (Chart 11). Our technical models for both A shares and H shares remain elevated even after the recent correction, which heralded further near-term difficulties. A favorable cyclical profile and large valuation buffer, particularly for H shares, should limit the downside for Chinese stocks, but the risk-return tradeoff in the near term is not particularly attractive, and warrants a more cautious stance. Chart 10Dollar Liquidity And Equity Volatility bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c10 bca.cis_wr_2016_11_10_c10 Chart 11Chinese Stocks Remain Near Term Overbought Chinese Stocks Remain Near Term Overbought Chinese Stocks Remain Near Term Overbought The bottom line is that we downgraded our "bullish rating" on Chinese H shares last month, and for now remain on the sidelines. Beyond near-term volatility we reiterate our positive conviction for this asset class, and expect Chinese H shares to continue to advance both in absolute terms and against the EM and global benchmarks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010" , dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Rethinking Chinese Leverage", dated October 27, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "2016: A Choppy Bottoming" , dated January 6, 2016 and "China: Four Important Charts" , dated April 13, 2016 and "Chinese Growth, Profits And Stock Prices", dated July 20, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010" , dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Trump won by stealing votes from Democrats in the Midwest. His victory implies a national shift to the left on economic policy. Checks and balances on Trump are not substantial in the short term. U.S. political polarization will continue. Trump is good for the USD, bad for bonds, neutral for equities. Favor SMEs over MNCs. Close long alternative energy / short coal. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." — Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and a potential Secretary of State pick), was asked on NBC's Meet the Press two days before the U.S. election whether he still thought that "competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." Gingrich made the original statement in January 2001, merely weeks after one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history was resolved by the Supreme Court. Gingrich's answer in 2016? "I think, tragically, we have drifted into an environment where ... it will be a continuing fight for who controls the country." Despite an extraordinary victory - a revolution really - by Donald J. Trump, the fact of the matter remains that the U.S. is a polarized country between Republican and Democratic voters. As of publication time of this report, Trump lost the popular vote to Secretary Hillary Clinton. His is a narrower victory than either the epic Richard Nixon win in 1968 or George W. Bush squeaker in 2000. Over the next two years, the only thing that matters for the markets is that the U.S. has a unified government behind a Republican president-elect and a GOP-controlled Congress. We discuss the investment implications of this scenario below and caution clients to not over-despair. On the other hand, we also see this election as more evidence that America remains a deeply polarized country where identity politics continue to play a key role. What concerns us is that these identity politics appear to transcend the country's many cultural, ethical, political, and economic commonalities. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are fusing into almost ethnic-like groupings. To bring it back to Gingrich's quote at the top, that would suggest that the U.S. is no longer that much different from Bosnia or Northern Ireland.1 Election Post-Mortem Chart II-1Election Polls Usually ##br##Miss By A Few Points De-Globalization De-Globalization Donald Trump has won an upset over Hillary Clinton, but his campaign was not as much of a long-shot as the consensus believed. U.S. presidential polls have frequently missed the final tally by +/- 3% of the vote, which was precisely the end result of the 2016 election (Chart II-1). Therefore, as we pointed out in our last missive on the election, Trump's victory was not a "wild mathematical oddity."2 Why Did Trump Win The White House? Where Trump really did beat expectations was in the Midwest, and Wisconsin in particular. He ended up outperforming the poll-of-polls by a near-incredible 10%!3 His victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were well within the range of expectations. For example, the last poll-of-polls had Trump leading in both Florida (by a narrow 0.2%) and Ohio (by a solid 3.5%), whereas Clinton was up in Pennsylvania by the slightest of margins (just 1.9% lead). He ended up exceeding poll expectations in all three (by 2% in Florida, 6% in Ohio, and 3% in Pennsylvania), but not by the same wild margin as in Wisconsin. When all is said and done, Trump won the 2016 election by stealing votes away from the Democrats in the traditionally "blue" Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This was a far more significant result than his resounding victories in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) or Florida (where Obama won only narrowly in 2012). Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the Global Investment Strategy, correctly forecast that Trump would be competitive in all three Midwest states back in September 2015! We highly encourage our clients to read his "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," as it is one of the best geopolitical calls made by BCA in recent history.4 As Peter had originally thought, Trump cleaned up the white, less-educated, male vote in all of the three crucial Midwest states. He won 68% of this vote in Michigan, 71% in Pennsylvania, and 69% in Wisconsin. To do so, Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to the blue-collar white voter by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Instead, Trump promised to outspend Clinton and protect entitlements at their current levels. This mix of an outsider, anti-establishment, image combined with a left-of-center economic message allowed Trump to win an extraordinary number of former Obama voters. Exit polls showed that Obama had a positive image in all three Midwest states, including with Trump voters! For example, 30% of Trump voters in Michigan approved of the job Obama was doing as president, 25% in Pennsylvania, and 27% in Wisconsin. That's between a quarter and a third of eventual people who cast their vote for Trump. These are the voters that Republicans lost in 2012 because they nominated a former private equity "corporate raider" Mitt Romney as their candidate. Romney had famously argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that he would have "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama repeatedly attacked Romney during the 2011-2012 campaign on this point. Back in late 2011, we suspected that this message, and this message alone, would win President Obama his re-election.5 Why is the issue of the Midwest Obama voters so important? Because investors have to know precisely why Donald Trump won the election. It wasn't his messages on immigration, law and order, race relations, and especially not the tax cuts he added to his message late in the game. It was his left-of-center policy position on trade and fiscal spending. Trump is beholden to his voters on these policies, particularly in the Midwest states that won him the election. Final word on race. Donald Trump actually improved on Mitt Romney's performance with African-American and Hispanic voters (Table II-1). This was a surprise, given his often racially-charged rhetoric. Meanwhile, Trump failed to improve on the white voter turnout (as percent of overall electorate) or on Romney's performance with white voters in terms of the share of the vote. To be clear, Republicans are still in the proverbial hole with minority voters and are yet to match George Bush's performance in 2004. But with 70% of the U.S. electorate still white in 2016, this did not matter. Table II-1Exit Polls: Trump's Win Was Not Merely About Race De-Globalization De-Globalization Congress: No Gridlock Ahead Republicans exceeded their expectations in the Senate, losing only one seat (Illinois) to Democrats. This means that the GOP control of the Senate will remain quite comfortable and is likely to grow in the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats. Of the 25 Senate seats they will defend, five are in hostile territory: North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and Missouri. In addition, Florida is always a tough contest. Republicans, on the other hand, have only one Senate seat that will require defense in a Democrat-leaning state: Nevada (and in that case, it will be a Republican incumbent contesting the race). Their other seven seats are all in Republican voting states. As such, expect Republicans to hold on to the Senate well into the 2020 general election. In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain its comfortable majority. The Tea Party affiliated caucuses (Tea Party Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus) performed well in the election. The Tea Party Caucus members won 35 seats out of 38 they contested and the House Freedom Caucus won 34 seats out of 37 it contested. The race to watch now is for the Speaker of the House position. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the incumbent House, is likely to contest the election again and win. Even though his support for Donald Trump was lukewarm, we expect Republicans to unify the party behind Trump and Ryan. A challenge from the right could emerge, but we doubt it will materialize given Trump's victory. The campaign for the election will begin immediately, with Republicans selecting their candidate by December (the official election will be in the first week of January, but it is a formality as Republicans hold the majority). Bottom Line: Trump's victory was largely the product of former Obama voters in the Midwest switching to the GOP candidate. This happened because of Trump's unorthodox, left-of-center, message. Trump will have a friendly Congress to work with for the next four years. How friendly? That question will determine the investment significance of the Trump presidency. Investment Relevance Of A United Government Most clients we have spoken to over the past several months believe that Donald Trump will be constrained on economic policies by a right-leaning Congress. His more ambitious fiscal spending plans - such as the $550 billion infrastructure plan and $150 billion net defense spending plan - will therefore be either "dead on arrival" in Congress, or will be significantly watered down by the legislature. Focus will instead shift to tax cuts and traditional Republican policies. We could not disagree more. GOP is not fiscally conservative: There is no empirical evidence that the GOP is actually fiscally conservative. First, the track record of the Bush and Reagan administrations do not support the adage that Republicans keep fiscal spending in check when they are in power (Chart II-2). Second, Republican voters themselves only want "small government" when the Democrats are in charge of the White House (Chart II-3). When a Republican President is in charge, Republicans forget their "small government" leanings. Chart II-2Republicans Are Not ##br##Fiscally Responsible Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible Chart II-3Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For Opposition bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c3 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c3 Presidents get their way: Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Congress can block some but probably not all of president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed in their second term. Clinton lost on healthcare, but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). Median voter has moved to the left: Donald Trump won both the GOP primary and the general election by preaching an unorthodox, left-of-center sermon. He understood correctly that the American voter preferences on economic policies have moved away from Republican laissez-faire orthodoxies.6 Yes, he is also calling for significant lowering of both income and corporate tax rates. However, tax cuts were never a focal point of his campaign, and he only introduced the policy later in the race when he was trying to get traditional Republicans on board with his campaign. Newsflash: traditional Republicans did not get Trump over the hump, Obama voters in the Midwest did! Investors should make no mistake, the key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalization, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. And he will pursue all three with GOP allies in Congress. What are the investment implications of this policy mix? USD: More government spending, marginally less global trade, and pressure on multi-national corporations (MNCs) to scale back their global operations should be positive for inflation. If growth surprises to the upside due to fiscal spending, it will allow the Fed to hike more than the current 57 bps expected by the market by the end of 2018. Given easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, and lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth surprise in the U.S. should be positive for the dollar in the long term. At the moment, the market is reacting to the Trump victory with ambivalence on the USD. In fact, the dollar suffered as Trump's probability of victory rose in late October. We believe that this is a temporary reaction. We see both Trump's fiscal and trade policies as bullish. BCA's currency strategist Mathieu Savary believes that the dollar could therefore move in a bifurcated fashion in the near term. On the one hand, the dollar could rise against EM currencies and commodity producers, but suffer - or remain flat - against DM currencies such as the EUR, CHF, and JPY.7 Bonds: More inflation and growth should also mean that the bond selloff continues. In addition, if our view on globalization is correct, then the deflationary effects of the last three decades should begin to reverse over the next several years. BCA thesis that we are at the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" should therefore remain cogent.8 As one of our "Trump hedges," our colleague Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, suggested a 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener. This hedge is now up 18.7 bps and we suggest clients continue to hold it. Fed policy: Trump's statements about monetary policy have been inconsistent. Early on in his campaign he described himself as "a low interest rate guy", but he has more recently become critical of current Federal Reserve policy - and Fed Chair Janet Yellen in particular - claiming that while higher interest rates are justified, the Fed is keeping them low for "political reasons." What seems certain is that Janet Yellen will be replaced as Fed Chair when her term expires in February 2018. Yellen is unlikely to resign of her own volition before then and it would be legally difficult for the President to remove a sitting Fed Chair prior to the end of her term. But Trump will get the opportunity to re-shape the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors as soon as he is sworn in. There are currently two empty seats on the Board need to be filled and given that many of Trump's economic advisers have "hard money" leanings, it is very likely that both appointments will go to inflation hawks. Equities: In terms of equities, Trump will be a source of uncertainty for U.S. stocks as the market deals with the unknown of his presidency. In addition, markets tend to not like united government in the U.S. as it raises the specter of big policy moves (Table II-2). However, Trump should be positive for sectors that sold off in anticipation of a Clinton victory, such as healthcare and financials. We also suspect that he will continue the outperformance of defense stocks, although that would have been the case with Clinton as well. Table II-2Election: Industry Implications De-Globalization De-Globalization In the long term, Trump's proposal for major corporate tax cuts should be good for U.S. equities. However, we are not entirely sure that this is the case. First, the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at its multi-decade lows (Chart II-4). As such, any corporate tax reform that lowers the marginal rate will not really affect the effective rate. Why does this matter? Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates. Any lowering of the marginal rate will therefore benefit the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then Trump's policy will not necessarily benefit all firms in the U.S. equally. Chart II-4How Low Can It Go? bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c4 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c4 Investors have to keep in mind that Trump has not run a pro-corporate campaign. He has accused American manufacturing firms of taking jobs outside the U.S. and tech companies of skirting taxes. It is not clear to us that his corporate tax reform will therefore necessarily be a boon for the stock market. In the long term, we like to play Trump's populist message by favoring America's SMEs over MNCs. If we are ultimately correct on the USD and growth, then export-oriented S&P 500 companies should suffer in the face of a USD bull market and marginally less globalization. Meanwhile, lowering of the marginal corporate tax rate will benefit the SMEs that do not get the benefit of K-street lobbyist negotiated tax loopholes. Global Assets: The global asset to watch over the next several weeks is the USD/RMB cross. China is forced by domestic economic conditions to continue to slowly depreciate its currency. We have expected this since 2015, which is why we have shorted the RMB via 12-month non-deliverable forwards (NDF). Risk to global assets, particularly EM currencies and equities, would be that Beijing decides to depreciate the RMB before Trump is inaugurated on January 20. This could re-visit the late 2015 panic over China, particularly the narrative that it is exporting deflation. Our view is that even if China does not undertake such actions over the next two months, Sino-American tensions are set to escalate. It is much easier for Trump to fulfill his de-globalization policies with China - a geopolitical rival with which the U.S. has no free trade agreement - than with NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. This will only deepen geopolitical tensions between the two major global powers, which has been our secular view since 2011. Finally, a quick note on the Mexican peso. The Mexican peso has already collapsed half of its value in the past 18 months and we believe the trade is overdone. Investors have used the currency cross as a way to articulate Trump's victory probability. It is no longer cogent. We believe that the U.S. will focus on trade relations with China under a Trump presidency, rather than NAFTA trade partners. Our Emerging Markets Strategy believes that it is time to consider going long MXN versus other EM currencies, such as ZAR and BRL. Investors should also watch carefully the Cabinet appointments that Trump makes over the next two months. Since Carter's administration, cabinet announcements have occurred in early to mid-December. Almost all of these appointments were confirmed on Inauguration Day (usually January 20 of the year after election, including in 2017) or shortly thereafter. Only one major nomination since Carter was disapproved. These appointments will tell us how willing Trump is to reach to traditional Republicans who have served on previous administrations. We suspect that he will go with picks that will execute his fiscal, trade, and tax policies. Bottom Line: After the dust settles over the next several weeks, we suspect that Trump will signal that he intends to pursue his fiscal, trade, immigration, and tax policies. These will be, in the long term, positive for the USD, negative for bonds (including Munis, which will lose their tax-break appeal if income taxes are reduced), and likely neutral for equities. Within the equity space, Trump will be positive for U.S. SMEs and negative for MNCs. This means being long S&P 600 over S&P 100. Lastly, close our long alternative energy / short coal trade for a loss of -26.8%. Constraints: Don't Bet On Them Domestically, the American president can take significant action without congressional support through executive directives. Lincoln raised an army and navy by proclamation and freed the slaves; Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese; Truman tried to seize steel factories to keep production up during the Korean War. Truman's case is almost the only one of a major executive order being rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The Reagan and Clinton administrations have shown that a president thwarted by a divided or adverse congress will often use executive directives to achieve policy aims and satisfy particular interest groups and sectors. Though the number of executive orders has gone down in recent administrations (Chart II-5), the economic significance has increased along with the size and penetration of the bureaucracy (Chart II-6). The economic impact of executive orders is always debatable, but the key point is that the president's word tends to carry the day.9 Chart II-5Rule By Decree De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart II-6Executive Branch Is Growing De-Globalization De-Globalization Trade is a major area where Trump would have considerable sway. He has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade. The U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Congressionally approved agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cannot be revoked by the president, but Trump could obstruct its ongoing implementation.10 He would also have considerable powers to levy tariffs, as Nixon showed with his 10% "surcharge" on most imports in 1971.11 Bottom Line: Presidential authority is formidable in the areas Trump has made the focus of his campaign: immigration and trade. Without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override him, or an activist federal court, Trump would be able to enact significant policies simply by issuing orders to his subordinates in the executive branch. Long-Term Implications: Polarization In The U.S. Does the Republican control of Congress and the White House signal that polarization in America will subside? We began this analysis by focusing on the investment implications when Republicans control the three houses of the American government. But long-term implications of polarization will not dissipate. Investors may overstate the importance of a Republican-controlled government and thus understate the relevance of continued polarization. We doubt that Donald Trump is a uniting figure who can transcend America's polarized politics, especially given his weak popular mandate (he lost the popular vote as Bush did in 2000) and the sub-50% vote share. And, our favorite chart of the year remains the same: both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have entered the history books as the most disliked presidential candidates ever on the day of the election (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History De-Globalization De-Globalization According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level since World War II (Chart II-8). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension.12 Chart II-8The Widening Ideological Gulf In The U.S. Congress De-Globalization De-Globalization Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study has shown that Republicans and Democrats are moving further to the right and left, respectively. Chart II-9 shows the distribution of Republicans and Democrats on a 10-item scale of political values across the last three decades. In addition, "very unfavorable" views of the opposing party have skyrocketed since 2004 (Chart II-10), with 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now seeing the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being"! Chart II-9U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart II-10Live And Let Die De-Globalization De-Globalization Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the mounting polarization in America.13 Our view remains that politics in a democracy operates on its own supply-demand dynamic. If there was no demand for polarized politics, especially at the congressional level, American politicians would not be so eager to supply it. We believe that five main factors - in our subjective order of importance - explain polarization in the U.S. today: Income Inequality And Immobility The increase in political polarization parallels rising income inequality in the U.S. (Chart II-11). The U.S. is a clear and distant outlier on both factors compared to its OECD peers (Chart II-12). However, Americans are not being divided neatly along income levels. This is because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to fix income inequality. For Donald Trump voters, the solutions are to put up barriers to free trade and immigration while reducing income taxes for all income levels. For Hillary Clinton voters, it means more taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, while putting up some trade barriers and expanding entitlements. This means that the correlation between polarization and income inequality is misleading as there is no causality. Rather, rising income inequality, especially when combined with a low-growth environment, shifts the political narrative from the "politics of plenty" towards "politics of scarcity." It hardens interest and identity groups and makes them less generous towards the "other." Chart II-11Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization Chart II-12Opportunity And Income: Americans Are Outliers De-Globalization De-Globalization Generational Warfare The political age gap is increasing (Chart II-13). This remains the case following the 2016 election, with 55% Millennials (18-29 year olds) having voted for Hillary Clinton. The problem for older voters, who tend to identify far more with the Republican Party, is that the Millennials are already the largest voting bloc in America (Chart II-14). And as Millennial voters start increasing their turnout, and as Baby Boomers naturally decline, the urgency to vote for Republican policymakers' increases. Chart II-13The Age Gap In American Politics The Age Gap In American Politics The Age Gap In American Politics Chart II-14Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Geographical Segregation Noted political scientist Robert Putnam first cautioned that increasing geographic segregation into clusters of like-minded communities was leading to rising polarization.14 This explains, in large part, how liberal elites have completely missed the rise of Donald Trump. Left-leaning Americans tend to live in a left-leaning community. They share their morning cup-of-Joe with Liberals and rarely mix with the plebs supporting Trump. And of course vice-versa. University of Toronto professors Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander have more recently shown in their "Segregated City" research that "America's cities and metropolitan areas have cleaved into clusters of wealth, college education, and highly-paid knowledge-based occupations."15 Their research shows that American neighborhoods are increasingly made up of people of the same income level, across all metropolitan areas. Florida and Mellander also show that educational and occupational segregation follows economic segregation. Meanwhile, the same research shows that Canada's most segregated metropolitan area, Montreal, would be the 227th most segregated city if it were in the U.S.! This form of geographic social distance fosters increasing polarization by allowing voters to remain aloof of their fellow Americans, their plight, needs, and concerns. The extreme urban-rural divide of the 2016 election confirms this thesis. Immigration Chart II-15Racial Composition Is Changing De-Globalization De-Globalization Much as with income inequality, there is a close correlation between political polarization and immigration. The U.S. is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country, with the percent of the white population expected to dip below 50% in 2045 (Chart II-15). Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to continue rising for the rest of the century. For many Americans facing the pernicious effects of low-growth, high debt, and elevated income inequality, the rising impact of immigration is anathema. Not only is the country changing its ethnic and cultural make-up, but the incoming immigrants tend to be less educated and thus lower-income than the median American. They therefore favor - or will favor, when they can vote - redistributive policies. Many Americans feel - fairly or unfairly - that the costs of these policies will have to be shouldered by white middle-class taxpayers, who are not wealthy enough to be indifferent to tax increases, and may be unskillful enough to face competition from immigrants. There is also a security component to the rising concern about immigration. Although Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population, many voters perceive radical Islam to be a vital security threat to the nation. As such, immigration and radical Islamic terrorism are seen as close bedfellows. Media Polarization The 2016 election has been particularly devastating for mainstream media. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly." This is the lowest level in Gallup polling history. The decline is particularly concentrated among Independent and Republican respondents (Chart II-16). With mainstream media falling out of favor for many Americans, voters are turning towards social media and the Internet. Facebook is now as important for political news coverage as local TV for Americans who get their news from the Internet (Chart II-17). Chart II-16A War Of Words bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c16 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c16 Chart II-17New Sources Of News Not Always Credible De-Globalization De-Globalization The problem with getting your news coverage from Facebook is that it often means getting news coverage from "fake" sources. A recent experiment by BuzzFeed showed that three big right-wing Facebook pages published false or misleading information 38% of the time while three large left-wing pages did so in nearly 20% of posts.16 The Internet allows voters to self-select what ideological lens colors their daily intake of information and it transcends geography. Two American families, living next to each other in the same neighborhood, can literally perceive reality from completely different perspectives by customizing their sources of information. Chart II-18Gerrymandering ##br##Reduces Competitive Seats bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c18 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c18 In addition to these five factors, one should also reaffirm the role of redistricting, or "gerrymandering." Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter) have redrawn geographical boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart II-18). This improves job security for incumbent politicians and legislative-seat security for the party; but it also discourages legislators from reaching across the ideological aisle in order to ensure re-election. Instead, the main electoral challenge now comes from the member's own party during the primary election. For Republicans, this means that the challenge is most often coming from a candidate that is further to the right. Incumbent GOP politicians in Congress therefore have an incentive to maintain highly conservative records lest a challenge from the far-right emerges in a primary election. Given that the frequency of elections is high in the House of Representatives (every two years), legislators cannot take even a short break from partisanship. Redistricting deepens polarization, therefore, by changing the political calculus for legislators facing ideologically pure electorates in their home districts. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is a product of structural factors that are here to stay. Trump's narrow victory will in no way change that. But How Much Worse? Political polarization is not new. Older readers will remember 1968, when social unrest over the Vietnam War was at its height. Richard Nixon barely got over the finish line that year, beating Vice-President Hubert Humphrey by around 500,000 votes.17 Another contested election in a contested era. Chart II-19Party Is The Chief Source Of Identity De-Globalization De-Globalization Our concern is that the Republican and Democrat "labels" - or perhaps conservative and liberal labels - appear to be ossifying. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats. This has not always been the case, as Chart II-19 shows. We suspect that the data would be even starker today, especially after the divisive 2016 campaign that has bordered on hysterical. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become real and almost "sectarian" in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Why is this happening? We suspect that the shift in urgency and tone is motivated at least in part by the changing demographics of America. Two demographic groups that identify the most with the Republican Party - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are in a structural decline (the first in absolute terms and the second in relative terms). Both see the writing on the political wall. Given America's democratic system of government, their declining numbers (or, in the case of suburban whites, declining majorities) will mean significant future policy decisions that go against their preferences. America is set to become more left-leaning, favor more redistribution, and become less culturally homogenous. Not only are Millennials more socially liberal and economically left-leaning, but they are also "browner" than the rest of the U.S. As we pointed out early this year, 2016 was an election that the GOP could reasonably attempt to win by appealing exclusively to white and older voters. The "White Hype" strategy was mathematically cogent ... at least in 2016.18 It will get a lot more difficult to pursue this strategy in 2020 and beyond. Not impossible, but difficult. We suspect that conservative voters know this. As such, there was an urgency this year to lock-in structural changes to key policies before it is too late. Donald Trump may have been a flawed messenger for many voters, but it did not matter. The clock is ticking for a large segment of America and therefore Trump was an acceptable vehicle of their fears and anger. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is likely to increase. Two key Republican/conservative constituencies - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are backed into the corner by demographic trends. But it also means that a left counter-revolution is just around the corner. And we doubt that the Democratic Party will chose as centrist of a candidate the next time around. Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned Chart II-20Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income 1. Economics trump PC: Civil rights remain a major category of the American public's policy concerns. However, the Democratic Party's prioritization of social issues on the margins of the civil rights debate has not galvanized voters in the face of persistent negative attitudes about the economy. More specifically, the surge in cheap credit since 2000 that covered up the steady decline of wages as a share of GDP has ended, leaving households exposed to deleveraging and reduced purchasing power (Chart II-20). American households have lost patience with the slow, grinding pace of economic recovery, they reject the debt consequences of low inflation with deflationary tail risks, and they resent disappointed expectations in terms of job security and quality. Concerns about certain social preferences - as opposed to basic rights - pale in comparison to these economic grievances. 2. Polls are OK, but beware the quant models that use them: On two grave political decisions this year, in two advanced markets with the "best" quality of polling, political modeling turned out to be grossly erroneous. To be fair, the polls themselves prior to both Brexit and the U.S. election were within a margin of error. However, quantitative models relying on these polls were overconfident, leading investors to ignore the risks of a non-consensus outcome. As we warned in mid-October - with Clinton ahead with a robust lead - the problem with quantitative political models is that they rely on polling data for their input.19 To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." But combining polls is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The philosophy behind the methodology is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening. Well, something bad did happen. The quantitative models were massively wrong! We tried to avoid this problem by heavily modifying our polls-based-model with structural factors. Many of these structural variables - economic context, political momentum, Obama's approval rating - actually did not favor Clinton. Our model therefore consistently gave Donald Trump between 35-45% probability of winning the election, on average three and four times higher than other popular quant models. This caused us to warn clients that our view on the election was extremely cautious and recommend hedges. In fact, Donald Trump had 41% chance of winning the race on election night, according to the last iteration of our model, a very high probability.20 3. Professor Lichtman was right: Political science professor Allan Lichtman has once again accurately called the election - for the ninth time. The result on Nov. 8 strongly supports his life's work that presidential elections in the United States are popular referendums on the incumbent party of the last four years. Structural factors undid the Democrats (Table II-3), and none of the campaign rhetoric, cross-country barnstorming, or "horse race" polling mattered a whit. The Republicans had momentum from previous midterm elections, Clinton had suffered a strong challenge in her primary, the Obama administration's achievements over the past four years were negligible (the Affordable Care Act passed in his first term). These factors, along with the political cycle itself, favored the Republicans. Trump's lack of charisma did not negate the structural support for a change of ruling party. Investors should take note: no amount of mathematical horsepower, big data, or Silicon Valley acumen was able to beat the qualitative, informed, contemplative work of a single historian. Table II-3Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* De-Globalization De-Globalization 4. Non-linearity of politics: Lichtman's method calls attention to the danger of linear assumptions and quantitative modeling in attempting the art of political prediction. Big data and quantitative econometric and polling models have notched up key failures this year. They cannot make subjective judgments regarding whether a president has had a major foreign policy success or failure or a major policy innovation - on all three of those counts, the Democrats failed from 2012-16. There really is no way to quantify political risk because human and social organizations often experience paradigm shifts that are characterized by non-linearity. Newtonian Laws will always work on planet earth and as such we are not concerned about what will happen to us if we board an airplane. Laws of physics will not simply stop working while we are mid-air. However, social interactions and political narratives do experience paradigm shifts. We have identified several since 2011: geopolitical multipolarity, de-globalization, end of laissez-faire consensus, end of Chimerica, and global loss of confidence in elites and institutions.21 5. No country is immune to decaying institutions: The United States has, with few exceptions, the oldest written constitution among major states, and it ensures checks and balances. But recent decades have shown that the executive branch has expanded its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. Moreover, executives have responded to major crisis - like the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis - with policy responses that were formulated haphazardly, ideologically divisive, and difficult to implement: the Iraq War and the Affordable Care Act. The result is that the jarring events that have blindsided America over the past sixteen years have resulted in wasted political capital and deeper polarization. The failure of institutions has opened the way for political parties to pursue short-term gains at the expense of their "partners" across the aisle, and to bend and manipulate procedural rules to achieve ends that cannot be achieved through consensus and compromise. 6. U.S. is shifting leftward when it comes to markets: Inequality and social immobility have, with Trump's election, entered the conservative agenda, after having long sat on the liberals' list of concerns. The shift in white blue-collar Midwestern voters toward Trump reflects the fact that voters are non-partisan in demanding what they want: they want to retain their existing rights, privileges, and entitlements, and to expand their wages and social protections. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Except that it is better armed. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, Wisconsin polling was rather poor as most pollsters assumed that it was a shoe-in for Democrats. One problem with polling in Midwest states is that they were, other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, assumed to be safe Democratic states. Note for example the extremely tight result in Minnesota and the absolute dearth of polling out of that state throughout the last several months. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. General Elections And Scenarios: Implications," dated July 11, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It," dated November 4, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Only a two-thirds majority of Congress, or a ruling by a federal court, can undo an executive action, and that is exceedingly rare. The real check on executive orders is the rotation of office: a president can undo with the stroke of a pen whatever his predecessor enacted. Congress has the power of the purse, but it is sporadic in its oversight and has challenged less than 5% of executive orders, even though those orders often re-direct the way the executive branch uses funds Congress has allocated. More often, Congress votes to codify executive orders rather than nullify them. 10 Trump is not alone in calling for renegotiating or even abandoning NAFTA. Clinton called for renegotiation in 2008, and Senator Bernie Sanders has done so in 2016. 11 In Proclamation 4074, dated August 15, 1971, Nixon suspended all previous presidential proclamations implementing trade agreements insofar as was required to impose a new 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods entering the United States. He justified it in domestic law by invoking the president's authority and previous congressional acts authorizing the president to act on behalf of Congress with regard to trade agreement negotiation and implementation (including tariff levels). He justified the proclamation in international law by referring to international allowances during balance-of-payments emergencies. 12 The "primary dimension" of Chart II-8 is represented by the x-axis and is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. The "second dimension" (y-axis) depends on the era and is picking up regional differences on a number of social issues such as the civil rights movement (which famously split Democrats between northern Liberals and southern Dixiecrats). 13 We have penned two such efforts ourselves. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Polarization In America: Transient Or Structural Risk?," dated October 9, 2013, and "A House Divided Cannot Stand: America's Polarization," dated July 11, 2012," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. 15 Please see Martin Prosperity Institute, "Segregated City," dated February 23, 2015, available at martinprosperity.org. 16 Please see BuzzFeedNews, "Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate," dated October 20, 2016, available at buzzfeed.com. 17 Nonetheless, due to the third-party candidate George Wallace carrying the then traditionally-Democratic South, Nixon managed to win the Electoral College in a landslide. 18 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!," dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 For comparison, Steph Curry, the greatest three-point shooter in basketball history, and a two-time NBA MVP, has a career three-point shooting average of 44%. With that average, he is encouraged to take every three-pointer he can by his team. In other words, despite being less than 50%, this is a very high percentage. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, and "Strategy Outlook 2016 - Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Most narratives surrounding G7 bond yields, the U.S. dollar, Chinese credit/fiscal impulses, and the RMB exchange rate - which justified the EM rally from February's lows - have been overturned. To be consistent, this warrants a relapse in EM risk assets. In China, recent property market and marginal credit policy tightening will weigh on growth. Feature The more recent strength in Chinese and emerging markets' (EM) manufacturing PMI indexes as well as the bounce in industrial metals prices have gone against our negative view on EM/China growth and related markets. While it is hard to predict market patterns over the next several weeks, we maintain that the EM rally is on borrowed time, and that the risk-reward profile for EM risk assets (stocks, credit markets and currencies) remains very unfavorable. Tracking Correlations And Indicators The overwhelming majority of indicators and variables that supported the rally in EM since February have reversed in recent months. Specifically: China's credit and fiscal spending impulses have rolled over (Charts I-1 and Chart I-2, on page 1). This will likely lead to a rollover in mainland industrial activity early next year (Chart 1, top panel). Similarly, this bodes ill for much-followed Chinese ex-factory producer prices - i.e., producer price deflation will probably recommence early next year (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Chart I-1China: Industrial Sectors To Retreat? bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c1 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c1 Chart I-2China: Credit And Fiscal Impulses China: Credit And Fiscal Impulses China: Credit And Fiscal Impulses In a nutshell, the strong credit and fiscal impulses of late 2015 and early 2016 explain the stabilization and mild improvement in the Chinese economy during the past few months. However, these same impulses project renewed weakness/rollover in the economy in early 2017. If financial markets are forward looking, they should begin pricing-in deteriorating growth momentum sooner than later - especially as Chinese policymakers are announcing marginal tightening policies (see below for more details). One of the narratives that triggered the EM and global equity rally in February was speculation that there was a "Shanghai accord" between global central banks. According to this narrative, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) promised not to devalue the RMB in exchange for the Federal Reserve not hiking rates. Since then, the RMB has continued to depreciate, both versus the greenback and the CFETS1 basket. Yet EM and global stocks have completely disregarded the RMB depreciation (Chart I-3). We do not have good explanation as to why. Indeed, the RMB has weakened meaningfully, despite the PBoC's massive currency defense: the latter's foreign exchange reserves have shrunk further since then (Chart I-4), as capital flight has exceeded the enormous current account surplus by a large margin. Chart I-3Investors Are ##br##Complacent About RMB bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c3 Chart I-4China: Foreign Exchange ##br##Reserves Still Shrinking bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c4 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c4 Chart I-5PBoC Liquidity Injections ##br##Have Been Enormous bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c5 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c5 The PBoC's selling of U.S. dollars to prop up the yuan has drained domestic currency liquidity and one would expect interbank rates to rise. However, the PBoC has been re-injecting RMBs into the system to keep interest rates low (Chart I-5). Such RMB liquidity proliferation makes further declines in the currency's value all the more likely. We expect the RMB to continue depreciating. Yet global financial markets have become extremely complacent about the potential for additional RMB depreciation. After having been bullish on U.S./G7 bonds for the past several years, in our July 13 Weekly Report,2 we highlighted that U.S./G7 bond yields would rise and closed our strategic short EM equities/long 30-year U.S. Treasurys position. Even though U.S./G7 bond yields have risen since July, EM equities have not declined. Given that falling G7 bond yields were used as justification for the EM rally, the opposite should also hold true. We expect U.S. bond yields to rise further. Our EM Corporate Health Monitor - constructed using bottom-up financial variables of companies with outstanding U.S. dollar corporate bonds - points to a reversal in the EM corporate credit market rally (Chart I-6). Furthermore, EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads have tightened considerably and are now very overbought and expensive. As we argued in our Special Report titled EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red3 that introduced the EM Corporate Financial Health (CFH) Monitor, EM corporate credit spreads are as expensive as they were before they began widening in 2013 and 2014 (Chart I-7). Chart I-6EM Corporate Bond Rally To Reverse? EM Corporate Bond Rally To Reverse? EM Corporate Bond Rally To Reverse? Chart I-7EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Tight EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Tight EM Corporate Spreads Are Too Tight Finally, the U.S. dollar sold off early this year, but it has held firm in recent months. Nevertheless, EM risk assets have not retreated, despite the greenback's strength (Chart I-8). Few would argue that sharp U.S. dollar appreciation is negative for EM risk assets, but there is a debate among investors and analysts about whether EM risk assets can rally amidst a gradual appreciation in the U.S. dollar. Turning to the empirical evidence, Chart I-9 reveals that in the past 30 years any U.S. dollar appreciation - whether gradual or not - even versus DM currencies has coincided with weakness in EM share prices. Chart I-8EM Investors Have ##br##Ignored U.S. Dollar Strength bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c8 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c8 Chart I-9EM Equities And ##br##U.S. Dollar: A 30 Year History EM Equities And U.S. Dollar: A 30 Year History EM Equities And U.S. Dollar: A 30 Year History Bottom Line: The majority of narratives that justified the EM rally from February's lows have been overturned. To be consistent, this warrants a relapse in EM risk assets. China's Credit And Property Tightening In recent weeks, there have been numerous policy tightening efforts in China. In particular: At the annual World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington last month, PBoC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan stated that once markets stabilized there would no longer be additional large increases in bank credit. His exact words were: "With the gradual recovery of the global economy, China will control its credit growth".4 As U.S. and European PMIs have firmed up and U.S. employment and wage growth is robust, Chinese policymakers will be emboldened to moderate unsustainable credit growth and not to repeat the massive fiscal push of early this year. In a bid to curb excessive bank credit growth and discourage "window dressing" accounting, the PBoC announced on October 255 that going forward it will include off-balance-sheet wealth management products (WMPs) in the calculation of banks' quarterly Marco Prudential Assessment ratios, starting from the third quarter. The clampdown on WMP accounting will reduce banks' capital adequacy ratios (CARs). One key reason that banks had aggressively boosted the size of their off-balance-sheet WMP assets was that they were not required to have capital charges against them, helping banks extend more credit while complying with CARs. In short, Chinese banks' CARs are inflated. This policy measure along with provisioning and writing-off non-performing loans, if reinforced, could meaningfully reduce the CARs of all Chinese banks, especially small- and medium-sized ones, as well as force them to reduce the pace of credit expansion. Given that the majority of medium and small banks have been more aggressive than the country's five biggest banks in expanding credit in recent years, this may have a damping effect on credit growth in 2017. In fact, the 110 medium and small banks retain 60% of on- and off-balance-sheet credit claims on companies, while the five largest banks hold 40% (Table I-1). Hence, credit trends in small and medium banks are at least as important as those among large banks. Table I-1China: Five Largest Banks Hold Only 40% Of Credit Assets EM: Defying Gravity? EM: Defying Gravity? Finally, a number of cities have announced various tightening measures on property markets of late, including the re-launch of house purchasing restrictions and increases in minimum down payments. Similar restrictions on home purchases served as an efficient tool for curbing property purchases in 2013-14, and there is no reason why it will be different this time around. This is especially true given the market is more expensive than it was back in 2013. In addition, the government has curbed financing for property developers. The biggest economic risk remains construction activity. Even though housing sales and prices have skyrocketed by 20-40% in the past 12 months (Chart I-10, top and middle panels), residential floor space started has been very timid - it has in fact failed to recover (Chart I-10, bottom panel). As residential property sales contract again due to new purchasing restrictions, property developers will certainly curtail new investment, and housing construction activity will shrink anew. The same is true for commercial properties (Chart I-11). Chart I-10China's Residential Market: ##br##Demand, Prices And Starts China's Residential Market: Demand, Prices And Starts China's Residential Market: Demand, Prices And Starts Chart I-11China's Non-Residential ##br##Market: Demand And Starts China's Non-Residential Market: Demand And Starts China's Non-Residential Market: Demand And Starts An interesting question is why property starts have been so weak, as indicated in the bottom panels of Chart I-10 and Chart I-11 - particularly when both floor space sold (units) and property prices have surged exponentially in the past 12 months. Our view is that there is a large hidden inventory overhang in the Chinese property market. For example, government data on residential floor space started, completed and under construction attest that there is still a large gap between floor space started versus completed (Chart I-12). From these data/charts and the enormous leverage carried by property developers, we infer the latter have been accumulating / carrying on their balance sheets vast amounts of inventory in excess of what market-based sources suggest, and what is widely followed by analysts. It is very hard to make sense of the Chinese property inventory data, but we suspect these market-based data sources may track only inventories that have been completed and released to the market - and do not account for inventories classified as "under construction". For residential housing, according to government data the "under construction floor space" is 5 billion square meters (Chart I-13, top panel), which is equal to 3.5-4 years of sales at the fervent pace of the past 12 months (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Another way to assess this is as follows: Assuming an average construction cycle of three years, there will be supply of new housing in amounts of 16.7 units in each of the next three years. This compares with sales of 13.3 million units in the past 12 months that occurred amid a buying frenzy and booming mortgage lending. Faced with a potential drop in sales due to the recent purchasing restrictions, elevated inventories, enormous leverage (Chart I-14), and tighter financing, property developers will most likely curtail new starts. In turn, a reduction in property starts means less construction activity next year, and weak demand for commodities. Consistent with the rollover in the fiscal spending impulse, infrastructure spending will likely also lose its potency in early 2017. Chart I-12China's Residential ##br##Market: Hidden Inventories bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c12 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c12 Chart I-13Chinese Real Estate: Massive ##br##Volumes Under Construction Chinese Real Estate: Massive Volumes Under Construction Chinese Real Estate: Massive Volumes Under Construction Chart I-14Leverage Of Chinese ##br##Listed Property Developers bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c14 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c14 Bottom Line: Recent property market and marginal credit policy tightening will weigh on construction activity and depress Chinese demand for commodities and industrial goods next year. Confirmation Bias, Or Bias Based On Fundamentals? Why did we not follow the indicators discussed above from February through June, when the EM rally emerged and these indicators bottomed? Do we have a confirmation bias? We did not recommend playing the EM rebound early this year because we did not believe the rally would last this long or go this far. If we had had conviction about the duration and magnitude of the rally, we would have changed our strategy - tactically upgrading EM risk assets despite our negative structural and cyclical views. Simply put, we were wrong on strategy. In our April 13, 2016 Weekly Report,6 we argued that based on China's injection of massive amounts of fiscal and credit stimulus, growth would marginally improve in the months ahead. Yet, we stopped short of recommending chasing the EM rally given the menace of numerous cyclical and structural negatives surrounding the EM/China growth outlook. As to the reasons why we put more emphasis on some indicators and less on others at various times, we have the following points: We are biased in so far as our assessment and analysis of EM/China is based on fundamentals. In this sense, we are biased towards centering our investment strategy on fundamentals. Specifically, given our view/analysis that EM/China have credit bubbles/excesses, rapidly falling or weak productivity growth and record-low return on capital (Chart I-15), we cannot help but to have a fundamentally bearish bias on EM. This, in turn, means that we view any rally in EM risk assets or uptick in EM/China economic indicators with suspicion and likely as unsustainable. The opposite also holds true. All in all, if we are wrong on our fundamental view and analysis, we will be wrong on financial markets. When investors expect a bear market, they are better off selling rallies and not buying dips. When an asset class is in a multiyear bull market, it pays off to buy dips rather not sell rallies. Unless one can time market swings well, it is hard to make money on the long sides of bear markets. Similarly, it is difficult to profit from short positions in bull markets. In brief, countertrend moves are about timing. Timing does not depend on fundamentals. It is often a coin toss. Typically we do not recommend clients invest based on a coin toss. For example, it is impossible to rationalize why the EM rally did not begin following the August 2015 selloff, but instead started in February 2016. In late August 2015, with carnage in EM risk assets pervasive, it was clear that Chinese policymakers would stimulate and in fact the massive fiscal stimulus was initiated in August/September 2015 not in 2016. Similarly, China's manufacturing PMI bottomed in September 2015, not in 2016 (Chart I-16). Chart I-15EM Non-Financial Return ##br##On Equity Is At All Time Low EM Non-Financial Return On Equity Is At All Time Low EM Non-Financial Return On Equity Is At All Time Low Chart I-16China's Manufacturing PMI ##br##Bottomed In October 2015 China's Manufacturing PMI Bottomed In October 2015 China's Manufacturing PMI Bottomed In October 2015 In September 2015, EM and global equities rebounded, but chasing momentum at that time did not pay off as risk assets cratered in the following months. This is all to say that timing markets is often a random walk. We do attempt to time market moves that go along with our fundamental bias, but prefer not to time market moves that go against the primary trend. We assume any countertrend move is typically short-lived and unsustainable. That said, we also realize these moves can be very painful for investors if they last long enough, like this EM rally. Finally, we often get questions on fund flows. We do not make investment recommendations based on fund flows - even though we recognize they are very important in driving markets. The reason is that there is no comprehensive data on global fund flows that one can analyze and make reasonably educated bets. The often-cited EPRF dataset only tracks inflows and outflows of mutual funds and ETFs. It does not account for flows and positioning of various asset managers, sovereign funds, pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and private wealth managers, among many others. What's more, the EPRF dataset only covers the funds located in advanced countries and offshore jurisdictions, but not emerging countries where investment pools have become large and important. In brief, the available investment flow and portfolio positioning data are not comprehensive at all, and they cannot be relied upon too much to make investment recommendations. In this vein, a question arises: Why can't flows into EM sustain the current rally for a while even though it is not based on fundamentals? In this context, let's consider the case of the rally in euro area share prices when markets sensed the arrival of the European Central Bank's quantitative easing efforts at the beginning of 2015. There was a fervent rush to buy/overweight euro area stocks heading into the QE announcement by the ECB. European bourses surged. Nevertheless, euro area equity prices have been sliding and massively underperforming the global equity benchmark since March 2015 (Chart I-17). The reason the ECB's QE has not helped euro area stocks is because their fundamentals were bad - profits have been shrinking despite the ECB's QE. We suspect EM stocks and currencies will have a similar destiny: EM profits will disappoint considerably, and the current rally will prove unsustainable. Notably, net EPS revisions have so far failed to move into the positive territory (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Euro Area Stocks And EPS: ##br##Why The QE Rally Proved To Be Bogus Euro Area Stocks And EPS: Why The QE Rally Proved To Be Bogus Euro Area Stocks And EPS: Why The QE Rally Proved To Be Bogus Chart I-18EM Stocks And EPS: ##br##Earning Revisions Are Still Contracting bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c18 bca.ems_wr_2016_11_09_s1_c18 Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 China Foreign Exchange Trading System. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View," dated July 13, 2016; a link is available on page 15. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "EM Corporate Health Is Flashing Red," dated September 14, 2016; a link is available on page 15. 4 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3155686/index.html 5 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3183204/index.html 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Revisiting China's Fiscal And Credit Impulses," dated April 13, 2016; a link is available on page 15. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Regardless of who wins the U.S. election, the gaping mismatch between fundamentals and broad market valuations remains intact, but will be in jeopardy of re-converging should the Fed signal an intention to tighten monetary conditions through next year. As previously outlined, our view is that the economy, particularly the corporate sector, will struggle further if financial conditions become more restrictive and/or election uncertainty persists. The non-financial corporate sector's return on equity has already fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years. Yet the median price/sales and price/earnings ratios are flirting with all-time highs. That divergence is not sustainable, given the direct link between ROE, profit growth and valuations. Central bank benevolence has underwritten this gap, and any ebbing in financial liquidity is a potential catalyst for it to close. bca.uses_in_2016_11_08_003_c1 bca.uses_in_2016_11_08_003_c1

Bank stocks have moved higher, following the sell-off in global bond markets and steepening in yield curves sparked initially by the Bank of Japan's curve targeting shift and a reversal of incremental easing expectations from the Bank of England. However, we are not convinced that the relative performance bear market is over. Bank profits have not been able to outpace the broad corporate sector since the beginning of 2015, even though loan growth has been healthy and overall earnings were crushed by the implosion in commodity prices during that period, allowing most other sectors to show earnings outperformance. Now loan growth is rolling over and credit quality is beginning to erode. Perhaps more worrying is that banks are no longer pruning cost structures, which is unusual given that credit standards are tightening on most credit products outside of traditional mortgages. In the last 25 years, or as far back as we have the data, bank stocks lagged the broad market after bank employment started rising. The only exception was in the aftermath of the tech bubble, when all non-TMT sectors outperformed. If banks continue to expand their wage bill, without a widening in net interest margins and/or reversal in increased loan loss reserving, bank profits will fail to match the growth rate of the overall S&P 500. We recommend selling into strength. bca.uses_in_2016_11_08_001_c1 bca.uses_in_2016_11_08_001_c1

Highlights Chart 1Targeting 2% bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c1 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c1 The Fed did its best to avoid roiling markets so close to today's election, but still managed to hint at a December rate hike. The post-meeting statement was tweaked so that now only "some further evidence" rather than "further evidence" is required in order to lift the funds rate. We remain below benchmark duration in anticipation of a December rate hike. Before the end of the year we expect our 12-month discounter to reach at least 40-50bps (meaning the market will expect a further 1-2 hikes in 2017) from its current level of 28bps, and for the 10-year Treasury yield to reach 1.95-2%. While our global PMI model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27%, the uptrend in the 10-year yield will face severe technical resistance as it approaches 2% (Chart 1). Positioning has already moved to net short duration, signaling that the bond sell-off is becoming stretched. While a Clinton victory would all but ensure a December rate hike, a Trump victory could cause a large enough market riot that the Fed delays until 2017. This would only be a brief hiccup in the return of the 10-year yield to the 1.95-2% range, and would not signal a long-lasting trend reversal. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c2 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c2 Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +56bps in October, but have already given back -26bps of those gains so far this month (Chart 2). The index option-adjusted spread is -2bps tighter than at the end of September and, at 136bps, it remains very close to its historical average. Corporate credit performance faces two immediate risks. The first is today's election and the second is the prospect of a Fed rate hike in December. A Clinton victory would likely prompt a knee-jerk rally in risk assets and virtually ensure a rate hike next month. In that case we would be inclined to further trim exposure to credit risk in the coming weeks as the rate hike approaches. Already, we recommend investors avoid the Baa credit tier within a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. In a recent report we pointed out that highly-rated credit (A-rated and above) performed well in the initial stages of last year's run-up in rate hike expectations, but then started to suffer once market-implied rate hike probabilities approached 100%.1 Conversely, a Trump victory would likely prompt a flight-to-safety event in markets which, depending on its severity, could also cause the Fed to delay the next rate hike into 2017. In that event, the prospect of delayed Fed tightening would make us more likely to increase credit exposure in the near term, especially if any knee-jerk sell-off in risk assets creates better value in corporates. Table 3Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* (Continued) "Some"thing To Talk About "Some"thing To Talk About Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* "Some"thing To Talk About "Some"thing To Talk About High-Yield: Maximum Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +92bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -108bps so far in November. The index option-adjusted spread is +25bps wider since the end of September and, at 505bps, it is 16bps below its historical average. In a Special Report2 published last week we noted that while the default rate will not re-visit its previous lows (at least until after the next recession), it should decline from 5.4% to close to 4% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). However, even a slightly brighter default outlook will not be enough for junk bonds to sustain their current pace of outperformance. A simple model of lagged junk spreads and default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in 12-month high-yield excess returns. This model suggests that even with lower default losses, excess junk returns will be +264bps during the next 12 months (panel 3). The reason is that lower default losses are more than offset by the lower starting point for spreads. Junk spreads should also come under widening pressure in the very near term, as a December Fed rate hike spurs an increase in implied volatility. Maintain a maximum underweight allocation to high-yield and await a better entry point for spreads in the New Year. MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c4 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c4 Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +2bps in October, but are underperforming the benchmark by -7bps so far in November. Year-to-date, MBS have outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by a mere +22bps. Since the end of September, the conventional 30-year MBS yield has risen +23bps, driven by a +21bps increase in the rate component. The option-adjusted spread has widened +2bps, while the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) has remained flat. Unattractive option-adjusted spreads and the prospect of further increases in issuance make for bleak long-run return prospects in MBS. However, the likelihood that Treasury yields will continue to rise in the near-term means that MBS could outperform due to a decline in the option cost component of spreads (Chart 4). We will likely reduce exposure to MBS once a December rate hike has been fully digested by the market, and the uptrend in Treasury yields starts to taper off. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to ease standards on GSE-eligible mortgage loans, while demand for these same loans continues to increase. The combination of easing lending standards and strengthening demand means that issuance is likely to continue its march higher, as does the persistent uptrend in existing home sales (bottom panel). Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c5 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c5 The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +5bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -9bps so far in November. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sub-sectors drove October's outperformance, returning +24bps and +14bps in excess of Treasuries respectively. Domestic Agency debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +3bps, while Supranationals (-7bps) and Sovereigns (-10bps) both underperformed. After adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration, Foreign Agency and Local Authority bonds still appear attractive relative to investment grade U.S. corporate debt. Sovereigns, on the other hand, appear modestly expensive. We continue to recommend avoiding Sovereign issues while remaining overweight the other sub-sectors of the government related index. In a recent report,3 we observed that the performance of sovereign debt relative to equivalently-rated and duration-matched U.S. corporate credit tends to track movements in the U.S. dollar. As such, a continued bull market in the U.S. dollar will remain a significant headwind for sovereigns. At the country level, the only nations whose USD-denominated debt offers a spread advantage over Baa-rated U.S. corporate debt are Hungary, South Africa, Colombia and Uruguay. Unusually, bullet agency debt outperformed callable agency debt last month even though Treasury yields moved higher (Chart 5). Within Domestic Agency bonds, we continue to favor callable over bullet issues on the expectation that this divergence will not persist. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c6 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c6 Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by -12bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -152bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio is largely unchanged since the end of September, and remains close to its post-crisis average. In recent months, trends in M/T yield ratios have fluctuated alongside the betting market odds for today's Presidential election. A Trump victory would cause yield ratios to widen sharply, as President Trump's promised tax cuts would substantially de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds. We expect yield ratios to tighten in the event that Clinton prevails, as any expectation of a Trump victory works its way out of the price. Due to attractive yield ratios relative to recent history, we are inclined to remain overweight municipal bonds in the near-term. However, we will likely downgrade the sector if yield ratios move back to previous lows. As we detailed in a recent Special Report,4 historical lags between the corporate and municipal credit cycles suggest that municipal bond downgrades will start to increase in the second half of next year, alongside a deterioration in state & local government balance sheets. Further, state & local government investment spending is poised to move higher next year, regardless of the election result, leading to even greater muni issuance (Chart 6). Elevated fund flows have offset the impact of strong issuance this year, the risk is that they will not keep pace going forward. Treasury Curve: Stay In Flatteners Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-steepened significantly since the end of September. The 2/10 Treasury slope has steepened +16bps and the 5/30 slope has steepened +14bps. As a result, our two curve flattener trades have struggled. Our 2/10 Treasury curve flattener has returned -41bps since initiation on September 6. Our 10/30 Treasury curve flattener has returned -25bps since initiation on September 20. Our other tactical trade - short December 2017 Eurodollar - has returned +16bps since initiation on July 12. All three of the above tactical trades are premised on the view that the Fed will deliver a rate hike in December, and that such a rate hike has not yet been fully discounted by the market. At present, we calculate that the market-implied probability of a December rate hike is 62%, as discounted in fed funds futures. The historical pattern suggests the yield curve should bear flatten as the rate hike probability approaches 100%. Unusually, the correlations between both the 2/10 and 10/30 Treasury slopes and the level of Treasury yields have moved into positive (bear-steepening) territory (Chart 7). This is especially unusual for the 10/30 slope, where the correlation has been firmly in negative (bear-flattening) territory since 2013. We continue to recommend holding curve flatteners, and expect both correlations to revert into negative (bear-flattening) territory in advance of a December rate hike, as they did last year. Any surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would only increase the flattening pressure on the curve (bottom panel). So far bullish dollar sentiment has remained relatively flat, but we cannot discount a large increase in the run-up to the next rate hike, as occurred last year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c8 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c8 TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by +112bps in October. The 10-year breakeven rate has increased +8bps since the end of September, and currently sits at 1.68%. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has increased substantially during the past couple months, and has now converged with the fair value reading from our TIPS Financial model (Chart 8). Rising expectations of a Fed rate hike and a flatter Treasury curve will weigh on TIPS during the next month, and we would not be surprised to see breakevens temporarily cease their uptrend as attention turns to Fed hawkishness following today's election. But we also expect that TIPS breakevens will resume their uptrend heading into next year. As we flagged in a recent report,5 the sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation has increased since the financial crisis. We posit that the reason for this increased sensitivity is that the Fed's ability to control long-dated inflation expectations has been impaired by the zero-lower bound on rates. As a result, the trend in breakevens is increasingly taking its cue from the realized inflation data. Realized inflation continues to trend steadily higher (bottom two panels), and diffusion indexes suggest that further gains are ahead (panel 4). Given that breakevens remain well below pre-crisis levels, we intend to remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries and ride out any near-term volatility related to a Fed rate hike. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c9 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c9 Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +10bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +101bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +8bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by +24bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS has tightened -3bps since the end of September and, at 45bps, is considerably below its pre-crisis average (Chart 9). According to our days-to-breakeven measure, there still exists a valuation advantage in Aaa-rated auto ABS relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS, but that advantage is rapidly evaporating (panel 3). We calculate that it will take 12 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated auto ABS to underperform Treasuries on a 6-month horizon and 10 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated credit card ABS to underperform. Moreover, credit card ABS exhibit superior collateral credit quality relative to autos. Credit card charge-offs remain near all-time lows, while the auto net loss rate appears to have bottomed (bottom panel). Further, the Fed's senior loan officer survey shows that auto lending standards have tightened for two consecutive quarters, while credit card lending standards were unchanged in Q3 following 25 consecutive quarters of net easing (panel 4). We recommend investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans within a maximum overweight allocation to consumer ABS. CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c10 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c10 Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date outperformance up to +194bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS has tightened -3bps since the end of September, and remains very close to its pre-crisis average (Chart 10). The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to tighten standards on all classes of commercial real estate (CRE) loans (panel 3). The survey also shows that CRE loan demand continues to increase, though at a less rapid pace than in prior quarters. While CRE prices continue to march higher (bottom panel), tightening lending standards and a rising delinquency rate (panel 4) make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +105bps. Agency CMBS still offer 56bps of option-adjusted spread. This is greater than what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (45bps) and conventional 30-year MBS (19bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend overweight positions in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model Global PMI Model Global PMI Model The current reading from our Global PMI Treasury model places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27% (Chart 11). This model is based on a linear regression of the 10-year Treasury yield on three factors, using a post-financial crisis time interval.6 The three factors are: Global Growth: Measured using the Global Manufacturing PMI (sourced from JP Morgan and Markit) Global Growth Divergences: Proxied by bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar (sourced from Marketvane.net) Economic Uncertainty: Measured using the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (sourced from policyuncertainty.com) The correlation between the global PMI and the 10-year Treasury yield is strongly positive (panel 3). However, improving global growth is offset by any increase in bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. For a given level of global growth any increase in bullish sentiment toward the dollar represents a drag on interest rate expectations. As such, bullish dollar sentiment enters our model with a negative sign (panel 4). The final component of our model - global economic policy uncertainty - captures changes in Treasury yields related to headline risk and "flights to quality". This factor enters our model with a negative sign - more uncertainty correlates with lower bond yields (bottom panel). Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). Using assumptions for the time until the MCI converges with equilibrium and the annual appreciation of the trade-weighted dollar, it is possible to calculate the expected change in the fed funds rate for the cycle. The shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path for the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI reaches equilibrium at the end of 2019. The upper-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c12 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c12 Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c13 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c13 Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For additional details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)