UK

Highlights Trump's failures have helped fuel the bull market; Yet inflation and Trump legislative wins will embolden the Fed; The U.K. will have yet another election by 2019; Dodd-Frank repeal is a no go ... but small banks may get relief; The Tea Party just found its hard constraint ... in Kansas. Feature Investors in South Africa surprised us last week. The first question on everyone's mind was "Will Trump be impeached?" Our answer that impeachment is highly unlikely at least until the midterm elections was received with suspicion.1 The perspective of our South African clients is understandable. Their domestic assets have been underpinned since Trump's election by a phenomenon we like to call "the Trump put." The thesis posits that U.S. politics will remain a mess for much of the year, delaying any progress on populist economic policies that would have buoyed U.S. nominal GDP growth and given the Fed a reason to hike interest rates more aggressively. The result is a weak dollar, lower 10-year Treasury yields, and a rally in global risk assets (Chart 1). Of course, stubbornly weak inflation and disappointing Q1 GDP numbers bear responsibility as well as Trump (Chart 2). Chart 1The 'Trump Put' The 'Trump Put' The 'Trump Put' Chart 2Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market For our South African clients, the fate of President Trump is irrelevant. What matters is that the American political imbroglio continues, reducing the likelihood of a hawkish mistake from the Fed, and thus keeping EM risk assets well bid. The market has generally agreed. Several assets associated with Trump's populist agenda have reversed their gains since the election. The yield curve, small caps, and high tax rate equities have all shown signs of disappointment with the Trump agenda (Chart 3). If the Trump put were to continue, we would expect U.S. bonds and stocks to rally, DXY to continue to face headwinds, and international stocks to outperform U.S. stocks. That said, the proxies for Trump's agenda in Chart 3 are starting to perk up. They may be sniffing out some positive political signs, such as the movement in the Senate on the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The budget reconciliation procedure - a process by which Republicans in Congress intend to avoid the Democrat filibuster in the Senate - requires Obamacare to be resolved before the House and the Senate can take up tax reform.2 If Obamacare clears Congress's calendar by the August recess, the odds of tax reform (or merely tax cuts) being passed by the end of 2017 will rise considerably. Second, former Director of the FBI James Comey's testimony was a non-event. We refused to cover it in these pages as we expected it to be theatre. The market had already digested everything that Comey was going to say, given that he had leaked the juiciest components of his testimony weeks ahead of the event. Chart 3Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Chart 4 Third, President Trump's approval rating with Republican voters remains resilient (Chart 4). If the worst has passed with the Russian collusion investigation - which we expect to be the case now that Comey's testimony has come and gone with little relevance - we could see GOP voters rally around the president. Several clients have pointed out that our measure is less relevant given the decline in voters who identify as Republicans (Chart 5). We disagree. As long as Republican voters vote in Republican primaries, they can act as a constraint on GOP members in Congress who are thinking of abandoning the president's populist agenda. This brings us to the main event: the economy. Our colleague Ryan Swift, who writes BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy, could not care less about the ongoing political drama. As Ryan has argued in a cogent report that we highly recommend to clients, the Fed's median projection for two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the end of the year, and for PCE inflation to reach 1.9% (Chart 6), is not going to happen if inflation continues to disappoint over the summer.3 The market seems to be saying that a PCE of 1.9% is unlikely. Core PCE inflation is running at only 1.54% year-over-year through April, and will probably stay low in May given that year-over-year core CPI fell from 2% in March to 1.89% in April. Chart 5Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Chart 6Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Ryan's Philips Curve model, however, disagrees with the market. The model looks to approximate Chair Yellen's own philosophy for forecasting inflation, which she outlined in a September 2015 speech.4 Specifically, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy models core PCE as a function of: 12-month lag of core PCE; Long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters; Resource utilization; Non-oil import prices relative to overall core PCE. BCA's core PCE model is sending a strong signal that the market's inflation expectations are overly pessimistic (Chart 7). Even after stressing the model under several adverse scenarios, Ryan concludes that it is very likely that core PCE inflation will indeed approach the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year-end. The U.S. economy is quickly running out of slack, with unemployment at a 16-year low of 4.3%. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally attached workers and those in part-time employment purely for economic reasons, has dropped to its pre-recession print of 8.4% (Chart 8). Chart 7Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Chart 8U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack Wages are also rising, with the underlying trend in wage growth having accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 9). The acceleration has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 10). Chart 9Wages Heating Up Wages Heating Up Wages Heating Up Chart 10Wage Improvements Broad-Based Wage Improvements Broad-Based Wage Improvements Broad-Based BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, therefore expects the Fed to raise rates in line with its own expectations. In fact, the Fed could expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later in the year.5 It will be difficult for the Fed to ignore macroeconomic data, even if, from a political perspective, the Trump put continues. The analogy we use with clients in meetings is that of the U.S. economy as a camp fire around which the various market participants - bond and equity investors, foreign and domestic, etc. - are huddled. According to our sister publications that conduct macroeconomic research, that campfire is well lit. And according to our political research, "Uncle Donny" had a few too many drinks and is about to pour some bourbon on the fire to show the kids a good time. Chart 11Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures For the Trump put to continue, we would have to see a combination of the following: GOP voters begin to abandon President Trump; Congress remains embroiled in Obamacare debates through FY2017, only seriously picking up on tax reform and other agenda items in FY2018. Greater doubts would undermine the recent uptick in assets tied to Trump's policy agenda (Chart 11). Impeachment concerns heat up again due to new revelations that implicate President Trump directly. So far impeachment talk has not correlated with the rally in Treasuries but it could do so if new evidence comes to light. Perhaps Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and special counsel investigating Russia's role in the election, will drop another bombshell later this year. In addition, for the Trump put to continue our colleagues Ryan and Peter would have to be wrong about the economy and inflation. For investors interested in playing the Trump put, and allocating funds to EM assets in particular, we would caution against it. However, given that BCA's bond and FX views have been challenged over the past several months by the Trump put, we understand why many of our clients are itching to chase the global asset rally. The summer months will be critical. Does Brexit Still Mean Brexit? We posited last week that the extraordinary election in the U.K. was about austerity and, more importantly, about repudiating the Conservative Party's fiscal policies.6 This remains our view. The most investment-relevant message to take from the election is that U.K. fiscal policy will become easier over the life of the coalition government, while monetary policy remains stuck in D - for dovish. This should weigh on the pound over the course of the year. That said, investors will begin to wonder about the longevity of the coalition between the U.K. Conservative Party and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In practice the coalition will have only a five-seat majority, which would be tied for the second-smallest margin since Harold Wilson in 1964 (Chart 12). Technically it is an even smaller one-seat majority. U.K. governments with a majority of fewer than ten seats are rare and usually only last one-to-two years (Harold Wilson's four-seat 1974-79 run is an exception). This bodes ill for May's government - that is, if she survives today's brewing leadership challenge from within her party. Chart 12 We have no idea if the election means a softer Brexit as we have no idea - and neither does anyone else - what that means. Generally speaking, the wafer-thin majority for the Tories means the following: "No deal is better than a bad deal" is no longer going to be acceptable to the government or the public; London will end up paying a larger "exit fee" than it probably thinks it will; There will be no favorable deal for the U.K.'s financial industry. In essence, the U.K. clearly has the weaker hand in the upcoming negotiations. Cheers went up in Brussels. Does this change anything? First, we never bought the argument that the U.K. had a strong negotiating position because continental Europeans want to export BMWs to consumers in Britain. The EU is a far bigger market for the U.K. than the U.K. is for the EU (Chart 13). On this measure alone, the U.K. was always going to be the underdog in the negotiations. Chart 13The U.K. Lacks Leverage The U.K. Lacks Leverage The U.K. Lacks Leverage Chart 14 Second, the influence of Tory Euroskeptics has been reduced. That might appear counterintuitive, given that May wanted to reduce their influence by getting a bigger majority. However, it is highly unlikely that she will get the ultimate EU deal through Westminster, with a five-seat majority, without at least some votes from the opposition. Euroskeptics will therefore either remain quiet and compliant or force May to seek a deal that Labour MPs could agree to. Which brings us to the very likely scenario that the final deal will not pass Westminster without a new election. As we argued right after the referendum, the U.K. will likely have a "Brexit election" sometime in 2019.7 There is no way around it now. At very least the ruling alliance will face a contradiction in trying to soften Brexit while maintaining a strict stance on immigration. And given the weak majority, if Labour does not play ball, the Tories will have to call a new election on the basis of the deal they conclude. Chart 15 The good news for the Conservative Party is that the polls continue to show that a majority of U.K. voters support Brexit (Chart 14). Furthermore, the two Brexit-lite campaign promises by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were the least preferred policies ahead of the election (Chart 15, see next page). However, the election also saw a complete collapse in support for Euroskeptic-leaning parties, in terms of share of the overall vote (Chart 16). Could Brexit ultimately be reversed? Certainly the odds have risen. Furthermore, there does appear to be some regret amongst U.K. voters, with a recent survey showing a decline in national identification: now more Britons identify as "also European" than ever (Chart 17). Nonetheless, a full reversal of Brexit will still require an exogenous shock, such as a recession or a geopolitical calamity that convinces the U.K. that they need Europe. Investors should remain vigilant of the polls. A clear trend reversal in Chart 14 would constitute a political opportunity for the opposition parties to campaign on a new referendum. Chart 16Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Chart 17 Bottom Line: Odds of a softer Brexit have certainly risen as the Tories face considerable domestic constraints in their negotiating strategy with the EU. We continue to believe that the negotiations will not be acrimonious and therefore the pound will not fall below its lows on January 16. However, it may re-test that 1.2 level due to a coming mix of easy fiscal and monetary policy over the course of the year. U.S.: Doing A Number On Dodd-Frank Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff, Than an ambulance down in the valley! - Joseph Malins, "The Fence or the Ambulance," 1895 The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 by a vote of 233-186 on June 8. This is the GOP's second major attempt, after the Affordable Care Act, to rewrite a signature law of President Obama's administration. This time it is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, known simply as "Dodd-Frank," that is on the docket. The bill's prospects in the Senate are dim. President Trump promised to "do a number" on Dodd-Frank shortly after coming into office, by which he meant dismantling the law. The so-called "CHOICE Act" put forward by Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) now goes to the Senate, where it faces a high hurdle because Democrats can filibuster it, forcing the GOP to summon 60 votes. So the question is what kind of a "number" can the GOP actually do to Dodd-Frank, and does it matter? First a little bit of background.8 Dodd-Frank cleared Congress in the wake of the subprime financial crisis, July 2010. It had both a quixotic and a more pragmatic aim: the first to reduce the likelihood of future financial crises, and the second to improve the ability of regulators to stem risks as they emerge. The law has never been fully implemented and is best understood as a work in progress. The law grants the Federal Reserve and other agencies greater powers of oversight, prevention, and crisis management. In particular it ensures that the Fed would regulate not only banks but also non-bank investment companies and other financial firms (such as the giant insurance company AIG that had to be bailed out at the height of the crisis). It also frees the Fed of the responsibility to rescue failing institutions or dismantle them, handing those duties over to others, while still enabling the Fed to act as lender of last resort. The key provisions are as follows: Impose tougher capital standards: In keeping with the international Basel III banking reforms,9 Dodd-Frank tried to ensure that banks were better fortified against liquidity shortages in future. The new standards would apply both to domestic banks and foreign banks with American subsidiaries. Orderly Liquidation Authority: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a major institution born amidst the Great Depression, would take over the responsibility of liquidating failing firms in the event of a crisis - assuming Treasury's go-ahead due to the systemic importance of the failing firm. Additional measures would hold the entire financial sector responsible for the bill if the FDIC made losses in the process. Each firm would have to maintain a "living will" to make the resolution process easier in the event of disaster. A new Financial Stability Oversight Council: Chaired by the Treasury Secretary and consisting of the various financial regulatory bodies, this council would identify systemically important financial companies, monitor them, and take actions to prevent crises. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the anti-Wall Street firebrand, the bureau would be funded by the Fed but otherwise entirely independent of it, and tasked with patrolling the banks on behalf of consumers. The Volcker Rule: The rule, named after former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, would force banks to curtail a number of short-term, high-risk trading activities on their own accounts, including derivatives, futures, and options, unless to hedge risks or serve bank customers. This was viewed as a partial reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall law, a Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking but was repealed by President Clinton in 1999. Republicans want to overturn Dodd-Frank to increase financial sector profits, credit growth, economic growth, and animal spirits. Lending has arguably suffered as a result of the new regulations (Chart 18). The share of bank loans to overall bank credit has remained subdued, reflecting bank behavior under QE and possibly also risk-aversion under tighter regulation (Chart 19). Chart 18Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Chart 19Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Republicans would also satisfy an ideological goal of reducing state involvement, which grew as a result of the law. In addition, the CBO estimates that the proposed rewrite would cut the budget deficit by a net $22.3 billion over a ten-year period.10 A very small amount, but again in line with GOP's political bent. The way the CHOICE Act would work is to create an "escape hatch" that would allow banks that maintain capital-to-asset ratio of over 10% to bypass Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial companies that do not meet the 10% leverage ratio could either raise funds or remain subject to Dodd-Frank oversight, including required capital ratios, stress tests, living wills, and other regulations. Critically, the 10% leverage ratio for those banks that opt out of Dodd-Frank would not be calculated using risk-weightings for different assets (whereas Dodd-Frank requires both risk-weighted and non-risk-weighted capital ratios to be maintained). Therefore, banks that opt out would be able to take on greater risk while still fulfilling minimum capital requirements. This is supposed to boost lending, earnings, and growth. About 70% of the $18 trillion in U.S. banking assets belongs to banks defined by Dodd-Frank as "systemically important." The eight U.S. banks defined as "globally systemic important banks" account for about $9 trillion in assets and are unlikely to take advantage of the Republicans' escape hatch because they would then have to raise new capital and yet would still be subject to international Basel III regulations even if exempted from Dodd-Frank. The CBO estimates that banks holding about 2% of the bank assets held by systemically important banks (i.e. $252 billion) would opt out of Dodd-Frank (Chart 20). Chart 20 Further, the CBO estimates that, among non-systemically important banks (30% of $18 trillion total banking assets), the banks that both meet the 10% leverage ratio and would opt out of Dodd-Frank account for about 7% of U.S. banking assets ($1.26 trillion) (see Chart 20 above). Community banks (with assets under $10 billion each) and credit unions are especially likely to do so. Therefore, if the Republican bill were to become law, banks comprising something like $1.5 trillion in U.S. banking assets would become less restricted and eligible to adopt riskier trading practices free of Dodd-Frank policing. The greatest impact will be in areas with a higher concentration of small banks and credit unions than elsewhere. These U.S. banks would also, arguably, become more likely to take excessive risks and fail at some future point. Using probabilistic models for bank failures, the CBO found that the U.S.'s Deposit Insurance Fund would only suffer an additional $600 million in losses over the next ten years as a result of this increase in risk. It is a credible estimate but the reality could be far costlier if more and more banks gain the ability to bypass regulation or if banks significantly change their behavior to take advantage of the regulatory loophole. Other aspects of the bill would: Repeal the FDIC's orderly liquidation fund: The private sector would largely take over the responsibility for managing liquidations. The CBO estimates that the federal government would save an estimated $14.5 billion in liquidation costs over ten years. Eliminate the Volcker Rule: Banks would be able to trade riskier assets on their own accounts and forge closer relationships with private equity and hedge funds. Audit the Fed: Within one year of passage, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would audit the Fed's board of governors and the Federal Reserve regional banks, including their handling of monetary policy. The Fed's open market committee (FOMC) would also have to establish a new interest rate target, based on economic parameters, which the GAO would monitor. Reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Board: The agency would have its powers neutered and funding dependent on the Congress, rather than transfers from the Fed. It would be re-branded as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency and have its power to oversee institutions with more than $10 billion in assets taken away, making it, in effect, a monitor of small banks only. Cut penalties for violating regulations: However, outright criminality would be punished more severely. Various authorities and institutions would be tweaked, mostly in accordance with the general aim of reducing regulatory burdens on the financial sector. So, what options do the Republicans have going forward?11 Republicans either need 60 votes to defeat a Senate filibuster or they need procedural work-arounds like budget reconciliation. Chart 21Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Some Republicans claim that certain elements of the rewrite can be tucked into a reconciliation bill. However, reconciliation requires a single, concentrated policy focus. The GOP is currently undertaking an unprecedented two budget reconciliation bills in a single year: first, the FY2017 reconciliation procedure to repeal Obamacare, and second, the FY2018 procedure to cut taxes. Rewriting Dodd-Frank is a far cry from either health care or tax reform. Dodd-Frank measures crammed into either of these bills would likely be revoked under the so-called "Byrd Rule" which keeps the reconciliation process focused and excludes extraneous material.12 So it is unlikely that this method will work. The FY2018 budget resolution will be a critical signpost. Second, it is hard to see how a bipartisan rewrite of Dodd-Frank is possible. Dodd-Frank was the Democrats' signature response to the subprime mortgage debacle and broader financial crisis. They will not participate in dismantling it. We cannot see eight Democrats joining Republicans in the Senate for what Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has called "collective amnesia." However, there is one general principle that could find its way into law: the idea of giving small, regional banks a reprieve from Dodd-Frank requirements. Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has tentatively supported giving these banks a break.13 These banks, with under $10 billion in assets, face the most difficulty in meeting Dodd-Frank's requirements and yet tend to meet the 10% leverage ratio. Politicians could at least attempt to make a popular argument for easing the burden on small community banks and credit unions, which are often vital to local communities. The same cannot be said for the Dodd-Frank rewrite as a whole, which smacks of granting impunity to Wall Street. Still, we think that even a bill focused exclusively on helping small banks would have trouble passing on its own. The legislative agenda is too busy in 2017; while 2018 will see midterm elections, when few candidates will want to appear soft on Wall Street. Instead, a provision helping small banks could pass if tacked onto the larger budget bill or bills for FY2018, if not later. It would have to be made palatable to Democrats, or else it would be perceived as a "poison pill" and risk adding to the numerous risks of government shutdown over the budget this fall. Other than these legislative options, the Trump administration can ease regulation, or relax enforcement, through executive action, as it has already promised to do. Assuming America's financial sector will get a reprieve, investors could capitalize on it by favoring small U.S. bank equities over large bank equities. The share price of small banks relative to large banks, which rallied in the aftermath of Trump's election only to fall back in the subsequent months, has recently perked up (Chart 21). Relative earnings have been flat over the same period. If Dodd-Frank is partially watered down, these banks should see earnings improve, which should drive up their share prices. Our colleagues at BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy are positive on global bank equities, particularly European and American ones. The latter are still relatively affordable as they undertake the long trek of recovery after a once-in-a-generation crisis (Chart 22). U.S. banks have notably better fundamentals than peers in Europe and Japan - more capital, higher net interest margins, lower or equal NPL ratios. They also stand to benefit from relatively faster rising interest rates (Chart 23).14 Chart 22The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery Chart 23U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally In addition, the FiscalNote Financial Sector Index suggests that the flow of legislative and regulatory proposals has been steadily getting less onerous on the financial sector.15 Chart 24 is an aggregation of the favorability scores - which assess whether the bill is likely to be favorable or unfavorable to the sector - for all U.S. Congressional legislation that is determined to be relevant to the financial sector since 2006. It provides a snapshot of the regulatory environment for the financial sector at any given point in time. Chart 24Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Risks to the view? Republicans could somehow squeeze a broader Dodd-Frank rewrite through the budget reconciliation process. We think the probability of this is less than 10%. Financially, this would deliver a bigger jolt to the financial sector, and financial stocks, than currently expected. But it would still benefit small banks more than large ones. Politically, a full repeal could add to Republican woes in 2018 - particularly if it is their only legislative achievement. It may well be political suicide to contest the 2018 midterm election on two pieces of legislation: one that denies millions of Americans health insurance and another that favors Wall Street. A full rewrite would also probably increase systemic financial risks. Even deregulation just for the small banks would do so. Lawmakers, focused on restraining the "too big to fail" giants, could end up clearing the way for excesses among the pygmies. That said, excessive regulation can also fuel shadow banking, a risk in itself. And the next crisis may well emanate from somewhere other than the financial sector. Bottom Line: Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits even for Republicans in an environment of populism. However, a bill focused on lightening the regulatory load on small banks has a chance of passing if tacked onto the budget process. Large banks would remain subject to closer scrutiny and stricter international standards. The Trump election rally for bank stocks has mostly fallen back. Now is an opportunity to favor small banks versus large ones on expectations of Trump getting tax cuts passed and regulatory easing of some kind. Kansas: Where Seldom Is Heard A Discouraging Word A chill went through the Tea Party's collective spine on June 6 when two-thirds of the GOP-controlled Kansas legislature overrode the veto of GOP Governor Sam Brownback to repeal a 2012 budget law that slashed taxes on income, small business, and retail sales. You heard that right: Republicans in one of America's reddest states just overrode their leader in order to increase taxes. And it was the largest tax hike in state history. We will spare our readers the nitty-gritty details of the Brownback saga. Suffice it to say that the Tea Party-friendly Kansas legislature slashed state taxes and spending under Brownback's leadership in May 2012. Brownback called it a "real live experiment" of conservative economic principles and argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster growth. Art Laffer, of "Laffer Curve" fame, allegedly consulted on these measures via the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The medicine proved more dangerous than the illness. Since 2012, the state has burned through a budget surplus and growth has slowed (Chart 25). Both Moody's and S&P downgraded Kansas debt. Employment gains have lagged those of neighboring states. Beginning in October 2013, Brownback began to slip in public opinion polls (Chart 26). Cuts to core government services, especially education, caused a tide of criticism. In an extraordinary development, a hundred establishment Republicans supported his Democratic opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial election. He won by a margin of 3.7% but soon afterwards fell out of favor with the public. Chart 25 Chart 26 A series of confrontations with the Kansas Supreme Court hastened his decline, mostly over education funding, which is guaranteed by the state constitution. Brownback, the legislature, and various activist groups attempted to strong-arm the courts, including by ousting four members of the Supreme Court in the 2016 elections. All four retained their posts. The new budget law raises $1.2 billion in income taxes over two years by revoking swathes of the 2012 law, particularly the income tax exemption for business owners and professionals. Brownback duly vetoed the legislation and was promptly overridden by two-thirds of a legislature that is 70% Republican. This is a remarkable event for a state as ideologically conservative as Kansas. What does it mean nationally? There are two reasons that the Kansas experiment will have a limited impact on Republican thinking nationally: Kansas has a balanced budget law (Section 75-3722), while D.C. does not ... and this helped increase the pressure on the administration; Brownback is the least popular governor of any governor in the United States (Chart 27). The blame for the whole fiasco may fall on him personally, distracting from the policy failure. Chart 27 Nevertheless, we think Kansas has set the high-water mark for an aggressive Tea Party agenda in the U.S. that focuses on fiscal conservativism to the exclusion of everything else. Republicans will take note that even as conservative of a state as Kansas has a limit when it comes to spending cuts. It was the cuts to education - which resulted in shorter schoolyears in some districts, and various other disruptions - that fatally wounded Brownback's public standing. Thus public demand for core services is a real constraint on the extent to which taxes can be slashed. Bottom Line: We expect the Trump administration to go forward with tax cuts. But we also think that Trump will get far less in spending cuts than his budget proposals pretend. As such, we expect the GOP tax reform agenda to blow out the budget deficit, a path that Kansas could not legally (or politically) take. This will be the path of least resistance for Congressional Republicans who want to slash taxes yet fear they may not survive the spending cuts necessary to pay for them.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Janet L. Yellen, "Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy," Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 24, 2015, available at www.federalreserve.gov. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit - Next Steps," dated July 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We are particularly indebted to Ben S. Bernanke's account in The Courage To Act: A Memoir Of A Crisis And Its Aftermath (New York: Norton, 2015), pp. 435-66. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Preparing For Basel III: Who Will Win, Who Will Lose?" dated September 12, 2011, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 10, Financial CHOICE Act of 2017," CBO Cost Estimate, May 18, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 11 The Republicans managed to repeal one aspect of Dodd-Frank with a simple majority via the Congressional Review Act, an option that is now closed. U.S. oil, gas, and mineral companies can now be somewhat less transparent about payments made to foreign governments to gain access to resources. Proponents claim U.S. resource companies will gain competitiveness; opponents claim corruption will increase, particularly in foreign countries. 12 Please see Bill Heniff Jr., "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's 'Byrd Rule,'" Congressional Research Service, November 22, 2016, available at fas.org. 13 Please see Yellen's February testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, e.g. "Yellen Wants To Ease Regulations For Small Banks," Associated Press, February 14, 2017, available at www.usnews.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Girding For A Breakout," dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com, and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Breakout," dated May 5, 2017, and "Wind Of Change," dated November 11, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 15 The FiscalNote Policy Index measures regulatory risk daily for sectors, industries, and individual companies from every legislative and regulatory proposal. Using proprietary machine-learning-enabled natural language processing algorithms, FiscalNote ingests and processes thousands of legislative and regulatory policy events, scoring each for relevance, favorability, and importance to affected sectors. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The current economic and profit environment supports our stance of favoring stocks over bonds. The Fed will need to see more evidence to alter its gradual path for rates. Although valuations remain elevated, they are not a great market timing tool. Margins are expanding according to the S&P 500 data, and we expect this to continue in the second half of the year. But a peak in margins next year could be the justification to scale back on overweight positions in stocks, in anticipation of slower EPS growth. Corporate balance sheets continued to deteriorate in the first quarter, but that is not enough to warrant cutting back on corporate bond positions within fixed-income portfolios. Watch real short-term rates and bank C&I lending standards, as an exit warning. Feature Environment Remains Supportive For Stocks Over Bonds Investors are wondering whether the equity and currency/bond markets are living on different planets. The dollar and Treasurys seem to be priced for sluggish economic growth, less inflation and no fiscal stimulus. Yet, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. Many believe that the only reason that stocks got to this level in the first place is the prospect of tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending. If true, then it is only a matter of time before equity investors capitulate. We look at it another way. Yes, equities initially received a boost following the U.S. election on hopes for tax reform. But indicators such as the ratio of small-to-large-cap stocks, or high-tax companies relative to the S&P 500, suggest that the stock market has priced out all chances of any tax reform. The overall stock market has performed well despite this because of the favorable profit backdrop. The fact that Corporate America can generate such profits despite a lackluster economy is impressive. Moreover, the recent softening in inflation has led many to believe that the Fed can proceed even more slowly than the market previously believed, leading to a bond rally. This is quite a bullish backdrop for equities. One does not have to conclude that the bond and stock markets are living on different planets. The backdrop is also positive for corporate bonds versus Treasurys, despite the fact that corporate health continues to deteriorate (see below). Turning to politics, the political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The outcome of the election does not change our core views on the U.S. dollar, equity or bond markets. The dollar has rallied, Treasury yields are higher and U.S. equity prices moved up as this report was being prepared on Friday, June 9. Looking ahead, the coalition-building process in the U.K. will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds. Nonetheless, our high conviction view is that the investment implications are in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. A key takeaway for investors is that, aside from Brexit, domestic fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Moreover, the Brexit process will continue, albeit of a potentially more "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal.1 Will They Or Won't They? A 25-basis point rate hike is likely this week, but the FOMC will need more evidence on the direction of inflation and the economy before significantly changing the timing and pace of rate hikes or economic forecasts. The market is fully pricing in the anticipated 25-basis point rate bump, but beyond that, there is not much agreement between the Fed and the market on interest rates or economic projections. Nonetheless, as the Fed prepares its June forecast and dot plots, policymakers and the market are on the same page in terms of the labor market, inflation, and the economy in the next few years. The unemployment rate (4.3% in May 2017) is below the Fed's forecasts for 2017 (4.5%) and longer run (4.7%). The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate keeps it below the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 1, panel 3). Even assuming that the 120,000 pace of job growth in the past three months persists, the unemployment rate would remain below the Fed's view of NAIRU (Chart 2). Our unemployment rate projections are based on a stable labor force participation rate and a 1% gain in the working age population. Chart 1Fed, Market And Reality##BR##Not Too Far Apart Fed, Market And Reality Not Too Far Apart Fed, Market And Reality Not Too Far Apart Chart 2The Unemployment Rate##BR##Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios The Unemployment Rate Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios The Unemployment Rate Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios However, a closer look at what policymakers have said about prices and the trajectory of inflation in recent years suggests that the market and the Fed are not that far apart. At +1.7% in April, the PCE deflator remains near the FOMC's projection of 1.9% for this year and 2.0% in the long run. Bloomberg consensus estimates for inflation for this year and next are above the top end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 1, panel 2). The FOMC's May minutes state that "participants generally continued to expect that inflation would stabilize around the Committee's two percent objective over the medium run as the effects of transitory factors waned." The market is still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with the economy below the Fed's estimate of full employment. We will discuss the Phillips curve in a post-GFC world in an upcoming edition of The Bank Credit Analyst. As we discussed in last week's report,2 GDP growth in 2017 is on track to exceed the Fed's 2017 target (2.1%) and is already running ahead of the Fed's GDP projection (1.8%) for the long term. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is at the upper end of the Fed's range set in March (Chart 1, panel 1). Despite the general agreement between the Fed and the market on certain aspects, they diverge on the outlook for the fed funds rate in the next 18 months (Chart 3). As of June 9, the Fed sees a total of six quarter-point rate hikes by the end of 2018. The market sees just two in the same period. The Fed and market are still far apart on rates in 2019. However, the disconnect between the Fed and the market is not as large as it was in early 2015. This disagreement was a major factor in the equity market pullback in the first few months of 2016 (Chart 3). Neither the recent weakness in the economic data nor softer-than-expected inflation readings will be enough to prompt a significant shift from the Fed in terms of the 'dot plot'. The economic surprise index has been declining for 63 days since peaking in early- to mid-March, but remains consistent with slow growth, not a recession. Economic data tends to disappoint for an average of 90 days after the economic surprise index is above 40, as it was in late 2016/early 2017 in the wake of the U.S. election (Chart 4). Chart 3Disconnect Between Fed##BR##And Market On Rates Disconnect Between Fed And Market On Rates Disconnect Between Fed And Market On Rates Chart 4Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over##BR##Since Early To Mid March Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over Since Early To Mid March Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over Since Early To Mid March Bottom Line: It would take a significant deterioration in the economy and labor market and in the benign inflation environment to alter the Fed's gradual rate hike plan. A backdrop of gradual hikes and eventually, a smaller balance sheet, will continue to foster the conditions under which stocks have outperformed bonds since 2009. We believe that the recent Treasury rally is overdone because the market has gone too far in revising down the path of Fed rate hikes. A re-evaluation of the outlook could see bond yields jump, sparking a small equity correction. This is not enough of a risk to scale back on equities versus bonds. Valuations, Earnings And Margins: An Update U.S. equities remain overvalued and would be even more extended if not for low rates. However, they are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasurys. Valuation is not a great tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we don't foresee a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond our tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Our BCA valuation indicator has deteriorated since we last published it in March 2017 and shows that U.S. equities remain expensive.3 Individually, two of the three components of the Valuation index remain in overvalued territory. The Earnings Group remains at a record high (aside from the tech bubble). The Balance Sheet group shows the same profile. Only the Yield Group, which compares stock prices with various nominal and real interest rates, suggests that equities are undervalued. Thus, U.S. stock prices are vulnerable to a sharp jump in rates, which supports our view that U.S. equity markets will perform well in an economic and inflation backdrop that allows the Fed to raise interest rates and unwind its balance sheet gradually (Chart 5). While tax cuts and infrastructure spending might provide the equity market with a "sugar high", it probably would not last long because fiscal stimulus would bring forward Fed rate hikes. Moreover, Chart 6 shows that U.S. stocks remain favorably priced relative to competing assets such as corporate bonds, Treasurys and residential housing. That said, equity valuation measures such as price-to-book or price-to-sales make the market vulnerable to shocks. Chart 5U.S. Stocks##BR##Are Overvalued... U.S. Stocks Are Overvalued... U.S. Stocks Are Overvalued... Chart 6Stocks Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Stocks Look Less Expensive Relative To Competing Assets Inflated valuations alone are not enough to trigger a bear market or even a significant correction in U.S. equities. Outside of aggressive Fed tightening, we will become more defensive when profits come under pressure. On this score, the decline in Q4 profits according to the NIPA data is concerning. We are in a period where margins based on the NIPA data are diverging from the S&P's measure. Like corporate earnings, there is more than one data source for profit margin data, and the data itself is a mix of art and science. In the long run, the S&P-based margin data and the data derived from the NIPA accounts tend to move together. Over shorter time horizons, however, these two metrics may diverge. The NIPA margins peaked in 2014 and have moved steadily lower since then, but the BEA-derived profit data are not closely watched by investors and are subject to significant revision. On the other hand, margins based on S&P data are followed closely by the markets, are not subject to revision and have been moving higher since end of 2015. In the past 55 years, the peak in NIPA margins has often led the S&P data at peaks; the caveat is that it is unclear whether the NIPA data led in real time because of the endless revision process for GDP and profit data.4 The margin series based on S&P data tends to lead heading into margin troughs, but it is not a reliable signal. During the long economic expansion in the 1960s, both indicators topped out around the same time (1966-67). The NIPA derived margins peaked in 1975 as the S&P margins troughed, and later in the decade, the zenith in NIPA margins peaked three years before the S&P version. Similar to the current decade the long expansion in the 1980s saw a mid-decade collapse in oil prices and margins. In the late 80s, NIPA and S&P measures peaked almost simultaneously, which was three years before the crest in equity prices. The 1990s saw unabated margin expansion through 1997 for NIPA margins; the expansion in S&P-based margins lasted until 1999 (Chart 7). Chart 7Margins, Like Profits Are Mix Of Art & Science Margins, Like Profits, Are Mix Of Art & Science Margins, Like Profits, Are Mix Of Art & Science History also shows that falling margins do not always mean declining EPS growth. In the past 40 years, when the U.S. economy was not in recession, corporate EPS growth was very high on average when margins rose. It was mostly a wash when margins dropped, with slightly negative EPS growth on average. There were two episodes (late-1990s and mid-2000s) when margins fell, but EPS growth was strongly positive (Chart 8). The stock market can also rise significantly even after margins peak for the cycle. Chart 8EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract According to S&P data we are in a phase of climbing margins and we expect EPS growth to further accelerate into year end, peaking at just under 20%, before moderating in 2018. If profit growth decelerates in 2018 and the S&P measure of margins begins to narrow again, it would send a strong signal to trim exposure, especially given lofty equity valuations (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Bottom Line: Rich valuations in U.S. equities will be overlooked as most investors are focused on the S&P and not the NIPA margins. EPS growth will decelerate sharply when margins resume their mean reversion, which could be the catalyst for a major correction or bear market in stock prices. We do not expect this scenario to play out until 2018 at the earliest. Meanwhile, rising margins and profits trump expensive multiples for U.S. equities. Stay long. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Last week's U.S. Flow of Funds release allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart 10). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." The deterioration in the Monitor over the past few years is largely reflected in the profit-related components of the CHM, including the return on capital, cash flow coverage and free cash flow-to-total debt. Chart 10Deteriorating Since 2015, But... Deteriorating Since 2015, But... Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and most reliable indicators in BCA's stable of indicators. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. A blowout requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to rise, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist usually occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. Even now, inflationary pressures are so muted that the Fed can proceed quite slowly. It will be some time before real short-term interest rates are in restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. As an aside, recent weakness in the growth rate of C&I loans has contributed to concerns over the health of the U.S. recovery. However, the easing in lending standards this year points to an imminent rebound in C&I loan growth (Chart 11). Our model for C&I loans, based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate, supports this view. Chart 11C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart 12 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, has eased on a 4-quarter moving average basis (although it ticked up in Q1 on a 2-quarter basis; Chart 13). As a result, ratings migration has improved (i.e. easing net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The moderating appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart 12Still Some Value In##BR##High-Yield Corporates Still Some Value In High-Yield Corporates Still Some Value In High-Yield Corporates Chart 13Net Transfers To Shareholders##BR##Eased In Past Two Quarters Net Transfers To Shareholders Eased In Past Two Quarters Net Transfers To Shareholders Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle, for reasons we outlined in the April 17, 2017 Weekly Report. In a nutshell, value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Bottom Line: Corporate balance sheets are still deteriorating but risk assets, including corporate bonds, should continue to outperform Treasurys and cash in the near term. We will look to downgrade risk assets when core inflation moves closer to the Fed's 2% target, which would trigger a more aggressive FOMC tightening campaign and tighter bank lending standards. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken, published on June 9, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?" June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks", dated March 13, 2017 available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth, Inflation and the Fed", May 8, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. Chart 3 In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. Chart 3 In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights 'Super Thursday' June 8 brings three potentially high-impact events for financial markets: a U.K. General Election; a ECB monetary policy meeting; and former FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the U.S. Senate intelligence committee. Each of these events has the potential to move markets - especially currencies - abruptly in either direction. Medium-term investors should use Super Thursday and its aftermath as follows: If the pound sells off, use it to buy pound/dollar. If the euro sells off, use it to buy both euro/pound and euro/dollar. Use any associated underperformance of FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 to buy this relative equity position. Feature Traders will be salivating at the prospect of three potentially high-impact events for financial markets in the space of a day: a U.K. General Election; a ECB monetary policy meeting; and former FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the U.S. Senate intelligence committee about possible collusion between the campaign of President Donald Trump and Russian officials. This report will focus on the first two of these 'Super Thursday' events. Chart of the WeekRelative Interest Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Relative Interest Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance Relative Interest Expectations Must Follow Relative Economic Performance 300-340 Conservative Seats = Short-Term Pain For The Pound Chart I-2The Pound Is Where It Was When##br## The Election Was Called The Pound Is Where It Was When The Election Was Called The Pound Is Where It Was When The Election Was Called The U.K. General Election result has the potential to move the pound abruptly in either direction. Therefore, it also has the potential to drive FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 relative performance which is just an inverse currency play. But treat the U.K. election result as a trading opportunity rather than as a game changer for any investment position. Theresa May admits that she called the snap election to strengthen her narrow parliamentary majority ahead of Brexit negotiations. When she called the election, the Conservatives were riding high in the polls, and markets expected May easily to achieve her aim. Reasoning that a much strengthened majority would reduce the influence of the hard Brexiters in her party, the pound rallied (Chart I-2). But as the polls have tightened, it has given back this gain. If the number of Conservative seats does not meaningfully move up from the current 330, or worse, if the result increases uncertainty, the pound is vulnerable to a further snap sell-off. A parliamentary majority requires 326 MPs, but around 320 is enough for an effective majority because Sinn Fein MPs,1 the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote. 315 might just scrape a Conservative minority government supported by its Northern Ireland Unionist allies. Hence, if the Conservatives win 300-340 seats, a knee-jerk sell-off in the pound is likely. Chart I-3The Brexit Vote Depressed The Pound Because##br## It Depressed U.K. Interest Rate Expectations The Brexit Vote Depressed The Pound Because It Depressed U.K. Interest Rate Expectations The Brexit Vote Depressed The Pound Because It Depressed U.K. Interest Rate Expectations If the Conservatives win well above 340 seats, the pound should knee-jerk rally - as May's effective majority would strengthen enough to marginalize the hard Brexiters. If the Conservatives win well below 300 seats, the pound might also settle higher - as this is the territory of a Labour minority government supported by the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats, and thereby a softer Brexit. But any major moves in the pound after the election will prove to be transient, because the over-arching driver of currencies is the interplay of interest rate expectations. Chart I-3 illustrates that last year's Brexit vote depressed the pound because the shock outcome precipitated a base rate cut and depressed expectations for Bank of England interest rate policy. In contrast to the Brexit vote, the General Election result per se will not have a lasting impact on the pound because it is unlikely to change the interest rate setting calculus for the BoE relative to other central banks. The BoE has been one of the most inert central banks when it comes to changing interest rates in either direction. Last year's emergency rate cut, forced by the shock vote for Brexit, has been the BoE's only policy rate move in 8 years! We expect the BoE to continue with its policy rate inertia because U.K. real consumption is highly correlated (inversely) to inflation. When inflation is too high, real consumption is undermined, making it difficult to hike rates; when inflation is too low, real consumption tends to grow strongly, making it difficult to cut rates (Chart I-4). This mirror image performance of inflation and real consumption has tied the hands of the BoE for 8 years, and will continue to do so. Chart I-4Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied Why The Bank Of England's Hands Are Tied With the BoE's hands tied, relative interest rate expectations - and therefore the medium-term direction of the pound - will depend on the other central bank in the respective cross rate. Which brings us neatly to the ECB. The ECB Must Follow The Hard Data Years of extreme and experimental central bank intervention have left markets hyper-sensitive to the slightest change of nuance in central bank communication. We have now come to a ridiculous state of affairs where reducing two instances of the sentence "the balance of risks remain tilted to the downside" in the March 9 ECB press conference introductory statement to just one instance in the April 27 statement is regarded as de facto monetary tightening! The slightest change of nuance in central bank communication can powerfully drive markets over a timeframe of a few weeks or months. As Peter Praet, the ECB Chief Economist, warns: "After a prolonged period of exceptional monetary policy accommodation, financial markets are particularly sensitive to any perceived change in the future course of monetary policy. (Therefore) any substantial change in communication needs to be motivated by some more evidence in the hard data." On this basis, we expect the ECB to acknowledge the hard data showing euro area growth is solid and broad, and downside risks are diminishing; but that the required upward adjustment in inflation remains sluggish. For euro/dollar, a mixed message such as this might create a near-term setback of around 2%, given that it has rallied strongly in the past 65 days and is now technically overbought (see page 8). We would regard a 2% setback for the euro as a medium-term buying opportunity. As Peter Praet points out, central banks' data-dependency means that policy must follow the hard data over a timeframe of six months or longer. The Chart of the Week, Chart I-5 and Chart I-6 should make this crystal clear. Relative interest rate expectations and bond yield spreads ultimately follow relative economic performance. Chart I-5Bond Yield Spreads Must Follow The Hard Data On Economic Growth Differentials... Bond Yield Spreads Must Follow The Hard Data On Economic Growth Differentials... Bond Yield Spreads Must Follow The Hard Data On Economic Growth Differentials... Chart I-6...And Inflation Differentials ...And Inflation Differentials ...And Inflation Differentials If, as we expect, euro area growth2 continues to perform in line with or better than the U.S. and U.K. - and inflation differentials continue to narrow - then relative interest rate expectations will also continue to converge. Even the ECB admits that its main growth worry comes not from the euro area economy itself but rather from "the considerable uncertainty surrounding the new U.S. Administration's policies." In this regard, observe that the post-Trump spike in U.S. interest rate expectations has barely unwound (Chart I-7). We think it should unwind more. And who knows, perhaps James Comey will be the immediate catalyst. Chart I-7The Trump Spike In U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Hasn't Unwound The Trump Spike In U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Hasn't Unwound The Trump Spike In U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Hasn't Unwound What To Do After Super Thursday Chart I-8Pound/Euro (Inversely) Drives ##br##FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 Pound/Euro (Inversely) Drives FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 Pound/Euro (Inversely) Drives FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 In summary, policy rate expectations - in relative terms - will structurally continue to: Get less dovish in the euro area. Remain broadly unchanged in the U.K. Get more dovish in the U.S. Hence, our structural preference for currencies is euro first, pound second, dollar third. Which brings us finally to what medium-term investors should do after Super Thursday. If the pound sells off, use it to buy pound/dollar. If the euro sells off, use it to buy both euro/pound and euro/dollar. And use any associated underperformance of FTSE100/Eurostoxx50 to buy this relative equity position (Chart I-8). Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Sinn Fein MPs are not eligible to vote because they refuse to pledge allegiance to the Queen. 2 Growth must be adjusted for different demographics. Our preference is to use real GDP per head based on working age (15-64) population. Fractal Trading Model* Euro/dollar is technically overbought, so traders can play a countertrend move. Target a 2% retracement. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 Short Euro/Dollar Short Euro/Dollar The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Merkel is not revolutionizing but reaffirming Germany's Europhile policy; An earlier date for the Italian election would bring market jitters forward from Q1 2018; Yet a new German-style electoral law would decrease the risks of a populist win; The Tories will retain their majority in U.K. elections. Fiscal policy will ease regardless of the outcome; Close long Chinese equities versus Hong Kong/Taiwan; remain overweight Euro Area equities. Feature Possible early elections in Italy and a narrowing lead for Theresa May in the June 8 U.K. election has unsettled investors over the past week. The former threatens to rekindle the flames of the Euro Area conflagration and has weighed on Euro Area equities (Chart 1). The latter threatens Prime Minister May's mandate and political capital, suggesting that the U.K.-EU Brexit negotiations could be acrimonious later this year. This report deals with both issues. Yes, Italy is a major risk to the Euro Area, and despite general awareness of the election, it is not clear to us that investors realize the depth of the risk. As such, Euro Area equities may outperform developed market peers right until the election. As for the U.K. election, we think its impact on global risk assets is non-existent and its impact on U.K. assets is likely to be fleeting. The bigger threat to global markets remains China. In a March report, we suggested that Chinese policymakers may be testing the waters for broad-based financial and industrial sector reform akin to their late 1990s efforts.1 These reforms could be deflationary in cyclical terms and thus a risk for global growth. We argued that the timeline for these efforts would have to wait for the conclusion of the nineteenth National Party Congress this fall and thus Beijing's policy represented a potential problem for 2018.2 Chart 1Italy Weighs On European Risk Assets Italy Weighs On European Risk Assets Italy Weighs On European Risk Assets Chart 2China: Monetary Tightening Takes A Toll China: Monetary Tightening Takes A Toll China: Monetary Tightening Takes A Toll Then again, President Xi Jinping may flout the rule of thumb in Chinese politics that aggressive policy actions should wait until after the five-year party congresses. Monetary tightening - which could be the first salvo of broader financial-sector reform - has already had negative effects on the real economy (Chart 2). The economic surprise index has corrected, as have China's PMI and LEI. Further Chinese tightening would invariably hurt Chinese demand for imports (Chart 3), which would have negative knock-on effects for EM economies, whose growth momentum appears to have already rolled over (Chart 4). Investors should carefully monitor China over the summer. Any signaling from policymakers that they are willing to move away from the "Socialist Put" and towards genuine deleveraging (not to mention their promised free-market reforms) would have negative global implications. Our colleague Mathieu Savary, of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has pointed out that Europe's economic outperformance relative to the U.S. is highly leveraged to Chinese liquidity (Chart 5).3 As such, decisions made by policymakers in Beijing will likely be more important for European asset performance than who sits in Rome's Palazzo Chigi. Chart 3Tighter Credit Impulse##br## Will Drag Down Imports Tighter Credit Impulse Will Drag Down Imports Tighter Credit Impulse Will Drag Down Imports Chart 4A Chinese Import ##br##Drag Will Hurt EM A Chinese Import Drag Will Hurt EM A Chinese Import Drag Will Hurt EM Chart 5Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials ##br##And Chinese Liquidity Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials And Chinese Liquidity Euro/U.S. Growth Differentials And Chinese Liquidity We are closing our long Chinese equities / short Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities trade for a gain of 3.45%. While policymakers are already backpedaling a bit, financial tightening inherently raises risks in an excessively leveraged economy. Europe Über Alles? Many clients are asking about German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent comments on European unity. On the heels of the G7 summit, during which Merkel locked horns with U.S. President Donald Trump, Merkel delivered the most Europhile speech of her career: The era in which we could fully rely on others is over ... That's what I experienced over the past several days ... We Europeans truly have to take our fate into our own hands ... But we have to know that we Europeans must fight for our own future and destiny. To many in the media and financial industry the speech seemed like a massive departure from Merkel's cautious and reticent approach to European policymaking. We could not disagree more. European integration imperatives are intrinsically geopolitical, as we have argued since 2011.4 Members of the Euro Area are integrating not because of liberal idealism or misguided dogmatism on monetary union. Rather, they are engaged in a cold, calculated, and deeply realist political project to remain relevant in the twenty-first century. This net assessment has guided our analysis of various Euro Area crises. We supported our top-down theoretical view with bottom-up data showing that European voters were not revolting against integration. Integration may be elite-driven, but it has broad popular support. Support for the common currency has never dipped below 50% (Chart 6), despite a once-in-a-generation economic crisis, and most European states are pessimistic about their separate futures outside the EU (Chart 7). Chart 6Voters Approve Of The Euro Voters Approve Of The Euro Voters Approve Of The Euro Chart 7EU Exits: Not On Horizon EU Exits: Not On Horizon EU Exits: Not On Horizon German policymakers have operated within these geopolitical confines since the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis began in the waning days of 2009. At every turn of the crisis, whenever one or another German policymaker issued a "red line" regarding what "Berlin cannot accept," the correct view was to bet against that policymaker, i.e. against any Euroskeptic outcome. Since 2010, we have seen: Numerous direct bailouts of member states; A dove appointed to lead the ECB, with Berlin's blessing; Direct ECB purchases of government bonds; Deeper fiscal and banking integration of the Euro Area, albeit at a slow pace; Expansion - not contraction - of Euro Area membership; The reversal of fiscal austerity. We were able to forecast these turns because our constraint-based methodology gave us a high-conviction view that German policymakers would ultimately be forced down the integrationist, Europhile road. The German population did not revolt against these constraints. Germans are not Euroskeptic. We have no idea why many investors think they are: there is no evidence of it in data or history. German history is replete with failed efforts to unify (and lead) the European continent by hook or by crook. The country is cursed with just enough economic prowess to be threatening to its peers and yet not enough to dominate them by force. As such, it is a German national security imperative to ensure that it does not see the rest of Europe coalesce into an economic or military alliance against it. The EU and its institutions, which allow Germany to be prosperous without the threat of an enemy coalition, are therefore worth preserving, even at a steep cost. True, the costs of bailing out Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain tested German enthusiasm for European integration. However, German support for the common currency never dipped below 60% amidst the sovereign debt crisis and has since rebounded to a record high of 81% (Chart 8). Only 20% of Germans are confident of a future outside the EU (Chart 9). Chart 8Rise Of The Europhile Germany Rise Of The Europhile Germany Rise Of The Europhile Germany Chart 9Germany: No Life After EU Death Germany: No Life After EU Death Germany: No Life After EU Death As such, Merkel's statement following the G7 summit is only surprising because it is explicit. Indeed, the reason Merkel made this statement now is not because she suddenly had a grand geopolitical realization, nor because Trump suddenly disabused her of a naïve belief in the benevolence of the United States. Merkel has understood Europe's imperatives for at least a decade. The real reason for her statement is domestic politics. Martin Schulz, Merkel's opponent in general elections to be held on September 24, has tapped into the rising Europhile sentiment among Germans. The Social Democratic Party (SPD) sprang back to life this year following Schulz's appointment as SPD chancellor-candidate. Despite a recent relapse for the SPD in the polls, Merkel wants to ensure that she is not vulnerable on her left flank to the more Europhile Social Democrats. In the face of this renewed threat from the SPD, the venue of Merkel's speech was highly symbolic: a summit of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), held in a beer hall no less! Bavaria is the most conservative and Euroskeptic part of Germany. Over the past two years, the CSU has flirted with abandoning its post-war electoral alliance with the CDU due to Berlin's various Europhile turns. This development threatened to undermine Merkel and her base of power from within. Merkel's speech, to the most Euroskeptic part of Germany, was designed to prepare her conservative base for a further deepening of European integration. It was not a policy shift but rather a statement that brought her rhetoric more in line with her policy actions. It was also a reminder to her core allies that they must continue on the current policy path unless they would rather have Schulz's SPD force them into even deeper European integration, and faster. What does this mean going forward? We think that the dirty word of European politics - "Eurobonds" - will come into play again. As if on cue, the European Commission has published a report that proposes bundling the debt of Euro Area sovereigns.5 The proposal is not exactly calling for Eurobonds, but rather for securitizing existing bonds into new instruments. As usual, a German finance ministry spokesperson opposed the plan. However, the path of least resistance will be towards more integration that may include such securitization. In fact, Eurobonds already exist. Europe's fiscal backstop mechanisms - formerly the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and now the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - have both issued bonds to finance sovereign bailout efforts. So has the European Investment Bank (EIB). Their bonds trade largely in line with French sovereign debt, with a 37 basis point premium over German 10-year Bunds (Chart 10). Chart 10 Most importantly, the European Commission - the executive arm of the EU - already has authority to issue bonds and even tap member states for funds in case it needs to fill a gap. As the European Commission cites in its pitch-book to bond investors (yes, you read that correctly), "should the funds available from the EU budget be insufficient, the Commission may directly draw on the Member States, without any extra decision making being required."6 Currently, EU treaties forbid bond issuance that would directly finance the budget of a member state. However, Article 143 lays down the possibility of granting mutual assistance to an EU country facing a balance-of-payments crisis, which the EU Commission handles via its €50 billion balance-of-payments assistance program. In the future, the Commission could issue bonds to finance joint, EU-wide projects for areas like defense or infrastructure. It does not appear that such a decision would require a change to EU treaties. Over the long term, the integration imperative will remain strong in Europe. Ironically, Donald Trump is probably the best thing that has happened to European unity, at least since President Vladimir Putin. However, we think media commentators may be overstating President Trump's impact. The U.S. was already growing aloof toward Europe under President Obama, who overtly tilted his foreign policy towards Asia, and President Bush, whose administration clashed with "old Europe" and merely flirted with "new Europe." With the prospect of the U.S. withdrawing its security blanket, Europeans are being forced to integrate. Otherwise they would have to deal with the full range of global crises - from debt to terrorism to migration to war - as separate, and weak, individual states. And the U.S. is unlikely to return to its post-World War II level of concern regarding European affairs anytime soon. We doubt that even a recession would greatly impede the integrationist impulse on the continent. The Great Financial Crisis was a once-in-a-generation economic crisis and yet it has deepened, not decreased, support for integration. That said, risks remain. While the median voter in Europe appears to support the elite-driven integrationist effort, the median voter in Italy is on the fence. Bottom Line: Merkel's Europhile speech in Bavaria was meant to reinforce the ongoing integrationist path to her domestic audience in an election year. We suspect that Germany under Merkel, along with France under recently elected President Emmanuel Macron, will continue down the same path. At some point in the not-so-distant future, this may include the issuance of Eurobonds for specific projects. Our long-held geopolitical view supports overweighting Euro Area risk assets, given economic momentum and valuations. However, near-term political risks in Italy are substantial and pose the main risk to our strategic view. Italy's Divine Comedy - Coming Soon To A Theater Near You? Early Italian elections - in September 2017, instead of February-May 2018 - have become a real possibility. Matteo Renzi, leader of the ruling Democratic Party (PD) and former prime minister, recently signaled that he would be willing to compromise on a new electoral law, and that it could pass as early as July, given a tentative agreement with the Forza Italia party of former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. This would satisfy the condition of President Sergio Mattarella that a new electoral law be passed before elections can proceed. What does this development mean for markets? Italian political elites share the same integrationist goals of their European peers. There is no logic in Italian independence from the EU. Rome's ability to patrol its coastline for smugglers bringing in migrants would not improve with independence, nor would its ability to negotiate a low price for Russian natural gas. Italy is, as much as any European country, in terminal decline as a geopolitical power. Membership in the EU is therefore a natural, and realist, response to its weakness. In addition, exiting the monetary union would be fraught with risks that would overwhelm any benefits that Italian exports may gain from devaluation. It is highly unlikely that Germany, France, Spain, and the Netherlands would allow Italy - the Euro Area's third largest economy - to set a precedent of using massive currency devaluation while maintaining access to the Common Market. Rome would in fact break its Maastricht Treaty obligations. These stipulate that every member state, save for Denmark and the U.K., must become a member of the EMU. It would likely be evicted from both the EU and the Common Market. Furthermore, as we discussed in our September net assessment of Italy, the country's 19th nineteenth century unification has never made much sense.7 We would go so far as to argue that Euro Area amalgamation makes more sense than the unification of Italy. Northern Italy remains as much part of "core Europe" as London, the Rhineland, or the Netherlands, whereas the south - the Mezzogiorno - might as well be in the Balkans. We do not see how Rome would afford the Mezzogiorno on its own without access to both the EU's markets and ECB-induced low financing costs. All that said, the median Italian voter is not buying the Euro Area at the moment. Unlike their European peers, Italians seem to be flirting with overt Euroskepticism. When it comes to support for the common currency, Italians are clear outliers, with support levels around 50% (Chart 11). Similarly, a plurality of Italians appears to be confident in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 12). Chart 11Italy A Clear Outlier On The Euro Italy A Clear Outlier On The Euro Italy A Clear Outlier On The Euro Chart 12Italians Willing To Go Solo? Italians Willing To Go Solo? Italians Willing To Go Solo? Of course, only about a third of Italians identify themselves as only "Italians," largely in line with the Euro Area average and nowhere near the trend in Britain, where the share of the public that feels exclusively British has generally ranged from half to two-thirds (Chart 13). Nevertheless, the Euroskeptic trend in Italy is real and jeopardizes European integration. Our high-conviction view that European politics would be a "red herring" in 2017 was originally based on data that showed that voters in the Netherlands, France, and Germany increasingly supported European integration. This allowed us to dismiss polls that suggested that Euroskeptic politicians - such as Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen - would do well in this year's elections. Even if they did perform well, the median voter's stance on European integration would force such policymakers to modify their Euroskepticism. This process has already happened in Spain (Podemos), Finland (The Finns, formerly known as the True Finns), and Greece (SYRIZA). In Italy, however, the median voter's Euroskepticism has not abated. As such, parties such as the Five Star Movement (M5S) and Lega Norde (LN) have no political incentive to modify their Euroskepticism. In fact, LN has done the opposite, evolving from a liberal and pro-EU regional sovereignty movement into a far-right, anti-immigrant, Euroskeptic, and nationalist Italian party -- a full brand overhaul. The timing of the upcoming election is difficult to forecast. Nonetheless, Renzi's compromise on changing electoral rules has now increased the probability that the election be held in Q4 2017, instead of Q1 2018. Renzi reportedly favors the same date as the German election, September 24. To accomplish this timetable, the new electoral law would have to be rushed through Italy's bicameral Parliament. The Chamber of Deputies - the lower house - is expected to vote on the compromise law in the first week of June, with the Senate passing the law by July 7. Given that the top four parties all seem to agree with adopting a German-style electoral system - proportional representation, with parties required to gain at least 5% of the vote to gain any seats - this ambitious timeline is possible. However, there are still some minor outstanding issues, which could drag out the process until the fall. In addition, local elections scheduled for June 11 (with a second-round run-off on June 25) could change the calculus of the ruling PD. If Renzi's party underperforms, he may back away from early elections, although the message would be that a strong populist performance in early 2018 is more likely. Polls have not budged much for the past 18 months, although Renzi's PD lost support around the time of its failed December 2016 constitutional referendum (Chart 14). The market may find solace in the fact that the revised electoral law would grant no "majority-bonus" to the winner, virtually ensuring that the Euroskeptic M5S cannot govern on its own. Chart 13Majority Of Italians Are Also Europeans Majority Of Italians Are Also Europeans Majority Of Italians Are Also Europeans Chart 14Ruling Party And Populist M5S Neck-In-Neck Ruling Party And Populist M5S Neck-In-Neck Ruling Party And Populist M5S Neck-In-Neck The risk to the market, however, is that M5S outperforms and then creates a limited coalition with right-wing Euroskeptics. Such a coalition could have the singular goal of calling a "non-binding, consultative" referendum on Italy's Euro Area membership. The official M5S line is that it would call such a referendum "if fiscal policies of the Euro Area did not change." Either way, the Italian constitution forbids referendums on international treaties, but a consultative referendum would give impetus to Euroskeptic parties to start negotiating a Euro Area exit for the country. There are two reasons why such an outcome is possible, if not our base scenario. First, a German-style 5% threshold will eliminate the votes cast for a number of minor parties from the overall calculation. These currently combine to make up about 18% of the total vote. This means that the parties that meet the 5% minimum will gain a larger share of seats in the parliament than they gained of the overall popular vote (82% of the vote will hold 100% of the seats), as is the case in Germany. There is a chance that both the PD and M5S get a considerable seat boost in the final tally that puts them close an overall majority. Second, much will hinge on whether the right wing - and Euroskeptic - Fratelli d'Italia (FdI) enter parliament. They are currently polling at about 5% of the vote. If they gain seats, it would significantly increase the percentage of total seats held by Euroskeptic parties. There is no evidence at the moment that M5S, which is on the left of the policy spectrum, would contemplate such an electoral alliance with LN and FdI. The party remains opposed to any coalitions and we suspect that it would not break its pledge to pursue the highly risky strategy of calling a referendum on the Euro Area. The M5S stands for a lot of different things: anti-corruption, anti-establishment, youth empowerment, etc. Euroskepticism is one of its pillars, not a singular objective. In fact, party leader Beppe Grillo recently attempted to abandon the Euroskeptic alliance with UKIP at the European Parliament to join the ultra-liberal, and Europhile, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Various factions vying for control of the movement oscillate between overt Euroskepticism, aloofness toward Europe, and open support for European integration. In addition, Italian voters may adjust ahead of the election by switching their support away from the various minor parties currently polling below 5% and toward the four major parties. This will likely benefit the ruling PD more than any other party. Out of the four parties highly unlikely to cross the 5% threshold - Campo Progressista (CP), Movimento Democratica e Progressista (MDP), Alternativa Popolare (MP), and Sinistra Italiana (SI) - three are centrist or aligned with the PD. One (Sinistra Italiana) would likely see its voters split between the PD and M5S (Chart 15). Such vote migration would clearly benefit the center-left PD, which Renzi is likely counting on in accepting the German-style proportional electoral system.8 Chart 15Most Minor Party Votes ##br##Would Help Ruling Democrats Most Minor Party Votes Would Help Ruling Democrats Most Minor Party Votes Would Help Ruling Democrats Bottom Line: Investors trying to make sense of the Italian election will find relief in the new electoral law. A purely German-style system - given the current level of factionalism in Italian politics - is unlikely to produce a populist government in Italy. In fact, the center-left PD could see a boost in support as voters switch away from minor parties. The tentative compromise on the electoral law has both increased risks by making an earlier election more likely and decreased risks by reducing the probability of an anti-market result. That said, there is still a possibility that M5S crosses the ideological aisle to form an alliance with right-wing Euroskeptics to try to take Italy out of the Euro Area. We doubt that they will do so. Nonetheless, it will be appropriate to hedge such a risk in currency markets closer to the date of the election, once the date is known. We therefore closed our long EUR/USD recommendation last week for a gain of 3.48%. Whatever the outcome of the election, Italian political risks will remain the main threat to European integration (and assets) going forward. We therefore expect the ECB to keep one eye on Italy, forcing it to be less hawkish than it otherwise would be. We will explore Italian politics and economy further in an upcoming report with our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy. U.K.: The Election Is About G The latest polling averages show that Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party maintains a 5% lead over Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, despite Labour's remarkable rally since early elections were called on April 18 (Chart 16). One projection of actual parliamentary seats that takes into account the crucial factor of voter turnout suggest that the Tories could add from 15 to 34 seats to their 2015 take of 330 seats - and this roughly matches our back-of-the-envelope calculation that the Tories could pick up 11 seats on account of the Brexit referendum (Table 1).9 Chart 16Labour Revives On Snap Election Labour Revives On Snap Election Labour Revives On Snap Election Table 1Referendum Results Offer Some Simple Gains For Tories Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk? Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk? There have been only two other cases in recent memory in which Britain's incumbent party led by double digits two months ahead of an election: 1983 and 2001. In the first case, Margaret Thatcher followed up the hugely successful Falklands campaign by expanding her popular support in the final two weeks to win a huge 144-seat majority. In the second case, Tony Blair lost some of his lead but still won the election handily.10 There has not been a case in recent memory where a double-digit lead dropped into single digits as quickly as it did this past month. Moreover, looking at the latest individual polls, it is too soon to say that Labour's rally has ended. Indeed, YouGov's model even shows the Conservatives losing their majority.11 Snap elections are always a gamble, as we have stressed throughout this campaign.12 There is no question that Labour has the momentum and May is feeling the heat. Yet the Tories have a fairly solid foundation of support at the moment. First, they are still polling above 40% support, almost 10% higher than before the referendum, reflecting the rally-around-the-flag effect after voters' surprising decision to leave the EU. They even poll above 40% among working-class voters, the original base of Labour, and the country's aging demographic profile also heavily favors them. (Youth turnout would have to surprise upward to upset the Tories.) Second, the Tory strategy of gobbling up supporters of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) has succeeded (Chart 17). UKIP has no raison d'être after achieving its foundational goal of Brexit. The Conservative Party's decision to hold a referendum on the EU was, in fact, driven by this rivalry from the right flank. UKIP posed the chief threat to the Tories through its ability to dilute their vote share in Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system. Now, almost all conservative voters will vote for the Conservative Party, while Labour must still compete with the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Scottish National Party, and Welsh Plaid Cymru in various constituencies (Chart 18). Chart 17Tories Keep Devouring UKIP Tories Keep Devouring UKIP Tories Keep Devouring UKIP Chart 18Labour Has Rivals, Tories Do Not Labour Has Rivals, Tories Do Not Labour Has Rivals, Tories Do Not Third, while May's popularity is merely converging with her party's still-buoyant level, Corbyn is less popular than both May and his own party (Chart 19). Corbyn still has a net negative favorability and is seen as less "decisive" and less "in touch" with voters than May. Fourth, voters still see Brexit as the most important issue of the election (Chart 20) and May as the best candidate to manage the tricky exit negotiations ahead. Because Brexit is the driver, the benefit of the doubt goes to the Tories. The 2015 elections, the EU referendum, the polls since the referendum, and the parliamentary votes (driven by popular pressure) enshrining the referendum result all suggest a great deal of public momentum on this key issue. The only truly historic development that could have broken this momentum, given that the economy is holding up, is the Tory decision to seek a "hard Brexit," i.e. exit from the EU's Common Market. Yet opinion polls show that Brexit still has the support of a majority of likely voters; moreover, 55% of voters would rather have "no exit deal" than "a bad exit deal."13 If voters still see this as the defining issue, then the Tories still have a key advantage. On the other hand, perceptions of Jeremy Corbyn and Labour have improved rapidly and May's simultaneous popularity slump is especially important in this election. She is a "takeover prime minister" (having initially gained the office when Cameron resigned rather than leading her party into an election as the presumed prime minister) and thus highly vulnerable. This election is largely about her need for a "personal mandate."14 Her political missteps (both real and perceived) are very much at issue in this particular election. Chart 19May Lifts Tories, Corbyn Drags Labour May Lifts Tories, Corbyn Drags Labour May Lifts Tories, Corbyn Drags Labour Chart 20 If polls continue to narrow, the election could produce a "hung parliament," in which no single party holds the 326 seats necessary for a majority in the House of Commons. What should investors expect in that scenario? First, May would have the chance to rule a minority government or form a coalition. A minority government would be weak, vulnerable to collapse under pressure, and would have a harder time controlling the Brexit negotiations. As for a coalition, there is very little chance that the other major parties would cooperate with her - the Liberal Democrats would not reprise their role as coalition partner from 2010-15. But there is a slim chance that the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland could unite with the Tories to obtain a majority. The DUP has not exercised real power in a century, literally, and several of its members do not normally even take their seats in Westminster. However, the party is Euroskeptic and could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Suffice it to say that this outcome is not impossible - the Tories have been courting the DUP for months and the existence of a historic "common cause" changes the usual parliamentary dynamic. Still, this arrangement would be highly unusual, causing a massive uproar, and would lead to all kinds of uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Second, assuming May fails, the Labour Party would have to rule in the minority or form a coalition (if informal) with the Scottish National Party, LibDems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, and others. Here are the most likely outcomes of such an arrangement, in broad brush strokes: Brexit will in all likelihood proceed, given that all parties have professed respect for the referendum outcome. Since the new government would likely not seek to curtail immigration as strictly, it could seek to retain membership in the Common Market. However, a la carte membership in the Common Market remains the greatest difficulty with the EU member states, and therefore it is possible that even Labour would have to accept the logic of exiting the Common Market. In fact, we could see Labour's insistence on access to the Common Market producing more acrimony with the EU than the Tory clean-break strategy. Nevertheless, the odds of a "Brexit cliff" in which the U.K. exits without a trade deal would fall from their already low level, given Labour's unwillingness to let that happen. Despite moving ahead with Brexit, a Labour-led government would increase the relatively low probability of an eventual reversal of the decision, given that it would be more inclined to accept or encourage such an outcome in the face of a bad exit deal, a recession, or other challenges that cause public opinion to shift. The Scottish National Party would probably sideline its demands for a second Scottish independence referendum - especially given that polls supporting a second referendum have floundered for the time being - though not permanently.15 Fiscal spending would increase as a result of Labour's and the SNP's campaign promises and greater focus on domestic social issues. Even if May avoids squandering her party's majority (our baseline case), there are several important takeaways from her drop in the polls: Chart 21Dementia Tax' Gaffe Added To Tory Woes Dementia Tax' Gaffe Added To Tory Woes Dementia Tax' Gaffe Added To Tory Woes The median voter wants government support: The Labour Party's rally began as soon as elections were called, with left-leaning voters switching away from the LibDems once they saw a chance to challenge the ruling party. But the Tories took a hit from May's unprecedented (and publicly awkward) reversal on a party manifesto pledge only days after publishing it (Chart 21). The pledge, now infamous as the "dementia tax," was an attempt at fiscal tightening by which the government would include the value of an elderly person's home in the assessment of their financial means when it came to government support for social care. By contrast, Labour has rallied on the back of a party manifesto that promises fiscal expansion in various categories, including £7.7 billion additional funds for health care, social care, and nursing. More broadly, National Health Service funding, rent caps, and a higher "living wage" are the top four campaign pledges that gain above 60% popular support. As we elucidated last year, the two economies that most enthusiastically embraced a laissez-faire model - the U.S. and the U.K. - are now experiencing the most effective swing to the left.16 The U.K. campaign confirms that, with the Tories minimizing cuts and Labour offering greater spending. Brexit means Brexit: 69% of the public claims that government should follow the referendum outcome, and 52% favor Theresa May's proposed Brexit strategy. The opposition parties are not openly opposing the referendum outcome, as mentioned. Moreover, Labour's pledge to prevent the U.K. leaving the bloc without a trade deal is one of the least popular campaign pledges (only 31% approve), while the Liberal Democrats' pledge to hold a second nationwide referendum on the outcome of the exit talks is also unpopular (34% approve) (Chart 22). Labour is recovering support by focusing on its bread-and-butter, left-wing, social platform. Terrorism is not driving voters: The tragic terrorist attacks at parliament, Manchester, and London Bridge have hardly given May and the Tories any additional support despite being the party viewed as stronger on security. Amid a bull market in terrorism, British voters, like European peers, are becoming somewhat inured to periodic attacks against "soft" targets.17 Health is a bigger concern than immigration: A large majority of Britons think immigration has been too high in recent years, but only about 25% think it is a major issue facing the country, compared with 43% who cite health care as a major issue (see Chart 20 above). These are not completely independent issues because many people believe that immigrants are putting pressure on scarce health care resources. Immigration is closely tied to Brexit and will remain a burning issue if the government does not convince voters that it is more vigilant. But the Labour Party's greater support on health care (as well as education and other social issues) is a growing liability to the Tories as Brexit becomes more settled. If Brexit was a revolt against the elites, it is not necessarily the only manifestation of that revolt. The elitist Tories should be careful that they do not rest on their laurels having been on the right side of that particular issue. The key takeaway is that, aside from Brexit, fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then.18 Chart 22 That is also why the ruling party has already eased fiscal policy. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline to beyond 2022 (Chart 23). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 24). Chart 23 Chart 24 The Tories are also claiming that they will reboot the country's industrial strategy to improve productivity, which will become all the more imperative if they even partially follow through on their pledge to cut immigration numbers from the current annual ~250,000 to under 100,000, which will necessarily reduce labor force growth and thus also potential GDP growth.19 The National Productivity Investment Fund will need a projected £23 billion just to get on its feet. Given that Labour is proposing even more ambitious spending increases (£49 billion additional spending through 2022), the direction of U.K. politics - away from austerity - is clear regardless of the election outcome. Finally, our colleagues at BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy expect the Bank of England to maintain loose monetary policy for the foreseeable future, being unable to turn more hawkish against inflation in the context of continued risks and uncertainties related to Brexit.20 Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative for the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports,21 the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, could weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. As such, we closed our short USD/GBP last week for a gain of 3.34%. Bottom Line: We do not expect a hung parliament; most signs suggest that the Tories will retain at least a weak majority. However, a hung parliament that produces a Labour-SNP alliance would not likely reverse Brexit (though it would make a reversal more conceivable). Such an alliance could eventually result in an exit deal that is both less politically logical than the Tory deal (because London would pay to stay in the Common Market yet have less say in how it is managed) and more favorable to the British economy in the long run (because retaining the benefits of Common Market access). But this is not a foregone conclusion. We maintain our view that Brexit itself has largely ceased to have concrete market-relevant impacts other than a decline in Britain's long-term potential GDP growth. There are two reasons for this. First, May has ruled out membership in the Common Market and thus has removed a potential source of acrimony with Brussels over any "special treatment." Second, the EU does not want to precipitate a crisis in the U.K. that could reverberate back onto the continental economy. Investment Implications We remain strategically overweight European equities relative to their U.S. peers, a trade that has returned 7.39% thus far. We would remind clients that we closed our long GBP/USD and long EUR/USD tactical trades last week for 3.34% and 3.48% gains, respectively. We are also booking a 3.45% profit on our "One China Policy" strategic trade (long Chinese equities as against their Taiwanese and Hong Kong peers). We still think policymakers will do everything they can to keep China's economic growth stable ahead of the party congress this fall, but, as we discussed in our May 24 missive,22 the decision to tighten financial regulation is risky and threatens to cause unintended consequences. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “China Down, India Up?” dated March 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “ECB: All About China?” dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Europe’s Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration,” dated November 3, 2011; and “Europe: The Euro And (Geo)politics,” dated February 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see European Commission, “Reflection paper on the deepening of the economic and monetary union,” May 31, 2017, available at ec.europa.eu. 6 Please see European Commission, “EU Investor Presentation,” April 7, 2017, available at ec.europa.eu. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Europe’s Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno,” dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 The only minor party that is Euroskeptic, FdI, is just close enough to the 5% threshold that its voters are unlikely to abandon it. They will not likely give the Euroskeptic Lega Norde and M5S much of a boost. 9 Please see Lord Ashcroft Polls, “2017 Seat Estimates: Overall,” May 2017, available at lordashcroftpolls.com. 10 In the 1997 election, Tony Blair and Labour led by double digits, but they were in the opposition. Their lead in the polls shrank slightly before Blair won a 178-seat majority, even larger than Thatcher’s 144 seats in 1983 and Clement Attlee’s 147 seats in 1945. 11 Please see YouGov, “2017 UK General Election Model,” accessed June 6, 2017, available at yougov.co.uk. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!” dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see Anthony Wells, “Attitudes to Brexit: Everything We Know So Far,” March 29, 2017, available at yougov.co.uk. 14 Please see footnote 12 above. 15 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?” dated March 30, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?” dated April 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “A Bull Market For Terror,” dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Brexit Update: Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?” dated July 15, 2016, and “Brexit Update: Red Dawn Over Britain” in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, “King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Redistribution,” dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, “With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU,” dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Adventures In Fence-Sitting,” dated May 16, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see “Brexit: A Brave New World” in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The ‘What Can You Do For Me’ World?” dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets,” dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Overall Investment Grade (IG) Corporates: An update of our regional sector relative value models shows that it has become increasingly difficult to find industries where debt looks cheap. Maintain overweight allocations to U.S. & U.K. IG, and stay underweight Euro Area IG, but keep overall spread risk close to neutral levels. U.S. IG: Within U.S. Investment Grade corporate debt allocations, upgrade Energy names (Oil Field Services, Integrated) and Cable & Satellite to overweight, while downgrading Consumer Cyclical sectors (Retailers) and Other Industrials to Underweight. Euro IG: Stay underweight and keep spread risk (i.e. DTS) close to index levels. Reduce exposure to Cable & Satellite, Electric Utilities and Natural Gas Utilities. U.K. IG: Stay overweight U.K. IG but keep overall spread risk near index levels. Feature Chart of the WeekCandidates For Additional Spread Convergence Candidates For Additional Spread Convergence Candidates For Additional Spread Convergence Back on January 24th, we published a Special Report that introduced specific Investment Grade (IG) corporate bond sector allocations for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. to our model portfolio framework.1 The recommended weightings were based on the output from our sector relative value models for each region. We had presented those models on a semi-regular basis in the past, but without any specific numerical allocation among the sectors. By attaching actual weightings to each sector, within a "fully invested" model portfolio, we are now able to more accurately measure the aggregate success of our recommendations. In this follow-up report, we discuss the performance of our sector tilts since January, refresh our relative value models and present changes to our allocations. The broad conclusion is that, while our calls have done well over the past few months and our IG portfolios have outperformed the broad IG bond indices, it remains difficult to find compellingly cheap sectors (particularly in non-financial industries) given the overall tight level of corporate bond spreads. This is especially true in the Euro Area, where we see the poorest risk/reward tradeoff for IG exposure relative to the U.S. and U.K. We are more comfortable recommending an overweight stance on U.S. and U.K. IG corporates versus Euro Area equivalents, in line with our overall allocation in our main model portfolio. Given the tight overall level of spreads in all three regions, however, we are focusing our recommendations on sectors that have cheaper valuations but with riskiness closer to the overall IG indices - like Energy in the U.S. and Wireless in both the Euro Area and U.K. (Chart 1). Good Performance From Our Sector Tilts The performance of our sector recommendations has been reasonably solid since January (Chart 2). Our U.S. sector tilts added +5bps of excess return versus duration-matched U.S. Treasuries, coming mostly from our overweights in Energy and Financials. Within the Euro Area, we were able to generate +9bps of excess return versus government debt, also mainly from above-benchmark allocations to Energy and Financial names. In the U.K., our call to overweight Bank debt provided essentially all of our +23bps of outperformance versus Gilts. These strong excess returns came on top of a very strong performance for corporate debt since January 24th. Excess returns for IG in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. were 0.9%, 1.3% and 1.3%, respectively. The detailed breakdown of the returns by sector are shown in Appendix Tables at the back of this report. To determine the success rate of our sector tilts, we can define "winners" as sectors where we had an active view (i.e. not neutral) and where the relative performance of the sector versus the overall IG corporate index was in the direction of that active view. For example, our decision to go underweight Diversified Manufacturing in the Euro Area was a good one, as that sector had an excess return of 0.7%, well below that of the overall Euro Area IG index (a 1.3% excess return). We can define "losers" in the same way, where the relative sector performance went against our active allocation. In Chart 3, we show the "winners" and "losers" for our U.S., Euro Area and U.K. sector allocations since late January. Our success rate was quite good, as we had far more winners than losers in all three regions. Chart 2 Chart 3 The Big Picture For Corporate Credit: Favorable Business Cycle, But Valuations Are Not Cheap We have been maintaining an overall overweight allocation to IG corporates since late January. This was based on a view that global economic activity was accelerating, which would support faster profit growth. This would provide cyclical relief for stressed corporate balance sheets in the U.S. Euro Area & U.K. corporates would also benefit from a better profit backdrop, with the added bonus of central bank asset purchases helping to improve the supply/demand balance for IG debt. Yet spreads have already tightened substantially throughout the IG universe. This reflects declining macro volatility and the ongoing investor stretch for yield after the rise in global government bond yields earlier this year faded significantly. The result is that there is now far less dispersion among corporate sectors, by industry or by credit quality, then we've seen in recent years (Charts 4, 5 & 6). Coming at a time of high corporate leverage, and with central bank liquidity growth starting to roll over as we discussed in last week's Weekly Report, we are recommending an "up in quality" bias to sector allocations and credit exposure, while favoring U.S. and U.K. corporates over Euro Area equivalents.2 Chart 4Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The U.S. Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve In The U.S. Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve In The U.S. Chart 5Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The Euro Area Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve In The Euro Area Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve In The Euro Area Chart 6Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve##BR##In The U.K. Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve In The U.K. Tight Spreads, Flat Credit Curve In The U.K. Bottom Line: An update of our regional sector relative value models shows that it has become increasingly difficult to find industries where debt looks cheap. Maintain overweight allocations to U.S. & U.K. IG, and stay underweight Euro Area IG, while keep overall spread risk close to neutral levels. U.S. Investment Grade: Stay Overweight, But Be Selective In Tables 1A and 1B, we present the results of our U.S. IG sector valuation model as of May 31st.3 We are maintaining an overweight recommendation on U.S. IG in our overall model portfolio, as we continue to see the backdrop for U.S. economic growth being much friendlier for corporate debt versus Treasuries. Credit spreads are very tight, however, so we are maintaining some degree of caution in our sector recommendations. Chart Chart Specifically, we are aiming to favor industries with option-adjusted spread (OAS) at or above that of the overall U.S. IG index, but with a positive valuation from our U.S. IG relative value model. We also wish to keep the aggregate level of spread risk, using our preferred "duration times spread" (DTS) metric, in line with that of the overall U.S. IG index. As can be seen in the scatter diagram in Chart 7, which plots the model valuations versus the DTS score for each sector, there are precious few non-financial sectors that offer attractive spreads that are not riskier than the overall index. Chart 7 Our model has shown some improvement in value within the sub-sectors of the Energy space, which is a consequence of the softness in oil prices over the past few months. With our commodity strategists calling for a recovery in oil prices back up towards to $55-60 range by year-end, we see this an opportunity to raise our allocations to Energy by upgrading the Independent and Integrated sub-sectors to overweight from neutral. At the same time, we are reducing the size of our prior overweights in Refining and Midstream to keep the overall Energy sector allocation to no more than two times that of the U.S. IG Energy index - a pure risk management move on our part. We are also upgrading some of our prior underweights in the Communications sectors to neutral (Media & Entertainment, Wirelines & Wireless) and to overweight (Cable & Satellite), given relatively attractive valuations in those areas. By the same token, we are cutting Other Industrials to underweight from neutral with valuations now looking unattractive. All of our U.S. sector changes result in an upgrade of our weighting to the broad Industrials grouping by 5 percentage points to 58.6%. We are reducing our large overweight to U.S. Banks by an equivalent amount to "fund" this new allocation within our 100% invested model IG portfolio. The net result of all these changes is that our U.S. IG portfolio has an overall DTS score of around 9, in line with that of the U.S. IG benchmark index. Thus, we are not making any changes to our aggregate recommended spread risk, in line with our top-down views on the overall level of credit spreads and curves, as described earlier. Bottom Line: Within U.S. Investment Grade corporate debt allocations, upgrade Energy names (Oil Field Services, Integrated) and Cable & Satellite to overweight, while downgrading Consumer Cyclical sectors (Retailers) and Other Industrials to Underweight. Euro Area Investment Grade: Not Much Value Left, Remain Underweight In Tables 2A and 2B, we show the output from our Euro Area IG sector valuation model. The scatter diagram showing the model residuals versus the individual sector DTS scores is shown in Chart 8. Chart Chart Chart 8 Finding value has become a problem in Europe, with only a few sectors (most notably, Metals & Mining, Oil Field Services, Life Insurance and P&C Insurance) showing a double-digit spread residual from our model. All those sectors also offer wider spreads than the overall Euro Area IG index, but the Insurers stand out as being much riskier from a DTS perspective. That is a function of the wide spread for the overall Insurance sector, which is nearly double that of the overall Euro Area IG index. We see no reason to change our existing allocations to those sectors in our model portfolio, keeping Metals & Mining and Oil Field Services at overweight and the Insurers at neutral (a prudent tradeoff between wide spreads and high risk). It would likely take a meaningful rise in European interest rates before any serious compression in Insurance spreads could unfold, given the struggles that industry faces from low yields on its fixed income investment assets. A rise in European bond yields could unfold later this year if the European Central Bank (ECB) signals that a tapering of its asset purchase program will begin next year. We see that scenario as increasingly likely, given the overall strength of the Euro Area recovery. The ECB will only shift its stance gradually, due to the lack of immediate inflation concerns. Any signal that that fewer bond purchases are in the offing, however, will pose a major risk for European corporates given the large ECB buying of that debt over the past year. We see very few necessary changes to our Euro Area allocations at the moment, as our overall portfolio DTS is in line with the IG benchmark index (around 6). We do recommend cutting Cable & Satellite and Utilities (Electric & Natural Gas) to underweight. Bottom Line: With corporate spreads at tight levels, and with few sectors showing compelling value, we are comfortable in remaining underweight Euro Area corporates, while keeping spread risk (i.e. DTS) close to index levels. Reduce Cable & Satellite, Electric Utilities and Natural Gas Utilities to underweight. U.K. Investment Grade: Stay Overweight, Focusing On Financials In Tables 3A and 3B, we present our update U.K. IG sector model, with the scatterplot of model residuals versus DTS scores shown in Chart 9. Not much has changed in terms of which sectors appear cheap in our model versus the late January levels. Financials, in general, have the cheapest spreads on an absolute basis, especially the Insurers. Although the cheap valuation on the Insurance debt mirrors the same problem highlighted above for the Euro Area insurers - interest rates that are too low to generate acceptable investment returns on the insurers' portfolios. Chart Chart Chart 9 We are maintaining our overall modest overweight allocation to U.K. IG, while keeping overall spread risk close to index levels. While the political and security risks within the U.K. are significant at the moment, there is no threat of the Bank of England moving to a less accommodative monetary policy anytime soon. A backdrop of churning economic growth, an undervalued British Pound and a central bank maintaining hyper-easy monetary policy is still a decent one for U.K. corporate debt. In terms of sector allocation changes based on our U.K. IG sector valuation model, we recommend upgrading Health Care and REITs to overweight, downgrading Other Industrials to neutral and cutting Tobacco to underweight. Bottom Line: Stay overweight U.K. IG but keep overall spread risk near index levels. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding Investment Grade Corporate Bond Sectors To Our Model Portfolio Framework", dated January 24 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Distant Early Warning", dated May 30 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Our valuation framework assesses the attractiveness of each IG sector within a cross-sectional analysis. The OAS for each sector is regressed against common risk factors (interest rate duration, credit quality) with the residual spread determining the valuation of each sector. Appendix Image Image Image

Highlights Geopolitical risks remain overstated in 2017, but China and Italy could scuttle the party; June elections in France and the U.K. are not market-movers; But early Italian election is a risk that could prompt the ECB to stay easy, close long EUR/USD for a gain; U.S. budget reconciliation process may be arcane, but is vital to understand upcoming tax reform process; Investors should expect details of tax reform by Q4 2017, but legislation may only pass in Q1 2018. Feature We turned the traditional adage of "sell in May and go away" on its head last month in a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!"1 So far so good (Chart 1). The fundamental reasons behind the breakout is the narrowing of the global equity risk premium on the back of easy monetary policy and a recovering global economy (Chart 2) two trends that our colleagues at the Global Alpha Sector Strategy highlighted last September.2 Since then, geopolitical risks cited as likely to end the party have been largely overstated.3 We continue to worry about Chinese financial sector reforms, U.S. politics, Sino-American tensions, signs of growing U.S. mercantilism, prospects of early Italian elections, and especially the developments in North Korea. But these remain risks for 2018, rather than 2017.4 Chart 1Blow-Off Phase Has Resumed Blow-Off Phase Has Resumed Blow-Off Phase Has Resumed Chart 2Global ERP Has Room To Fall Global ERP Has Room To Fall Global ERP Has Room To Fall There are still some "loose ends" to tie up from the first quarter, including the upcoming French legislative and U.K. general elections. On the former, there is nothing to say other than that investors should indeed prepare for a "French Revolution," by which we mean a supply-side revolution.5 Current seat projections based on the latest polling have pro-market, centrist, Europhile parties controlling between 85-92% of the National Assembly following the two-round elections in mid-June (Diagram 1).6 Diagram 1French National Assembly Seat Projection Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Yes. In France. Skeptical commentary will surely rain on the centrist parade by pointing out that anti-establishment presidential candidates won nearly 50% of the vote in the first round of the presidential election (true), that Marine Le Pen will be back even stronger in 2020 (false), or that the electoral system is designed to suppress the populist vote (yes, so what?). We are not as perceptive nor profound as the witty op-ed writers. Our far simpler conclusion is that the French National Assembly will elucidate the revealed preference of the French electorate, given the electoral rules that are quite familiar to all French voters. And that preference appears to be for pro-market, and quite possibly painful, structural reforms. We remain long French industrials relative to German ones, but our clients may find alternative ways to play the upcoming free-market revolution in France. On the British front, Tory PM Theresa May is facing her first genuine crisis. The impact of the Manchester terrorist attack on the election is difficult to forecast. However, May's "dementia tax" gaffe has clearly given Labour new life in the polls (Chart 3). What most commentators saw as a clear shoo-in for the Conservative Party has now become a competitive, if not exactly tight, race. Chart 3Labour Gains... Labour Gains... Labour Gains... Chart 4...But Tories Keep Devouring UKIP ...But Tories Keep Devouring UKIP ...But Tories Keep Devouring UKIP We would note that despite Labour's rise in the polls, May's strategy of suppressing the UKIP vote by campaigning from the nationalist right is paying off. As Chart 4 illustrates, UKIP voters appear to be switching to the Tories en masse: UKIP has gone from support of 20% in April 2016 to under 5% today. Given Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system, May's strategy of swallowing the UKIP whole is a savvy move. It will eliminate the probability that UKIP siphons votes away from the Tories in competitive constituencies. Our own, highly conservative, estimate gives the Tories a minimum of 11 gained seats (Table 1). This is based on constituencies that voted for Brexit but where Labour and the Liberal Democrats won by less than 5% in the last election. Table 1Minimal Scenario Gives Tories 11 New Seats For Their Majority Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep We do not think that the election will have much impact on the Brexit process. Political risks peaked in January when May announced that she planned to take the U.K. out of the EU Common Market. We pointed out at the time that this decision made it highly unlikely that the U.K. and EU negotiations would take an acrimonious turn.7 The market agreed with us, with the pound bottoming in mid-January. We continue to believe that the Brexit process will have no investment relevance for global assets. As for U.K. equities and the pound, a larger-than-expected seat grab by the Tories (375+) at the upcoming election would likely strengthen the pound further, which in turn could weigh on the FTSE 100 (with the FTSE 250 being less affected). A disappointing result, one where the Conservative Party fails to reach 350 seats, could create temporary headwinds for the pound. The one risk that remains on our horizon is faster-than-expected deleveraging in China. As we mentioned in our report last week, China's financial crackdown raises near-term risks (Chart 5).8 We do not think that policymakers are looking to enact wide scale financial sector reform, which would entail a surge in realized non-performing loans, bankruptcies, and defaults ahead of the Fall Party Congress. However, Chinese investors and businesses may already be looking ahead to 2018. Chart 5Policymakers Are Inducing Financial Risk... Policymakers Are Inducing Financial Risk... Policymakers Are Inducing Financial Risk... Chart 6...At A Time When Vulnerability Is Growing ...At A Time When Vulnerability Is Growing ...At A Time When Vulnerability Is Growing China's reserves-to-M2 ratio - an IMF-proposed measure that captures Chinese reserves of liquid assets against those that its residents could potentially liquefy as part of wide scale capital flight - has continued to decline (Chart 6). Measures of quarterly net portfolio flows and capital flight show that the Q4 2016 outflows accelerated sharply after a slowdown in outflows in the previous two quarters (Chart 7), although we have no information for Q1 2017. More recently, there has been a stunning surge in Bitcoin prices. The crypto-currency is up 65% since the start of May, which cannot be attributed to Euro Area fears given the victory of Europhile Emmanuel Macron in the French election. Could it be related to policy uncertainty in China? We think yes (Chart 8). China remains our pick for the risk that is most likely to scuttle our sanguine view on global risk assets in 2017. Chart 7Chinese Outflows Restarted In Q4 2016 Chinese Outflows Restarted In Q4 2016 Chinese Outflows Restarted In Q4 2016 Chart 8Chinese Uncertainty Is Bitcoin's Gain Chinese Uncertainty Is Bitcoin's Gain Chinese Uncertainty Is Bitcoin's Gain The final risk to investors that we have been tracking this year is inaction by U.S. Congress on the tax reform front. We have received many client questions regarding when investors should expect to see tax reform legislation and when (and how) it is expected to pass. We turn to this question in the rest of this report. Market Relevance Of The Budget Reconciliation Process The U.S. legislative process is complicated, arcane, and highly mutable. We have tried to spare our clients as much of the headache of U.S. congressional procedure as possible.9 However, the budget reconciliation process underpins current efforts to reform both the 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and enact tax reform. To understand how, when, and whether the GOP-controlled Congress will pass these pieces of legislation, it is necessary for investors to learn the basics of the reconciliation process in particular, and the budget process more broadly. Budget reconciliation - or simply, reconciliation - simplifies the process of passing a budget and was introduced by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.10 To understand why reconciliation matters, we first have to explain how the U.S. Congress sets the budget. The U.S. Budget Process The U.S. budget process (Diagram 2) begins with the U.S. president submitting the White House budget request to Congress. This is a largely ceremonial act as Congress has the power over the appropriations process. Diagram 2U.S. Budget Process: A Tentative Timeline Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Congress takes into account the president's request as it formulates a budget resolution, which both houses of Congress pass but which is not presented to the president and does not actually constitute law. The resolution sets out the guidelines for the budget process, which is supposed to ultimately produce an appropriations bill. It is this bill, also referred to as a budget bill, which appropriates funding for the various federal government departments, agencies, and programs. Under a revised timetable in effect since 1987, the annual budget resolution is supposed to be adopted by both chambers of Congress by April 15, giving legislators sufficient time to then pass a budget bill by the start of the fiscal year on October 1. However, there is no obligation to do so. In fact, Congress failed to pass a budget resolution for most of President Obama's two terms in office due to a high degree of polarization between the Democrats and Republicans. As such, the government was funded via "continuing resolutions," which merely extended pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year. Reconciliation Process Where does the reconciliation process fit? It was originally introduced to simplify the process of changing the law on the books in order to bring revenue and spending levels into line with the budget resolution. The crucial feature of the process, and the reason we are focusing so much on it, is that it limits the debate in the Senate to 20 hours, thus automatically preventing any Senator from filibustering the ultimate legislation that emerges from the reconciliation process. No filibuster, no need to reach 60 Senate votes to invoke cloture, an act that ends the debate in the chamber. In the current context, where the Republican Party controls 52 seats, this means that the Republicans can use the reconciliation process to pass legislation that would otherwise be "filibustered" in the Senate. The reconciliation procedure is a very powerful legislative tool by which Congress can pass controversial legislation, as long as such legislation has an impact on government revenues or spending levels. Tax legislation, obviously, would impact government revenues. George W. Bush used the reconciliation procedure to lower taxes in 2001 and 2003. His father, George H. W. Bush used reconciliation to raise taxes in 1990 (and thus roll back some of the Ronald Reagan 1986 tax reform). The 1996 welfare reform - the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 - was also passed via the reconciliation process. Obamacare was not passed via the reconciliation procedure. The main portion of the bill - including almost all of its key provisions - was passed at the beginning of the 111th Congress in 2009 when the Democrats held 58 seats in the Senate following the momentous 2008 election.11 It was the subsequent amendments to the original bill that required the reconciliation process due to the death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, particularly several crucial funding provisions. The one unifying feature of all reconciliation bills is that they must have an impact on the budget, essentially by changing the revenue or spending levels of the federal government. If the bill introduces extraneous provisions that deviate from the budgetary requirement, then these can be struck out by invoking the so-called "Byrd rule." Waiving the Byrd rule requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Senate, which is 60 votes. As such, it essentially requires the 60-seat majority needed to also invoke cloture, making the entire reconciliation process redundant. Bottom Line: The budget reconciliation process allows U.S. Congress to pass legislation without the a 60-seat Senate majority. However, procedural rules require the provisions of a reconciliation bill to deal exclusively with legislation that impact government revenue or spending levels. Timing Since the introduction of the procedure in 1974, there have been 24 reconciliation bills, three of which were vetoed by the president. The reconciliation process begins with the passing of the budget resolution, which sets out the "reconciliation instructions." However, since the procedure was introduced, it has rarely progressed along the intended timeline. The very first reconciliation act in 1980 was introduced in a budget resolution that passed well after the April 15 deadline, in mid-June. And the ultimate appropriations bill, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, was only signed into law in early December 1980, so essentially two months after the start of FY1981 on October 1. Investors should therefore understand that the U.S. budget process has no real firm deadlines. The schedule is highly malleable. A reconciliation bill also does not have to be passed with the actual budget. Despite being initiated by the budget resolution, reconciliation runs parallel to the budget process. For example, Congress has already set appropriations for FY2017, but the reconciliation bill on Obamacare - set by the FY2017 budget resolution - is still in negotiations. Diagram 3 illustrates that half of all reconciliation bills were passed after the start of the fiscal year for which they were introduced in a budget resolution. And five reconciliation bills were passed in the calendar year of the fiscal year for which they were supposed to reconcile the budget, basically mid way through the fiscal year. Diagram 3Timing Of Reconciliation Procedures Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep This is important in the current context because investors are waiting for tax reform legislation which is supposed to be passed via the budget reconciliation process for FY2018. However, the GOP-controlled Congress has not even finished the budget process for FY2017. In fact, the budget resolution for FY2017 only passed the House on January 13, 2017. As we learned above, U.S. budget process guidelines call for the budget resolution to have been passed by April 15, 2016. As such, the Obamacare repeal and replace bill, if it were to ultimately pass the Senate, would certainly be the most delayed reconciliation bill ever. In fact, we could see the current Congress passing the FY2017 reconciliation bill in the waning days of FY2017! Congressional rules only allow one budget resolution to be active at any one time. In fact, as soon as a new budget resolution is passed, the old reconciliation instructions are made void. As such, investors have to wait for the Republicans to decide what they plan to do with the Obamacare reconciliation bill before they begin contemplating tax reform. Bottom Line: Republicans in Congress decided to issue reconciliation instructions as part of the FY2017 budget resolution, which passed in January. As such, investors have to wait until that process ends - with either Obamacare repeal or failure of the bill - before Congress can produce a FY2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions for tax reform. We suspect that the FY2018 budget resolution will be passed sometime between the end of the August Congressional recess, on September 5, and December. But that is just a guess (Diagram 4). It could happen earlier, in July, if Obamacare is dealt with over the next month. Diagram 4Tentative U.S. Political Timeline Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep Reconciliation Rules And Tax Reform Changing America's complex tax laws is precisely the sort of legislative action that reconciliation was designed to facilitate. That said, investors are still not sure whether the Trump administration and Congress will be able to agree on comprehensive tax reform that includes lowering top rates for corporations, or whether they will merely agree to cut household taxes on households. Some clarity will emerge once the Republican-controlled Congress passes the FY2018 budget resolution, which will contain reconciliation instructions for either comprehensive tax reform (most likely) or merely household tax reform (unlikely). At that point, the length of the reconciliation process will depend on how much agreement there is surrounding tax reform. Diagram 3 shows that tax cuts - such as those in 2001 and 2003 - take relatively little time to pass. Tax reform, on the other hand, could take a while longer given multiple competing interests. If comprehensive, we would expect tax reform to be passed by the end of Q1 2018. Would that mean that tax cuts would only be effective from January 1, 2018? Or, even less bullish, from the start of FY2019? No. The GOP would have the option of making tax cuts retroactive and thus can avoid a huge market disappointment if tax cuts come later in the next year. It is even legally possible for tax laws passed in 2018 to take effect on January 1, 2017 - though it is admittedly more of a stretch than doing it this year.12 Can reconciliation be used to pass budget-busting tax reform, as we have argued investors should expect? You bet! From 1980 to the 1990s the reconciliation procedure was primarily used - and in fact designed - to reduce the deficit through reductions in mandatory spending, revenue increases, or both. It has since become a tool to expand deficits. This was most famously done by the Bush era reconciliation bills in 2001 and 2003, which introduced large tax cuts. The aforementioned Byrd rule forces any provision of a bill that increases the deficit beyond the years covered by the reconciliation bill to "sunset." In the case of the 2001 and 2003 bills, this meant that Bush-era tax cuts expired in 2011 (estate tax) and 2013 (which investors will remember as the "fiscal cliff"). The sunset period does not have to be ten years, it could conceivably be a lot longer, in effect making tax reform permanent, as far as most investors' time horizons are concerned. Following the Democratic Party sweep in the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrat-controlled Senate changed reconciliation rules to prohibit any deficit-increasing measures, regardless of the sunset clause loophole. However, the Republicans changed the rules back in 2015, after they re-took the Senate in the 2014 midterm election. This is crucial for two reasons: first, it means that the current procedural rules on the books allow deficits to be blown out via the reconciliation procedure and second, it establishes that the current cohort of Republicans in Congress is fiscally profligate, despite media punditry to the contrary. Bottom Line: The reconciliation process was designed to facilitate precisely the type of legislation that Republicans will try to pass via tax reform. According to the current procedural rules, such legislation can increase the budget deficit, as long as it sunsets at the conclusion of the budgetary period set out by the legislation (normally 10-years, but it could be longer). We suspect that tax reform will take until Q1 2018 to pass, but Republicans will be able to make its effects retroactive to January 1, 2017. The Big Picture - What Does It All Mean For Fiscal Policy? We expect the Republican-held Congress to attempt to pass comprehensive tax reform over the next four quarters. If the GOP fail to agree on "revenue offsets" for corporate tax cuts, we could see the Republican Congress electing to pass simple tax cuts for households, as the Bush-era tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 did. To facilitate such legislation politically, the Republicans will rely on "dynamic scoring," the macroeconomic modeling tool based on the work of economist Arthur Laffer (of the "Laffer curve" fame). The idea is that the headline government revenue lost through tax cuts fails to take into account the growth-generating consequences ("macroeconomic feedback") of the cuts, factors that actually add to revenues. In other words, "tax cuts pay for themselves." It is true that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will balk at dynamic scoring. But we doubt that "egghead, socialist economists" will stand in the way of tax reforms. As we discussed above, the CBO's score will ultimately only force the Republicans to "sunset" tax reform legislation, not scuttle it. The market disagrees with us. After a wave of euphoria following the presidential election, the market has largely priced out meaningful fiscal stimulus. This can be seen in the flagging relative performance of infrastructure stocks and highly-taxed companies, as well as in the sharp decline in inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 9Market Has Voted: No Fiscal Stimulus Market Has Voted: No Fiscal Stimulus Market Has Voted: No Fiscal Stimulus We think the market is making a serious mistake by taking the Republican mantra of "revenue neutral" - meaning that any tax cuts would need to be offset by other revenue-raising measures - tax reform seriously. This is easier said than done. The three main ways that House Republicans have offered to pay for corporate and personal tax cuts - introducing a border adjustment tax, eliminating the deductibility of business interest payments, and jettisoning the deduction for state and local income taxes for individuals - will all face resistance from vested interests. We suspect that the GOP will produce some revenue offsets, but not enough to have a revenue-neutral tax reform. The path of least resistance, therefore, will be to bust the budget and then force the measures to expire over the life of the budget-setting window. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney has already floated the idea of extending the 10-year budget scoring window to 20 years. This would allow tax reform measures, even if they are characterized by the CBO as profligate, to expire in two decades. That's practically a lifetime away, as far as any investor is concerned. What is the investment significance of a stimulative tax reform package? Our colleague Peter Berezin has recently pointed out that it is ironic that fiscal stimulus is coming to America only when the economy has reached full employment. This means that much of the increase in aggregate demand arising from a more expansionary fiscal stance will be reflected in higher inflation rather than faster growth. This does not represent a major threat to risk assets now, but could later next year, as the Fed responds to greater fiscal thrust with tighter monetary policy.13 We encourage our clients to read BCA Special Report "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," penned by Martin Barnes in March, which details the likely path that assets and the economy will take over the next two years.14 In the short term, the market will continue to fret that tax reform is doomed and that Republicans are committed to austerity. However, budget-busting tax reform could begin to be priced in by the market well before the reconciliation bill is ultimately passed. We suspect that the outlines of tax reform will emerge this summer. The market may realize that stimulus is coming as soon as the FY2018 budget resolution, containing tax reform instructions, is passed in Q3 or Q4 2017. Such a realization later this year could augur a violent snap-back in the USD. Currently, the two-year real interest rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. have widened by 58 basis points in favor of the latter since the end of March, even though EUR/USD has actually rallied over this period (Chart 10). We have been long EUR/USD since March 22,15 in expectations that investors would be busy covering their euro hedges that they put on in the lead up to the French elections, the outcome of which we have had a high conviction on since November.16 However, now that net long speculative positions in the euro have risen to a three-year high - having been deeply short just a few weeks ago - the speculative demand for euros will ultimately subside (Chart 11). Chart 10Widening Real Rate ##br##Differentials Support The Dollar Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Chart 11Speculators Are Long The Euro##br## For The First Time In Three Years Speculators Are Long The Euro For The First Time In Three Years Speculators Are Long The Euro For The First Time In Three Years We are therefore closing our USD short versus both the euro and the pound, for gains of 3.48% and 3.34% respectively. As we expected, the ECB is going to look to guide investors towards a "dovish" tapering of its QE program. Speaking before the European Parliament's committee on economic affairs, ECB President Mario Draghi confirmed that "very accommodative financing conditions" reliant on "a fairly substantial amount of monetary accommodation" would continue. The ECB will have to make a decision whether to extend its sovereign bond purchase program into the next year or start winding it down as planned. Given news flow out of Italy that an election may be planned as early as September, the ECB may be forced to stand pat until after the end of the year. Given our view that tax reform in the U.S. would ultimately happen, and that it would eventually be marginally stimulative, any resurfacing of political risks in Europe - which we are expecting - should be negative for the EUR/USD. What should investors do about European equities? We are cautious. As we have been pointing out to our clients since September of last year, Italy is the political risk in Europe.17 However, we think that most investors are willing to bet that European equities can survive Italian political turbulence. This could be a mistake in the short term, as we think that Euroskeptic (albeit evolving) Five Star Movement could win a plurality in the next election. In the long term, Italy will become ECB's proverbial boulder, that Draghi must push up a hill like Sisyphus, only to see it roll down to the bottom with each bout of Italian political instability. As such, Italy's instability will force ECB to set its monetary policy for the weakest link in the Euro Area (Italy), rather than the aggregate. This should be positive for Euro Area risk assets, but negative for the euro, all other things being equal. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Strike While The Iron Is Hot," dated September 2, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 The dates for the two rounds of the legislative elections are June 11 and 18. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 We draw on several overviews of the budget reconciliation process in this report. Please see David Reich and Richard Kogan, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Introduction To Budget 'Reconciliation'," dated November 9, 2016, available at cbpp.org; Megan S. Lynch, Congressional Research Service, "The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing Of Legislative Action," dated February 23, 2016, available at fas.org; and Megan S. Lynch, Congressional Research Service, "Budget Reconciliation Measures Enacted Into Law: 1980-2010," dated January 4, 2017, available at fas.org. 11 To reach the required 60 seat filibuster-proof majority the Democrats relied on some luck and cunning. Democrat Al Franken unseated Republican Incumbent Norm Coleman in a recount in Minnesota and Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, switched his party affiliation to Democrat. 12 Congress, after the sweeping 1986 tax reforms, corrected certain oversights in that law by passing subsequent measures in 1987. These were made to be retroactive back to the previous calendar year, i.e. January 1, 1986, and the courts upheld the legislation. Hence, there is precedent for Republicans to pass tax reform in 2018 that takes effect January 1, 2017, though admittedly the circumstances would matter. Courts have even upheld retroactive tax legislation back to two calendar tax years. Please see Erika K. Lunder, Robert Meltz, and Kenneth R. Thomas, "Constitutionality of Retroactive Tax Legislation," Congressional Research Service, October 25, 2012, available at fas.org. 13 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight," dated May 26, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Fiscal policy is likely to be eased modestly in most advanced economies over the next two years. The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has proposed. Ironically, fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. The market is pricing in too little Fed tightening over the remainder of the year. The dollar's swoon is ending. Go short EUR/USD with a target of parity by the end of the year. Feature Fiscal Thrust Around The World In its latest Fiscal Monitor, the IMF estimated that advanced economies eased fiscal policy by 0.2% of GDP in 2016, reversing a five-year streak of fiscal tightening (Chart 1). The Fund expects a further 0.1% of GDP of easing in 2017, followed by a neutral stance in 2018. In the EM universe, the IMF foresees a fiscal thrust1 of -0.2% of GDP in 2017 and -0.4% of GDP in 2018. Chart 1IMF Expects Modest Fiscal Easing In Advanced Economies, Further Tightening In EM Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Averages can disguise a lot of variation across countries (Charts 2). Comparing 2018 with 2016, the IMF expects Canada and the U.S. to experience a positive fiscal thrust of 0.7% of GDP and 0.4% of GDP, respectively. The fiscal thrust is projected to be -0.2% of GDP in the euro area, -1% of GDP in the U.K., and -0.5% of GDP in Japan. Among the larger advanced economies, Australia is expected to experience the largest degree of fiscal tightening, with a fiscal thrust of -1.2% of GDP. Across the EM universe, most of the fiscal tightening is projected to occur among oil producers. The IMF expects oil-exporting economies to collectively reduce their fiscal deficits by US$150 billion between 2016 and 2018. Political considerations require that the IMF give considerable weight to the stated objectives of governments when formulating fiscal projections. In reality, governments often struggle to meet their budget targets. Consequently, the Fund has typically overestimated the degree of fiscal consolidation that ends up happening (Chart 3). As such, our own projections foresee somewhat less fiscal tightening - and in some countries, a fair bit of fiscal easing - than the IMF projects. In particular: Chart 2Countries Will Follow Different Fiscal Paths Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Chart 3IMF Forecasts Tend To Overestimate Extent Of Fiscal Consolidation Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight We do not expect much more incremental fiscal tightening out of the euro area. Thanks to a slew of austerity measures, the euro area's structural primary budget balance went from a deficit of 2.6% of GDP in 2010 to a surplus of 1.0% of GDP in 2014. It has remained close to those levels ever since. Now that a primary surplus has already been achieved and interest rates and bond spreads have fallen to exceptionally low levels, the need for further belt tightening has abated. That's the good news. The bad news is that high government debt levels in many European economies rule out any major new stimulus programs (Chart 4). The U.K. will slow the pace of fiscal consolidation. The U.K.'s structural primary budget deficit fell from a peak of 7.1% of GDP in 2009 to 1.3% of GDP in 2016. The IMF expects the primary balance to move into a surplus of 0.6% of GDP in 2019. We think that's unlikely. The Conservatives are under intense pressure to keep the economy afloat during Brexit negotiations. Prime Minister Theresa May has indicated she will delay eradicating the budget deficit until the middle of the next decade, having previously promised a 2020 target date. Japan has limited scope to further tighten fiscal policy. Japan's structural primary budget deficit reached 6.9% of GDP in 2010. The IMF expects it to reach 3.7% this year and fall further to 2% in 2020, provided the government goes forward with raising the VAT from 8% to 10%. We are skeptical that Japan's economy will be strong enough to allow the government to raise taxes. However, even if it is, this will only be because the Bank of Japan gooses growth by keeping long-term yields pinned to zero, thereby allowing the yen to depreciate further. China is making a structural transition to large budget deficits. The IMF estimates that China's structural primary budget balance deteriorated from a surplus of 0.1% of GDP in 2014 to a deficit of 2.8% of GDP in 2016. The increase in the fiscal deficit cannot be explained by the reclassification of off-budget spending as on-budget, since the IMF's "augmented" fiscal balance - which attempts to control for such statistical issues - deteriorated by roughly the same amount (Chart 5). Part of the erosion in China's fiscal balance stemmed from the global manufacturing slowdown in 2015-2016, which hit tax receipts and necessitated a healthy dose of fiscal stimulus. However, there is more to the story than that. As we controversially argued in "China Needs More Debt," now that China is no longer in a position to run gargantuan current account surpluses, large fiscal deficits will be necessary to absorb excess private-sector savings.2 The government's desire to rein in credit growth will only add to the impetus to find new sources of aggregate demand. The era of red ink has begun. Chart 4Government Debt Levels Outside Of Germany Are Still High Government Debt Levels Outside Of Germany Are Still High Government Debt Levels Outside Of Germany Are Still High Chart 5China's Fiscal Deficit Has Been Increasing Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight The U.S. Congress will ultimately cut taxes, although the size of the cuts will be far smaller than what President Trump has ambitiously proposed. After a wave of euphoria following the presidential election, the market has largely priced out meaningful fiscal stimulus. This can be seen in the flagging relative performance of infrastructure stocks and highly-taxed companies, as well as in the sharp decline in inflation expectations (Chart 6). We think this pessimism is overdone. Donald Trump desperately needs a "win," and cutting taxes is one key area where the President and Congress both see eye to eye. Trump's falling poll numbers have heightened the risk that the Republicans will lose control of the House of Representatives next November (Chart 7). This makes passing a tax bill before the midterm elections all the more urgent. The main questions surround the scale and scope of any tax cuts, and just as critically, how they are paid for. We discuss these issues next. Chart 6Markets Have Priced Out Meaningful Fiscal Stimulus Markets Have Priced Out Meaningful Fiscal Stimulus Markets Have Priced Out Meaningful Fiscal Stimulus Chart 7Challenging Outlook For Republicans In 2018 Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Trump's Budget Proposal: Fake Math Chart 8Trump In Wonderland? Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight If the definition of a good leader is one who underpromises and overdelivers, then President Trump's budget proposal left much to be desired. Trump's plan assumes that U.S. growth will reach 3% over the next ten years. Even in the unlikely event that the economy manages to avert a recession over this period, such a growth rate would be a remarkable feat. After all, growth has averaged only 2.1% since 2009. And keep in mind that the unemployment rate has fallen from 10% to 4.4% over this interval, consistent with potential GDP growth of only 1.4%. The slow pace of capital accumulation following the Great Recession undoubtedly hurt the supply side of the economy, but it would take a phenomenal - and rather implausible - acceleration in potential GDP growth to justify Trump's 3% target. Many of the other assumptions in Trump's blueprint are no less dubious (Chart 8). Despite projecting much slower growth, the Federal Reserve expects short-term rates to rise to 3% in 2019. In contrast, the Trump administration sees rates increasing to only 2.4%, an assumption that perhaps not coincidentally helps reduce projected debt-servicing costs. Most flagrantly, the plan assumes no decline in the revenue-to-GDP ratio, even though the basis for faster growth largely rests on the assumption of steep tax cuts. When pressed on the issue, officials from the Office of Management and Budget sheepishly noted that there would be offsetting limits on tax deductions, which would have the effect of broadening the tax base. However, no specific information was given on what these would entail. Many theories have been offered as to why Trump offered such an outlandish budget plan. Was he trying to appease conservatives in Congress? Perhaps this was just a sly attempt to gain leverage in future budget negotiations? Our theory is simpler: Trump promised an economic boom during the election campaign, while assuring voters that his tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Hell would need to freeze over before he released a plan that did not share these assumptions. Congress Will Decide So where do we go from here? The specifics of Trump's plan are irrelevant. Congress will rewrite the budget from scratch. Major spending cuts will be scrapped. So will the onerous cuts to insurance subsidies and Medicaid in the House version of the health care bill. The Senate will ditch those. In contrast, Trump's tax cuts will be preserved, albeit on a smaller scale than envisioned in his budget proposal. Granted, congressional leaders have said they want tax reform to be revenue neutral, meaning that any tax cuts would need to be offset by other revenue-raising measures. That is easier said than done, however. The three main ways that House Republicans have offered to pay for corporate and personal tax cuts - introducing a border adjustment tax, eliminating the deductibility of business interest payments, and jettisoning the deduction for state and local income taxes for individuals - all face severe resistance from vested interests. In Washington, where there is a will there is usually a dishonest way. Budget forecasts are typically made over a 10-year window. Thus, it is possible to lower taxes upfront and promise spending cuts and ill-defined revenue raising measures in the tail end of the budget window. Such a strategy would generate a positive fiscal thrust early on, while leaving the door open for Congress to dump any future spending reduction or revenue measures before they are actually implemented. Add to that the tax revenue that is projected to pour in from supply-side reforms, and the stage is set for a dollop of fiscal easing starting in early 2018. How likely is it that Republicans will pursue such a strategy? Very likely. As evidence, look no further than the fact that White House budget director Mick Mulvaney floated the idea on Wednesday of extending the 10-year budget scoring window to 20 years. Investment Conclusions Chart 9Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well An obsessive focus on fiscal austerity hamstrung the recovery in many countries following the Great Recession. The irony is that fiscal stimulus is coming to America just when the economy has reached full employment. This means that much of the increase in aggregate demand arising from a more expansionary fiscal stance will be reflected in higher inflation rather than faster growth. This does not represent a major threat to risk assets now, but could later next year. Despite all the obituaries that have been written for the death of the Phillips curve, the data show that it is alive and well (Chart 9). Higher inflation will allow the Fed to raise rates once per quarter. The market is not prepared for this. Investors currently expect only 45 basis points in rate hikes over the coming 12 months. That is far too low. On the other side of the Atlantic, the ECB's months-to-hike measure has plummeted from 65 months in July 2016 to only 24 months today (Chart 10). Real rates are projected to be a mere 14 basis points higher in the U.S. than in the euro area in five years' time (Chart 11). Chart 10The Big Shift In Market Sentiment Towards ECB Policy The Big Shift In Market Sentiment Towards ECB Policy The Big Shift In Market Sentiment Towards ECB Policy Chart 11The Vanishing Transatlantic Bond Spread Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Fiscal Policy In The Spotlight Poor demographics and high private-sector debt levels imply that the neutral rate of interest is lower in the euro area than in the U.S. And while the euro area may not be tightening fiscal policy any longer, the fact that its structural primary budget balance is 2.6% of GDP larger than America's means that the euro area's overall fiscal stance will contribute less to aggregate demand than in the U.S. This will force the ECB to keep rates lower for longer, causing the euro to weaken. Chart 12Widening Real Rate Differentials ##br##Support The Dollar Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Widening Real Rate Differentials Support The Dollar Chart 13Speculators Are Long The Euro For ##br##The First Time In Three Years Speculators Are Long The Euro For The First Time In Three Years Speculators Are Long The Euro For The First Time In Three Years Incredibly, two-year real interest rate differentials between the euro area and the U.S. have widened by 41 basis points in favor of the latter since the end of March, even though EUR/USD has actually rallied over this period (Chart 12). We think this divergence has occurred because investors have been busy covering the euro hedges that they put on in the lead up to the French elections. However, now that net long speculative positions in the euro have risen to a three-year high - having been deeply short just a few weeks ago - the speculative demand for euros will subside (Chart 13). With all this in mind, we are going short EUR/USD today with a year-end target of parity and a stop-loss of 1.14. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 The fiscal thrust is defined as the change in the structural primary budget balance from one year to the next. As a convention, we define a positive thrust as loosening in fiscal policy (i.e., a lower fiscal balance). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Does China Have A Debt Problem Or A Savings Problem?" dated February 24, 2017, and "China Needs More Debt," dated May 20, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights This week, we are reprising and updating "The Other Guys In The Oil Market" from our sister service Energy Sector Strategy (NRG), because it so well captures the state of oil production outside the U.S. shales, Middle East OPEC and Russia. "The Other Guys" account for ~ half of global supply. Next week, we'll publish a joint report with NRG analyzing today's OPEC meeting. The aptly named "Other Guys" account for ~ 42mm b/d of production, which they are struggling to maintain at current levels, let alone increase. These producers supply nearly half of global production, and have been stuck in a pattern of slow decline for years despite high oil prices. Beginning in 2019, we expect production declines to accelerate. This will put enormous pressure on the three primary growth regions, which markets likely will start pricing in toward the end of next year. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 is expected to extend its 1.8mm b/d of production cuts to the end of 1Q18 at its meeting in Vienna today. Going into the meeting, markets were being guided to expect even deeper cuts. Our long Dec/17 Brent $65/bbl calls vs. short $45/bbl puts, and our long Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 Brent positions are up 75.0% and 509.5% respectively, following their initiation on May 11, 2017. Base Metals: Neutral. Steel and iron-ore prices are getting a boost from China's anti-pollution campaign, which is expected to run through the end of this month. This was launched ahead of the anti-pollution campaign we expected after the Communist Party Congress in the fall. Iron ore delivered to Qingdao is up 3.1% since May 9, when Reuters reported the campaign began.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold was well bid earlier in the week on the back of a weaker USD. Our long gold position is up 1.9%, while our long volatility trade, which we will unwind at tonight's close, is down 98.5%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The weaker USD takes some pressure off wheat and beans over the short term, and might prompt a short-covering rally. We remain bearish, however, as the USD likely will bottom in the near future.2 Feature U.S. Onshore, Middle East OPEC (ME OPEC), and Russia combine to produce ~43 MMb/d of oil plus another ~11 MMb/d of other liquids (NGLs, biofuels, refinery gains, etc.). Combined, these producers increased crude production by 5 MMb/d plus another 1 MMb/d of other liquids production over the past three years (2014-2016), creating the oversupply that crashed prices. We expect these producers to add another 1.60 MMb/d of oil plus 1.14 MMb/d of other liquids by 2018 (over 2016 levels), dominated by nearly 2.0 MMb/d of oil and NGLs from the U.S. shales. Oil production from the other 100+ global oil producers also represents about ~42 MMb/d, but on balance has been slowly eroding since 2010, failing to grow even when oil prices were $100+/bbl. Despite some 2017 recovery from Libya, we expect total production to continue to fall in both 2017 and 2018. The few recently expanding producers among the Other Guys are running out of growth. Canada, Brazil, North Sea and GOM account for ~13 MMb/d of oil production in 2016, adding ~1.5 MMb/d over the past three years (2014-2016). North Sea production is projected to resume declines starting in 2017; GOM will reach it peak production sometime in 2017 or 2018, then start to ebb; large new Canadian oil sands projects will add ~310k b/d in 2017-2018, but scarce additions are scheduled beyond that; and Brazil's once-lofty growth plans have slowed to a crawl in 2016-2018. Global deepwater drilling activity and exploration spending have collapsed, lowering the reserve base, and undermining the stability of current production levels. Outside Of Just Three Regions, Oil Supply Picture Looks Worrisome Often overlooked in our discussions about world oil markets are the supply contributions of over 100 geographic regions. This collection of suppliers (which we will call the "Other Guys") is defined as all producing regions in the world other than: 1) U.S. Onshore (shales, specifically), 2) OPEC's six Middle East members, and 3) Russia. The Other Guys deliver nearly half of global production, try to maximize production every day (even OPEC nations among the Other Guys have not had production constrained by quotas), and still have endured consistent, albeit modest, production declines over the past six years. Chart 1Outside Of A Very Few Regions,##BR##Oil Production Has Struggled Outside Of A Very Few Regions, Oil Production Has Struggled Outside Of A Very Few Regions, Oil Production Has Struggled At the end of 1Q17, oilfield-services leader Schlumberger voiced sharp concerns regarding stability of supplies from these ignored producers, warning that aggregate capital expenditures within these regions will sustain an unprecedented third straight year of decline in 2017, with total spending only about half of 2014 levels. Chart 1 shows the divergent production histories of the three growing regions versus the rest of the world. Chart 1 also shows production of the Other Guys excluding the especially dramatic declines/volatility of Libyan production. Even though these producers benefitted from the same incentives and profitability from high oil prices as the three growing regions, as a group, they have been unable to expand production. As oil prices have plunged, drilling activity in these nations has also plummeted, raising concerns that production declines could start accelerating in the near future. Chart 2 shows that oil-directed drilling activity among the international components of the Other Guys (Chart 2 excludes GOM and highly-seasonal Alaska and Canada) has crashed by ~40%, from an average of over 800 rigs during the five-year period of 2010-2014 to under 500 rigs for the past year. Offshore drilling has collapsed even a little more sharply for these producers than overall oil-directed drilling, falling ~43% from an average of over 280 rigs to only 160 today (Chart 3, excludes GOM). Chart 2Other Guys' Drilling##BR##Has Collapsed 40% Other Guys' Drilling Has Collapsed 40% Other Guys' Drilling Has Collapsed 40% Chart 3International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%,##BR##Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%, Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production International Offshore Drilling Is Down Over 40%, Boding Poorly For The Stability Of Future Production Offshore Production Declines To Accelerate Chart 4Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed Other Guys' Offshore Drilling Has Collapsed As a particularly worrisome trend for the Other Guys' production stability, offshore drilling activity has collapsed in some of the most important offshore oil producing regions in the world, including the GOM, North Sea, West Africa, and Brazil (Chart 4). Considering the multi-year lag between drilling activity and the start of oil production, and the large well size and quick declines associated with offshore wells, the oil production impacts of this drilling collapse that started two years ago have not really been felt yet. When these regions get past the wave of new production from 2015-2017 project additions (projects started during 2011-2014), they will face a dearth of new projects maturing in 2018-2022 due to this collapse in drilling, with new production likely to be inadequate to offset the declines of legacy production. Brazil, the North Sea, West Africa, and GOM together account for about 12 MMb/d of oil production (Chart 5). These four offshore regions have benefitted from intense investment from 2010-2015 as shown by the surging rig counts during that period in Chart 4. This investment/drilling drove 1.1 MMb/d of oil production growth in Brazil, the GOM, and the North Sea from 2013 to 2016, without which total production from the Other Guys would have declined by 1.4 MMb/d rather than just 0.3 MMb/d. Despite strong investment, production in West Africa merely held flat outside of Nigeria during 2013-2016 while falling by 0.4 MMb/d within Nigeria (mostly in 2016 due to pipeline disruptions from saboteurs). Chart 5Offshore Production Will Stop Expanding, Then Decline The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux Brazil offshore drilling activity over the past year is less than half of levels during 2010-2013. As a result, production growth will moderate significantly over the next few years, expanding far less (250k b/d in 2018 vs. 2016, based on our balances data) than the rapid 470,000 b/d step-up in production during 2013-2014. While Brazil still has a rich endowment of pre-salt reserves, marshalling capital and the International Oil Companies' (IOCs) focus to resurrect development activity will take years. We expect no growth during 2019-2020. The North Sea has seen production cut in half from the time of peak production in 1999 until 2013. Production declines were briefly halted and re-expanded by ~300,000 b/d during 2014-2016 due to a concerted drilling effort and brownfield maintenance program incentivized and financed by $100/bbl oil prices. Drilling has since declined 35% from average 2010-2014 levels, and production is expected to resume its downward trend in 2017-2018. Overall oil-directed offshore drilling in the GOM has been cut by over 50% from 2013-2014 levels. Based on our field-by-field analysis published in January, we estimate GOM oil production will hit a peak in a year and a half or less and then will succumb to declines due to lack of new drilling. West Africa has suffered production declines for the past several years due to both geologic challenges as well as more recent (2016-2017) political/sabotage related disruptions in Nigeria. With offshore drilling activity plummeting 70%-80%, we expect production declines will accelerate and it will take years of increased drilling to yield new production that can stem the declines. The collapse in Nigerian drilling, from 10 rigs in 2010-2013 to only 2-3 rigs over the past year, likely means that Nigerian production is incapable of returning to 2015 levels even if its recent sabotage issues are resolved. In aggregate, as shown in Chart 5, we expect production from these four offshore regions to stagnate during 2017-2018 (North Sea and West Africa decline while Brazil and GOM expand) before declining by ~0.5 MMb/d in each 2019-2020 due to the dramatic curtailment of investment during 2015-2017. SLB Talks Its Book, But Makes A Strong Point At an industry conference at the end of March, Schlumberger (again) railed against the inadequacy of the cash flow-negative U.S. shale industry to single-handedly supply enough production growth to satisfy continuing global demand growth, especially once the Other Guys start seeing more pronounced negative production effects from the sharply reduced investments over 2015-2017. "The 2017 E&P spend for this part of the global production base...is expected to be down 50% compared to 2014. At no other time in the past 50 years has our industry experienced cuts of this magnitude and this duration." - Paal Kibsgaard, CEO of SLB. SLB highlighted an analysis of depletion rates constructed with data from Energy Aspects. (The March 27 presentation can be found at www.slb.com). Annual depletion rates (annual production/proved developed reserves) in the GOM had spiked to over 20% in 2016 from a long-term level of only ~10% during 2000-2013. Similarly, depletion rates in the U.K. and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea also surged from ~10% to ~15% over the past three years. In both the GOM and the North Sea, oil production had recently been expanded, but proved developed reserves declined. Due to such low drilling investments during 2015-2016, producers have replaced only about half of the oil reserves that they've produced in the GOM and North Sea over the past three years (2014-2016). Eventually, this lack of investment in cultivating tomorrow's resources will catch up to the industry, and production will decline. Investors must take SLB's commentary with a grain of salt, as they could be construed as sour grapes. The immense pull of new capital spending to the U.S. shales has substantially benefitted SLB's primary competitors more than it has benefitted SLB (SLB is much more focused on international and offshore projects). Still, investors are too complacent about the stability of non-U.S. production. SLB's analysis and warnings of accelerating production declines should not be ignored. Bottom Line: Outside of the three regions of sharply growing production (U.S. onshore, ME OPEC and Russia) that investors are focused on, the other half of global production has been stagnant to declining despite high oil prices and high levels of drilling during 2010-2015. Now that drilling and capex in these regions has declined by 40%-50%, production declines should accelerate in coming years. Offshore production, especially, has not seen enough drilling to replace reserves, and is poised to decline within the next 2-3 years. The accelerating declines of the "Other Guys" will allow more room for growth from U.S. shales, ME OPEC and Russia. Matt Conlan, Senior Vice President, Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com 1 Please see "China steel hits nine-week peak amid crackdown, lifts iron ore," published by reuters.com May 22, 2017. 2 Please see the feature article in last week's edition of BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy entitled "Bloody Potomac," in which our colleague Mathieu Savary lays out the case for an imminent USD rebound. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016 The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux The Other Guys In The Oil Market, Redux