War/Conflict

Highlights Social unrest and populism are on a secular rise in the U.S.; However, the "Breitbart clique" has suffered a critical defeat in the current Administration; This will make headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio; We continue to stress that domestic politics will not hurt U.S. equities, but more downside to USD may exist this year; India-China military tensions are not strategic or market relevant, yet. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." - Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 This is the second time we have begun a report with this classic Gingrich quote from 2001, which now seems to come from a different era. On November 9, 2016 we used it to open our election post-mortem in which we argued that American party identifications were ossifying into tribal markers that could cause run-of-the-mill polarization to mutate into something scarier.1 Chart 1 shows that party identification (Republicans vs. Democrats) is now responsible for the greatest difference in attitudes towards 48 values, something historically determined by race and education. Over the long term, these trends are concerning and may spur further social unrest in the U.S. As we wrote in June, the gulf between America's patricians and plebeians has never been as wide as it is now. It is being complemented by a gulf in ideology and worldview.2 Part of the problem is that migration from the traditionally liberal-leaning coastal America as well as the Great Lakes region have significantly altered the demographic makeup of the American South (Chart 2). The combination of pro-business regulation, low taxes, sunshine, affordable real estate, southern charm, and excellent higher-education institutions has been difficult to resist.3 Thus, an influx of young and educated migrants has altered the political makeup of many traditionally conservative states. There are many cities - much like Charlottesville, Virginia - where these recent migrants will come into conflict with the values and traditions of the south. Chart 1Rise Of A Tribal America Is The "Trump Put" Over? Is The "Trump Put" Over? Chart 2Internal Migration Is A Risk... Is The "Trump Put" Over? Is The "Trump Put" Over? Given America's history of internal population movements, these patterns of migration should not be a problem. However, today's polarization is extreme (Chart 3), and it is deepening thanks to radically different information and media streams made available by cable television and especially the Internet (Chart 4). Chart 3... In A Polarized Context... ... In A Polarized Context... ... In A Polarized Context... Chart 4... Where 'Fake News' Proliferates ... Where 'Fake News' Proliferates ... Where 'Fake News' Proliferates What does all of this mean for investors? America is geopolitically very well endowed. It has benign neighbors, strong demographics, and almost all the natural resources it needs. However, hegemons are not born out of plenty, but rather out of need and want. The U.K. built a global empire largely because its rain-drenched island lacked basic materials for superpower status. Spain and Portugal discovered new worlds because stronger empires barred lucrative trading routes. Geography does not preordain hegemony. Strong domestic institutions, luck, and guts and glory do. The USD remains weak despite the fact that the Fed was the first major central bank to start hiking this cycle and despite strong economic data out of the U.S. relative to the rest of the world (Chart 5). Perhaps investors have caught the whiff of something rotten in the American Empire? If so, we may be seeing the beginning of a major USD bear market. Chart 5USD Should Be Outperforming In The Current Global Macro Context USD Should Be Outperforming In The Current Global Macro Context USD Should Be Outperforming In The Current Global Macro Context BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy sees the current DXY weakness as temporary. We agree, given that the current trajectory of BCA's ECB months-to-hike measure is discounting way too much hawkishness (Chart 6). The dollar index will likely rally in 2018 as inflation data improves and risks in Europe (Italian election) and Asia (Chinese structural reforms) deepen. Chart 6The ECB Hawkishness Is Overstated The ECB Hawkishness Is Overstated The ECB Hawkishness Is Overstated The scope and pace of the 2018 USD rally, however, will depend on whether investors have confidence in America's economy and institutions. If the Republican tax reform agenda stalls later this year, and if social unrest continues, sovereign and long-term investors may begin to think about diversifying away from the dollar. The "Trump Put" Continues We do not expect domestic politics to play a role in an equity correction. At least not yet. First, investors seem to be completely discounting any possibility of tax reform judging by the performance of the high tax-rate basket (Chart 7). This is likely a mistake. Tax reform is a major component of both Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Second, the market fell 1.58% after President Trump's combative press conference on August 15. The move was not a reprimand for Trump's rhetoric, but concern that Gary Cohn, the scion of the "Goldman clique" and likely the next Fed Chair, would resign over the comments.4 These concerns have now been allayed by the firing of Stephen Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and leader of the "Breitbart clique." Bannon's departure puts Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Meanwhile, three generals are now in charge of foreign and national policy: Defense Secretary James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. Between the six of them, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, there is not a drop of populism left in the White House. Chart 7What Tax Reform? What Tax Reform? What Tax Reform? Although nationalists and populists may be on the retreat, it is still not clear what form tax legislation will take. The only thing that has certainly changed since earlier this year is that the border adjustment tax is officially dead, which would have raised ~$1 trillion in revenue over ten years.5 This requires the GOP either to moderate its tax cuts by the same amount, or to add more to the deficit, which, according to legislative rules, would make the cuts temporary. It is likely at this point that whatever bill the GOP passes, it will expire after a "budget window" of around ten years. The divergence between the White House and Congress remains the same: the White House wants gigantic tax cuts, while Congress wants tax reform, i.e. to broaden the tax base and reduce inefficiencies and distortions. The White House would blow out the budget deficit by more than would the House GOP. There are two key questions that investors want to know from the upcoming tax legislation. First, how significant will the fiscal thrust be? This will determine the impact to the economy and hence will affect the Federal Reserve's response. The GOP Plan: Both the White House and the House GOP claim that they will reduce the budget deficit over the next ten years despite cutting taxes. They project an average budget deficit of 1.3%-1.4% from 2018-2027, down from a 3%-4% baseline. This projection is rationalized via expectations of faster economic growth as well as "dynamic scoring" to capture the macroeconomic feedback of the tax cuts. The White House and GOP claim that economic feedback will reduce the deficit by $1.5-$2 trillion over the ten-year budget window, which is 26%-37% of the total deficit reduction they are proposing (i.e., likely very optimistic).6 The Tax Policy Center Response: Outside analysis of the budget plan argues the opposite. The Tax Policy Center argues that the White House plan, insofar as the details are known, would add a minimum of $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, and that the macroeconomic feedback could even be negative (i.e., add to the deficits). The deficit would rise from 3.2% of GDP to 6.4% by 2026, if we factor in the Congressional Budget Office assumptions that a 4% real growth rate leads to a GDP of $26.9 trillion in 2026.7 The GOP Retort: Republicans claim they will reduce the deficit by means of proposed "revenue offsets," or savings measures, over the ten-year period. The Tax Policy Center highlights the following in particular: $1.6 trillion from repealing personal exemptions; $1.5 trillion from abolishing all itemized deductions (other than the politically sensitive mortgage interest deduction and charity deduction); $622 billion from treating some income from pass-through businesses as dividends; $272 billion from repealing corporate tax breaks; $208 billion from repealing the "head of household" status for tax filers; $49 billion from taxing capital gains upon death (above the $5 million threshold). The total is $4.3 trillion in savings, against $7.8 trillion of losses, for a total deficit that is increased by $3.4 trillion over the ten years. This would amount to around $340 billion of "stimulus" each year, with the biggest thrust felt in 2018-19. We very much doubt that the White House will achieve this slate of proposals. It has not shown an inkling of the ability to coordinate such a difficult legislative feat. Therefore, we expect the tax legislation to be watered down. The budget deficit may rise to something closer to 6%, over the next ten years, than to the gigantic 12% of GDP implied by Trump's proposals on the campaign trail (Chart 8). Chart 8Question Of The Year: Will Tax Reform Be Stimulative? Question Of The Year: Will Tax Reform Be Stimulative? Question Of The Year: Will Tax Reform Be Stimulative? The second question asked by investors is about the impact of tax legislation on assets. It is clearly positive for inflation and growth given that even tepid tax cuts will provide economic stimulus when unemployment is already very low. Our colleagues at BCA already believe, without a tax bill, that inflation is likely to surprise to the upside in 2018-19.8 Fiscal stimulus via tax cuts would obviously add to that. The equity market will cheer any promising developments on tax cuts or reform, especially given that so little is currently priced in. However, whether the USD rallies as it did on hopes of tax legislation earlier this year will largely depend on how the Fed reacts to the legislation. There is a lot of uncertainty, particularly if President Trump decides to go with Gary Cohn as the next Fed chair. Bottom Line: Congressional Republicans cannot gamble with tax legislation. The failure to cut taxes, or reform the tax code, would be a major policy misstep ahead of the midterm elections. If legislation passes, we expect that Congress will have had greater control over the plan than the White House, reducing the eventual magnitude of the tax cut and the fiscal stimulus. Congress controls the purse strings and will reassert that authority in the context of an ineffective executive. Should You Care About The Debt Ceiling? Clients are beginning to fret about the upcoming debt ceiling fight. There is good reason to be nervous. The Republican-held Congress has failed to pass legislation, notably on this year's priority item, Obamacare. The last thing Republicans want is to shut down the government or cause a technical default entirely of their own doing! Clients should note that while government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. This is because the debt ceiling is an anachronism. In other countries, when a budget is passed it automatically contains the implicit authority to issue whatever debt is required to finance the resulting deficit.9 To require separate legislation for a budget and an authorized level of debt is a product of politics and has little bearing on the actual financing needs of the U.S. government. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will almost inevitably be raised in the U.S. because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors (who vote!) or a halt to other entitlement programs. Only a disastrous chain of events resulting from polarization and brinkmanship, even worse than in the Obama years, would lead to such an outcome. Today, given that Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, there is no way for the Republicans to share the blame with the Democrats, as they did under Obama. Investors are therefore mistaking the game-theoretical paradigm: It is not a "game of chicken," but rather a cooperative game given that Republicans in Congress are largely on the same side. Members of the GOP are starting to "get it," including the fiscally conservative House Freedom Caucus. David Schweikert, influential member of the Freedom Caucus who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said last week that he is in favor of a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling. Mark Meadows, North Carolina representative who chairs the group, has also said that he is "bullish" on raising the debt limit, although he added that he preferred to attach some reforms to the bill. On August 2, he said "Either that will get done [some spending cuts attached to the debt ceiling bill] or a clean debt ceiling will get done. We will raise the debt ceiling and there shouldn't be any fear of that." Other members of the Caucus, including its founder Jim Jordan of Ohio, have retorted that no debt limit hike without spending cuts should be contemplated, prompting the media to focus on the brinkmanship. But we note that the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is itself considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill since the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. If Schweikert and Meadows are indicative of how the group will vote, the fiscal conservatives may not have enough votes to deprive the GOP of a majority. (The latter would force GOP moderates to go to the Democrats for votes, complicating the negotiations and increasing the risk of mistakes.) What about the Democrats in the Senate? To pass a clean bill on the debt ceiling, Republicans would need at least eight Democrat Senators to get to 60 votes, and probably more given that Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) would likely vote against a clean bill. We doubt that Democrats would remain united in voting against a clean bill. It would allow President Trump and Republicans in Congress to accuse them of hypocrisy and holding U.S. credit hostage, much as Democrats did to Republicans between 2011-2016. As such, the market's fear that Democrats could play the spoiler is a red herring. While some grassroots activists in the Democratic Party are sure to want a confrontation, its median voters tend to be educated and well-informed. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown, between October 1, when the current funding for the government expires, and sometime in mid-October when the debt ceiling is hit, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Odds of such a scenario are probably around 25%. But the contingent probability of a debt ceiling failure following a government shutdown would be reduced, not increased, given that it would focus public attention on Republican incompetence. In other words, if a shutdown occurs on October 1, we would expect the odds of a debt ceiling crisis to be reduced. Finally, our assessment that the "Goldman Sachs clique" has reasserted control over White House economic policy should also be positive for the likelihood of a clean debt ceiling bill. While we have no evidence that Stephen Bannon was in favor of using the debt ceiling for fiscal cuts (given his opposition to government spending cuts in toto), he did say following his resignation that Trump would be "moderated" by remaining White House staffers. He went on to say "I think he'll sign a clean debt ceiling; I think you'll see all this stuff." The only remaining holdover in the White House on the debt ceiling issue is the Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney has suggested earlier in the year that Republicans should try to tie spending restraint to a debt ceiling bill. However, at a meeting between President Trump and GOP leaders in early June, President Trump said that congressional leaders should take Steven Mnuchin's position as the White House position. "Mnuching is that guy," Trump told party leaders at the meeting, according to GOP sources who spoke to Politico in the summer. Mulvaney's office has also confirmed that the Treasury Department "has point on the debt ceiling," i.e., that Mnuchin is in charge. Bottom Line: Concern over the debt ceiling is natural, given the failure of Republican-held Congress to pass any legislation of note this year. However, it is also overstated. The U.S. government would default on its obligations to its voters, first and foremost. Such a scenario - given Republican control of all branches of government - would put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican-held Congress ahead of the midterm elections. Fade any fear of a U.S. default. Will India And China Fight A War? Clients, particularly in China, have shown considerable concern about geopolitical conflict between China and India. Since early June, a border dispute between China and India has flared up in the Doklam region. Doklam, or rather the India-China-Bhutan border region, is one of three main border disputes in the Himalayas that flare-up from time to time - along with Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh. The 1962 border war between the two Asian behemoths over the latter two areas marked the biggest flare in recent memory. Today, India is fearful of China's growing military and logistical capabilities and concerned about the long-term security of the Siliguri Corridor, the narrow stretch of land connecting the subcontinent to the Northeast (Map 1). Control of the Doklam Plateau and Chumbi Valley would give China access to Siliguri; they are therefore important areas to monitor.10 India is also threatened by China's improving bilateral relations with neighbors like Pakistan,Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and potentially Bhutan. The latter does not have formal relations with China, has always been under India's sphere of influence, and is at the center of the current dispute. And ultimately, India fears that China seeks to create an economic corridor through Bangladesh to the Indian Ocean, which would, in combination with the Pakistan corridor, surround India. Map 1Too Close For Comfort: Tensions Threaten India's Control Over Vital Siliguri Corridor Is The "Trump Put" Over? Is The "Trump Put" Over? The current dispute ostensibly began - as many do - with contested infrastructure construction. India built some bunkers at a forward outpost in Lalten in 2012; China allegedly bulldozed them on June 6-8 of this year. The same month, Indian troops confronted Chinese troops building a road along the border with Bhutan that would have connected an existing road to a People's Liberation Army outpost and to the border crossing of Doka La. While the territorial dispute is old, China is expanding its pressure tactics on Bhutan, while India has sent troops into disputed Sino-Bhutanese territory in a more assertive defense of Bhutan. Broadly, China is making inroads with infrastructure as it develops its far-flung western regions and seeks to improve connectivity with neighbors via the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative. China is capital-rich and can afford to improve its access to regions of strategic value that yield access to key Indian territories or supply water and hydropower to India. India is capital-poor and downstream, so its ability to respond is often limited to military gestures. India also wants to retain its dominance over Bhutanese foreign policy, in place since 1949 and especially 1960, and this dispute is marked by India taking an active military role on Bhutanese territory on Bhutan's behalf. There are several reasons we do not expect this conflict to be market-relevant. First, the Himalayas are isolated and poor, so that China or India would have to make a very dramatic move that poses a genuine strategic threat (e.g., to the Siliguri Corridor, or Chinese control of Tibet, or Indian relations with Pakistan, or Indian water sources) to trigger a larger conflict. Second, while it is true that nationalism is flaring up on both sides, China has a clear interest in pursuing some "rallying around the flag" strategy amid the standoff over North Korea, and ahead of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress. That it chose to do so in Doklam, where conflict is more easily contained than in the Koreas or the East or South China Seas, suggests that political opportunism and China's desire to make incremental gains, rather than a sweeping Chinese plan to seize strategic territory, is driving the current episode. Meanwhile, India needs to attract capital to build its manufacturing base, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reached out to China for this reason. India will undoubtedly defend its strategic interests if attacked, but otherwise it is not eager to clash with China, which has bulked up its military far more than India has done in recent decades. Chart 9India Would Bolster Containment Of China India Would Bolster Containment Of China India Would Bolster Containment Of China However, we do see India-China relations as fitting into the larger, negative geopolitical dynamic where the U.S. and its allies encourage India as a balance to China, while China suspects the U.S. alliance of using India and others to encircle and entrap China (Chart 9). Not that the U.S. stirred up the current dispute, but that the U.S. (and Japan) will generally seek to improve relations with India and to strengthen its military and economy, and China will use its regional influence to try to keep India off balance.11 This structural dynamic, in addition to China's territorial assertiveness, is likely to keep generating frictions. Bottom Line: A conflict between India and China is only market-relevant if it extends beyond disputed territories in the Himalayas to affect core strategic interests like the Siliguri Corridor, Tibetan stability, the Indo-Pakistani balance of power, or water supply and hydropower. It could also become market-relevant by worsening U.S.-China relations - and delaying Chinese economic reforms - if China should come to feel embattled on all geopolitical fronts. For instance, should an adventurous, "lame duck" Donald Trump attempt to combine with India and other neighbors in ways that threaten to cause problems in China's western regions as well as in its East Asian periphery. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Hook 'em Horns! 4 We recently argued that the White House is torn between two groups, the "Goldman" and the "Breitbart" cliques. The Goldman clique is led by Gary Cohn, Director of the National Economic Council and is pragmatic, un-ideological, and focused on passing tax reform and pro-business regulation. The Breitbart clique is populist, nationalist, and leans to the left on economic matters. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Congressional Budget Office, "An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 to 2027," June 2017, available at www.cbo.gov and U.S. Office of Management and Budget, "Budget of the U.S. Government: A New Foundation For American Greatness, Fiscal Year 2018," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 7 Please see the Tax Policy Center, "The Implications Of What We Know And Don't Know About President Trump's Tax Plan," July 12, 2017, and Benjamin R. Page, "Dynamic Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan: An Update," June 30, 2017, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. Using White House growth assumptions of 4.7% would lead to a deficit of 5.7% in 2026. 8 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long," dated August 8, 2017, and U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Denmark also has a debt ceiling, but it has set it so high that it does not need to be addressed. 10 Please see Sudha Ramachandran, "Bhutan's Relations With China And India," Jamestown Foundation, China Brief (17:6), April 20, 2017, available at Jamestown.org. 11 In fact, Japan already waded into the India-China dispute. The Japanese ambassador to India issued a statement critical of China, which the Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately rebuked.

Highlights Geopolitical tensions will stay elevated. We are not changing our strategic views. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a major military conflict or escalating trade wars with significant economic damages, the impact on both the broader growth outlook and financial markets should be limited. President Trump's recent decision to probe China's IPR practices is his first direct trade measure against China, and therefore is of important symbolic significance, but the near term impact should be limited. There is enough common ground for the two sides to avoid direct confrontation. We expect Beijing to cooperate with the U.S. administration to intensify pressure on North Korea. Short KRW/JPY as a hedge against geopolitical risk in The Korean Peninsula. There is an economic case for the trade, even without geopolitical considerations. Feature The Chinese economy is experiencing a summer lull, as most recent growth figures have disappointed, albeit slightly. Exports, production, investment and retail sales have all decelerated, underscoring that growth momentum is softening across the board. Investors have largely shrugged off the weaker-than-expected numbers, a sign that the market is not overly concerned about a major relapse down the road. We share investors' optimism, as discussed in some recent reports,1 but are watchful for signs of market complacency.2 After the most recent rally, multiples of Chinese equities are no longer exceptionally cheap by historical norms, even though they are still a lot cheaper compared with most other major global and EM bourses. We will discuss Chinese equity valuations in greater detail in the coming weeks. Geopolitical risks have dominated Greater China markets of late. The escalation of tensions surrounding North Korea briefly took their toll in the past week. On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump authorized U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to determine whether to launch an investigation into China's alleged theft of intellectual property. Overall, both events underscore rising geopolitical tensions globally, particularly around China. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a major military conflict or an escalating trade war that causes major economic damage, the tensions should not have a material impact on the outlook for the Chinese and global economy, as well as financial markets. A short position on the Korean won versus the Japanese yen offers a low-risk hedge against a sudden escalation of geopolitical tensions in the region. Intellectual Property Investigation: The Knowns And Unknowns It is unclear at the moment whether Trump is simply using the investigation as a bargaining chip to seek concessions/cooperation from China, or to start a trade war with lose-lose outcomes. The situation needs to be closely monitored and assessed continuously. For now, a few observations are in order: This is the first direct trade measure by the Trump administration against China, and therefore is of important symbolic significance, but the near-term impact should be limited. President Trump has only authorized his administration to determine whether or not to formally investigate Chinese policies and practices. It may take a year to finalize the decision, and even longer to begin negotiations and discussions with Chinese officials for solutions and remedies. Previous similar investigations against Chinese products resulted in bilateral agreements rather than all-out confrontations. Trump's decision is based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to unilaterally impose tariffs or other trade restrictions to protect U.S. industries from "unfair trade practices" of foreign countries. This was a popular trade tool in the 1980s and was used to impose tariffs against certain Japanese and Korean products, but has been rarely used in the past decade. In 2010 the Obama administration also accepted a petition under Section 301 to investigate China's state support for clean-energy exports, particularly solar panels and wind turbines, and the Chinese government later promised to limit some of these practices through bilateral negotiations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that taking any such actions against other member countries without first securing approval under WTO rules is, in of itself, a violation of the WTO Agreement, and can be challenged under the WTO framework. In fact, section 301 investigations have not resulted in any trade sanctions since the WTO was set up in 1995. Table 1Top Challenges Doing Business In China China's Geopolitical Pressure Points: Knowns, Unknowns And A Hedge China's Geopolitical Pressure Points: Knowns, Unknowns And A Hedge More importantly, we see common ground enabling the U.S. and China to work together to improve China's Intellectual Property Rights, or IPR practices. From the U.S.'s perspective, while Trump's blunt accusations on China's trade policies are not completely justified and will not solve the massive trade imbalances between the two countries, his challenge on China's IPR infringement has legitimate ground, and resonates well within the broader American business community. American companies doing business in China have long listed intellectual property rights infringement and protectionism as top challenges, especially among industrial and resources businesses (Table 1). In other words, Trump's complaints on China's IPR practices reflects corporate America's rational voice rather than a sensational rant. China's own practices are also in conflict with its intentions to build a more open and market-friendly policy environment. Indeed, China has also been making notable progress to enhance IPR protections. In September 2015, in his state visit to the U.S., President Xi promised to limit the scope of national security reviews on investment, refrain from cyber-enabled IP theft, and uphold WTO agreements regarding market access for information and communications technology (ICT) products. China's deficits in IP royalty fees has increased sharply in recent years, while America's royalties surpluses have been expanding (Chart 1). Furthermore, 90% of American firms doing business in China believe that China's IPR enforcement has improved over the last five years, according to American Chamber Of Commerce In China (AmCham China) surveys.3 In short, there is certainly room for further improvement in China's IPR practices, and the broad direction fits with Trump's expectations, creating common ground for the two sides to avoid direct confrontation. We expect China's IPR practices will continue to converge towards international standards going forward. Chart 2 shows Chinese patent applications have exploded in recent years. As the country's technology continues to advance and local businesses are growing more aware of the value of intellectual property, China will develop a keen interest to safeguard its own IPRs. We are hopeful that Trump's investigation will provide a catalyst for further improvement in Chinese IPR practices, rather than derail broader bilateral trade. Chart 1China's Widening Deficits In IPR Royalty China's Widening Deficits In IPR Royalty China's Widening Deficits In IPR Royalty Chart 2China's Exploding Patent Applications ##br##Will Demand Stricter IPR Protections China's Exploding Patent Applications Will Demand Stricter IPR Protections China's Exploding Patent Applications Will Demand Stricter IPR Protections North Korea Tensions, And Short KRW/JPY As A Crisis Hedge The escalation of geopolitical tensions surrounding North Korea briefly took a toll on global and Greater China markets in the past week. The situation remains highly fluid, and the stakes are exceedingly high - both of which will put investors on edge in the weeks and months ahead. Our Geopolitical team in their latest assessment concludes that the U.S. is not likely to preemptively attack North Korea. However, the U.S. has an interest in signaling that it may conduct precisely such an attack, and brinkmanship could last for a long time.4 As far as China is concerned, there is genuine interest among the Chinese leadership to de-escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula, but there is no easy solution. On one hand, it is absolutely against the country's best interests to collapse the North Korea regime. Such an outcome could see a surge of refugees to its densely populated and economically struggling Northeast region. Moreover, it could also potentially lead to a strong and unified Korea at the Chinese border that is a military ally to the United States. On the other hand, Beijing also feels that it has fallen victim to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and has become growingly frustrated by its escalating provocations. China also fears that North Korea's nuclear program could encourage countries in the region, particularly Japan, to develop their own nuclear arsenals, which would be viewed as strategically threatening to China's national security. For now, we expect Beijing to cooperate with the U.S. administration to intensify pressure on North Korea. Already, China has supported the United Nations Security Council in imposing new sanctions on North Korea last week. Early this week, the Commerce Ministry announced a ban on imports of iron ore, iron, lead and coal from North Korea. These actions may have contributed to the softened tones from North Korea since, but it remains to be seen whether the impact will be long-lasting. The upshot is that the shared interests between China and the U.S. on various major global issues mean that the risk of an escalating trade war between the two countries should remain under control. For investors, bouts of geopolitical tension will likely bid up traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and the Swiss franc going forward. Another way to play the geopolitical risk is to short the Korean won (KRW) and long the Japanese yen (JPY). The KRW will obviously suffer devastating losses in even mild military skirmishes between the U.S. and North Korea, while the JPY may benefit from any "risk-off" unwinding of the yen carry trade. More importantly, economic fundamentals are not supportive of a stronger KRW, especially against the JPY, which means the downside risk in shorting the KRW/JPY is quite low, even without geopolitical considerations. Chart 3The Won Is Expensive Against The Yen The Won Is Expensive Against The Yen The Won Is Expensive Against The Yen The KRW is expensive against the JPY, based on a purchasing power parity (PPP) assessment (Chart 3). The 30% rally of KRW/JPY since 2012 has pushed it to an over two-sigma overshoot above its PPP fair value. Historically the won has rarely been sustainable at such elevated levels. Korea's economic outlook remains uninspiring. Capacity utilization has continued to decline, pricing power is weak, money growth is decelerating and real retail sales growth has stalled (Chart 4). Exports have been the bright spot in the overall growth picture, recovering strongly from last year's slump, but it is unrealistic to expect the export sector to continue to accelerate if growth numbers in China downshift. Softening exports will further weigh on Korea's growth outlook. In contrast, the latest growth numbers confirm that the Japanese economy has improved notably (Chart 5). Real GDP expanded by 1% in the second quarter compared with the previous three months, significantly beating expectations. While it remains to be seen whether Japan is able to maintain its regained momentum going forward, its growth gap with Korea has narrowed considerably of late, which will also lend support to the yen against its Korean counterpart. Chart 4Korea Growth Is Set To Moderate Korea Growth Is Set To Moderate Korea Growth Is Set To Moderate Chart 5Japan And Korea: Growth Gap Has Narrowed Japan And Korea: Growth Gap Has Narrowed Japan And Korea: Growth Gap Has Narrowed The bottom line is that geopolitical tensions in the Korean Peninsula will stay elevated. We are not changing our strategic views. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a significant military conflict that causes major economic damage, the geopolitical skirmishes should not have a material impact on both the broader growth outlook and financial markets. Investors may consider shorting the KRW/JPY as a hedge for geopolitical risks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, and "Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes", dated July 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: What Could Go Wrong?" dated August 3, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 AmCham In China 2016 White Paper 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Washington must establish a "credible threat" if it is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer the superior outcome; The process of establishing such a credible threat is volatile; U.S. Treasurys, along with Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been consistent safe haven assets; The risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea is a red herring, while the crisis itself is not; We suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Feature Brinkmanship between Pyongyang and Washington, D.C. has roiled markets over the past week. The uptick in rhetoric has not come as a surprise. Since last year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that souring Sino-American relations were the premier geopolitical risk to investors and that China's periphery, especially the Korean peninsula, would be the "decisive" factor for markets.1 North Korea's nuclear ambitions - which could be snuffed out immediately by a concerted and coordinated effort by China and the U.S. - are a derivative of the broader U.S.-China dynamic. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve its standoff with North Korea. There are long-standing constraints to war, ones that all of the interested parties know only too well from their experience in the Korean War of 1950-53. The first of these is that war is likely to bring a high death toll: Pyongyang can inflict massive civilian casualties in Seoul with a conventional artillery barrage; U.S. troops and Japanese troops and civilians would also likely suffer. Second, China is unlikely to remain neutral, given its behavior in the 1950s, its persistent strategic interest in the peninsula, and its huge increase in military strength relative to both the past and to the United States. However, the process by which the U.S. establishes a "credible threat" of military action is volatile.2 Such a credible threat is necessary if Washington is to convince Pyongyang that negotiations offer a superior outcome to the belligerent status quo. Viewed from this perspective - which is informed by game theory -President Donald Trump has not committed any grave mistakes so far, but has rather shrewdly manipulated the world's perception that he is mentally unhinged in order to enhance his negotiating leverage. It is unclear how long it will take Trump to convince North Korea that the threat of a U.S. preemptive strike is "credible." As such, it is unclear how long the current standoff will persist. From an investor perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military posturing are part of this "territorial threat display" or evidence of real preparations for an actual attack. As such, further volatility is likely. The ongoing crisis in North Korea is neither the first nor the last geopolitical crisis the world will face in today's era of paradigm shifts.3 We have long identified East Asia as the cauldron of investment-relevant geopolitical risks.4 This is a dynamic produced by the multipolar global context and the geopolitical disequilibrium in the Sino-American relationship. For now, investors have been able to ignore the rising global tensions (Chart 1) due to the ample liquidity emanating from central banks, but the day of reckoning is nigh (Chart 2). Chart 1Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 2Day Of Reckoning? Day Of Reckoning? Day Of Reckoning? Q&A On North Korea Back on April 19, we wrote a Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," which argued that North Korea had at last become a market-relevant geopolitical risk after decades of limited impact (Chart 3).5 Chart 3North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Looking to the next steps, we introduced the "arc of diplomacy," a framework comparable to the U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations from 2010-15 (Chart 4). We predicted that the U.S. would ultimately ramp up threats for the purpose of achieving a diplomatic solution. The U.S. was constrained and would only go to war if an act of war were committed, or appeared imminent.6 Chart 4Arc Of Diplomacy: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? This assessment is now playing out. But not all clients are convinced of our logic, as we have found in our travels throughout Asia Pacific and elsewhere this month. Below we offer a short Q&A based on questions we have received from clients: Q: Diplomacy has already been tried, so why won't the U.S. attack? A: The U.S. public has less appetite for war, especially a preemptive strike, in the wake of the Iraq War, and has not suffered a 9/11 or Pearl Harbor-type catalyst. The U.S. will exhaust diplomatic options before joining a catastrophic second Korean War. And the diplomatic options are far from exhausted. The latest round of sanctions are tighter and more serious than past ones, but still leave categories untouched (like fuel supplies to the North) and are still very hard to enforce (like cutting illegal North Korean labor remittances). Enforcement is always difficult, and the U.S. is currently attempting to ensure that its allies enforce the sanctions strictly, not to mention its rivals (i.e. Russia and China). While we do not think China will ever impose crippling sanctions, we do think it can tighten them up considerably, which could be enough to change the North's behavior. Q: Why doesn't China just take North Korea out? A: China is a formal political, military, and ideological ally of North Korea, and has a strategic interest in maintaining a buffer space on the Korean peninsula - which it defended at enormous human cost in the Korean War. This interest remains in place. China is far more likely to aid and abet a nuclear-armed ally in North Korea than it is to endorse (much less participate in) regime change. The fallout from a new war, such as North Korean refugees flooding into China, is extremely undesirable for China, though it could handle the problem ruthlessly. China would also prefer not to have to occupy a collapsing North, which would be an extensive and dangerous entanglement. Therefore, expect China to twist Pyongyang's arm but not to break its legs. On a more topical note, China is consumed with domestic politics ahead of the nineteenth National Party Congress. It is perhaps more likely to take action after the congress in October-November. Q: Will U.S. allies cooperate with Trump? Why not bandwagon with China to gain economic benefit? A: South Korea is the best litmus test for whether Trump is causing U.S. allies to drift. The new South Korean President Moon Jae-In, who is politically left-of-center, has played his cards very carefully and started out on good footing with President Trump. A disagreement appears to be a likely consequence of Moon's agenda, which calls for extensive engagement with the North and a review of the U.S. THAAD missile defense deployment in Korea. So far, however, Moon is reaffirming the alliance, in his own way, and Trump has not (yet) expressed misgivings about him. If this changes significantly - as in, South Korea joining with China to give North Korea significant economic aid in defiance of U.S. sanctions efforts - then it would be a sign of division among the allies that would benefit North Korea and could even increase the risk of the U.S. taking unilateral action. The odds of that are still low, however. We have been short the Korean won versus the Thai baht since March 1, and the trade is up 6.03%. We also expect greater volatility and higher prices of credit default swaps to plague South Korea while the crisis continues over the coming months. We are closing our long Korean consumer stocks trade versus Taiwanese exporters for a loss of 4.24%. Q: What is Japan's role in the current crisis? What is the impact on Japan? A: Japan is one of the few countries whose relations with the U.S. have benefited under the Trump administration. The Japanese are in lock-step so far in reacting to North Korea. The government has been sounding louder alarms about North Korea for the past year, including by conducting evacuation drills in the case of attack. Japan has long been within range of North Korea's missiles, but its successes in nuclear miniaturization pose a much greater threat. Not only does North Korea pose a legitimate security risk, but Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also stands to benefit at least marginally in terms of popular support and support for his controversial constitutional revision. This will, in turn, feed into the region's insecurities. Yen strength as a result of the crisis, however, would be a headwind to Japan's economic growth. Thus Abe has a tightrope to walk. We expect him to take actions to ensure the economy continues to reflate. Q: Is Trump rational? How do we know he won't push the nuclear button? A: Ultimately this is unknowable. It also involves one's philosophical outlook. Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong both committed atrocities by the tens of millions but did not use nuclear weapons. Nikita Khrushchev practically wrote the playbook that North Korea's Kim dynasty has used in making its belligerent nuclear threats. Yet Khrushchev ultimately agreed to détente. Kim Jong Un makes Trump look calm. The combination of Kim and Trump is worrisome; but so was the combination of Eisenhower and Khrushchev, one believing nuclear weapons should be used if needed, the other threatening wildly to use them. It may be the case that the threat of an atrocity, or (in Kim's case) of total annihilation, is enough to keep decisions restrained. As we go to press, Kim has ostensibly suspended his plan to fire missiles around Guam and U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that they would not attack unless attacked. Stairway To (Safe) Haven Revisited In expectation of increased frequency of geopolitical risks, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has produced two quantitative analyses of safe haven assets over the past two years. The first, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," unequivocally crowned gold as the ultimate safe haven (Table 1), while showing that the USD is not much of a defense against geopolitical events (Chart 5).7 Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Table 1Safe-Haven Demand Rises During Crises Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? As such, investors should fade the narrative that the failure of the USD to appreciate amidst the latest North Korean imbroglio is a sign of some structural weakness. The greenback continues to underperform due to weak inflation in the U.S., a fleeting condition that our macro-economist colleagues expect to reverse. Mathieu Savary, BCA's currency strategist, believes that more upside exists for the USD regardless of the geopolitical outcome: Chart 5Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Chart 6DXY Is Cheap... DXY Is Cheap... DXY Is Cheap... Chart 7...But The Euro Is Not ...But The Euro Is Not ...But The Euro Is Not First, the dollar is currently trading at its deepest discount to the BCA Foreign Exchange Service augmented interest rate parity model since 2010 (Chart 6). The euro, which accounts for 58% of the DXY index, is its mirror image, being now overvalued by two sigma, the most since 2010 (Chart 7). Second, bullish euro bets will dissipate as Europe's economic outperformance versus the U.S. fades. Financial conditions have massively eased in the U.S., while they have tightened in Europe, resulting in the biggest upswing on euro area growth relative to the U.S. in over two years (Chart 8). Such an economic outperformance by the U.S. should lead to a strengthening greenback (Chart 9).8 Chart 8Easing Versus Tightening FCI Easing Versus Tightening FCI Easing Versus Tightening FCI Chart 9PMIs Point To USD Rally PMIs Point To USD Rally PMIs Point To USD Rally Our second attempt to quantify safe-haven assets, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," concluded that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds, and Japanese bonds are the best performers in times of crisis.9 We considered 65 assets10 (Table 2) with five different methodologies and back-tested them empirically within the context of 25 financial and geopolitical events since January 1988. Some of these assets have been proven to perform as safe havens by previous academic research, some are commonly utilized in investment strategies, and others could provide alternatives (see Box 1 for further details). Table 2Scrutinizing The World For Safe Havens Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? This report demystifies four key issues related to safe havens: Part I identifies what qualifies as a safe-haven asset. Unsurprisingly, the best performers are U.S. Treasurys along with Swiss and Japanese bonds due to their currency effects. Part II examines if safe havens change over time. We find that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens, and that JGBs and Swiss bonds have a long history as portfolio protectors. Part III breaks down safe havens through an event analysis. We look at the country of origin, the nature of the crisis, and whether the risk is a "black swan" or "red herring" - two classifications of events that BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has established - all of which have an impact on their performance. But red herrings or black swans are only defined after the fact, thus requiring geopolitical analysis or market timing indicators to be able to act on them. Part IV demonstrates that timing plays a crucial part when investing in safe havens as their performance is coincident with that of equities. Box 1 Safe Havens - A Literature Review In a previous Geopolitical Strategy Special Report published in November 2015, it was established that shifts in economic and political regimes alter investors' preferences for safe-haven assets, and that Swiss bonds and U.S. 10-year Treasurys were at the top of that list.11 Also, statistical methods were used to demonstrate that gold had acted as a safe haven from the 1970s to the early 90s, but has since lost its status due in part to a new era of looming deflationary risks. Li and Lucey (2013) have identified a pattern in precious metals, through a series of quarterly rolling regressions testing the significance of the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements against safe-haven assets, catching extreme negative events. For instance, the 1st percentile captures the very worst corrections that have occurred, the one that represent the bottom 1% of the equity performances. The 5th and 10th percentiles represent the 5% and 10% lowest returns for equities, respectively. The authors demonstrated that silver, platinum and palladium act as safe havens when gold does not.12 Similarly, Bauer and McDermott (2013) examined the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile movements in U.S. equity movements and proved that both gold and U.S. Treasurys can serve as safe havens, but that gold has the best record in times of extreme financial stress.13 Baele et al. (2015) concentrated on flight-to-safety episodes, which they characterized as events in which the VIX, TED spreads and a basket of CHF, JPY, and USD all increased drastically.14 They found that during flight-to-safety episodes, large cap stocks outperform small caps, precious metal and gold prices (measured in dollars) increase slightly, while bond returns exceed those of the equity market by 2.5-4 percentage points. Baur and Glover (2012) provide further evidence that gold can no longer be utilized as a safe haven due to increased speculation and hedging. Their main finding is that gold cannot be both an investment and a safe-haven asset. That is, gold can only be effective as a safe haven if the periods prior to the event had not generated significant investment demand for gold.15 Using high-frequency exchange rate data, Ranaldo and Soederlind (2010) conclude that the CHF, EUR and JPY have significant safe-haven characteristics, but not the GBP.16 The strongest safe havens are identified as the CHF and JPY, but the returns are partly reversed after a day of safe-haven protection. They also find that the nature of the crisis has a significant effect on safe-haven properties. For instance, a financial crisis and a natural disaster produced drastically different outcomes for the yen. Part I - Safety In Numbers Our first step in identifying safe-haven assets was to review each asset's performance against equities in times of crisis. As such, we conducted a series of threshold regressions to generate a list of true safe-haven assets - assets that have a statistically significant positive performance in times of turmoil. Our method is explained as follows: Step 1 - Percentile Dummies: Following methods from Li and Lucey (2013) and Bauer and McDermott (2013), we created dummy variables for the 1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns since 1988. We then multiplied each of these dummies by their corresponding stock returns (see Box 1 for further detail). Step 2 - Regressions: Using the 64 potential safe-haven assets, we ran a series of regressions both in USD and the local currency, testing each asset's returns explained by the three percentile dummies.17 Step 3 - Identifying Safe Havens: We then quantified strong safe-havens as assets having significant coefficients for all three return thresholds (1st, 5th and 10th percentile of the S&P 500 daily total returns). Results - Seek Refuge In Currencies And Government Bonds: Our quantitative results are mainly consistent with what others have found in the past: the Japanese yen and most G10 government bonds are safe havens. Table 3 shows the safe-haven assets that generated negative coefficients versus equities for all three threshold percentiles. Table 3Seeking Protection Against Corrections Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? In our threshold regressions expressed in USD terms, we found that the Japanese yen, Quality Stocks,18 and Japanese, Swiss and U.S. bonds acted as strong safe havens. Currencies play a crucial part in the performance of safe havens. In fact, in local-currency terms, a series of G10 government bonds (U.S., Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.) proved to be the most useful safe havens. In sum, true or strong safe havens are government bonds that have currencies that add to positive returns during times of crisis. Unsurprisingly, this select group of strong safe-haven assets is comprised of U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Quality Stocks did provide positive and statistically significant results, but the returns were very low - for this reason, we excluded them from our basket of strong safe havens. While gold, the Swiss franc, and the U.S. dollar did generate positive returns during times of crisis, they failed to generate statistically significant results at all three thresholds. Bottom Line: Based on our econometric work, most G10 government bonds can act as safe havens. But due to strong currency effects, our models favor what are already commonly known as safe havens: U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds. Simply put, the difference between this select group and other G10 bonds is that their currencies rise or are stable during turmoil, while the currencies of the other G10 bonds do not. Part II - Are Safe Havens Like Fine Wines? U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds were not always the top assets providing protection against the downside in equities, however. To determine whether safe-haven properties change, we examined the evolution of the relationship between safe havens and U.S. equity markets over time with the following model: Step 1 - Rolling Regressions: Considering the results obtained in Part I, we restricted our sample to G10 governments in USD and local-currency terms, Quality Stocks, gold, JPY, EUR, and USD for this statistical procedure. We put these remaining assets, both in USD and local-currency terms, through a series of 1-year rolling regressions.19 Step 2 - Identifying Trends: Each regression generated a coefficient that explained the relationship between equities and safe havens (B1). We created a new time series by collecting the coefficients for each data point and smoothing them using a five-year moving average, thus depicting a long-term pattern in the evolution of safe havens. Results - A Regime Shift In Gold And Treasurys: Our findings show that safe-haven assets fall in and out of favor through time (Charts 10A, B & C). Most striking are the changes in U.S. Treasurys and gold. Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge for equity corrections. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. That said, gold's coefficient has been falling closer to zero lately, illustrating that it could soon resurface as a proper safe haven, especially if deflation risks begin to dissipate. Given that this is precisely the conclusion stated by our colleague Peter Berezin - BCA's Chief Global Strategist - and our own political analysis, we suspect that gold may be resurrected as a safe haven very soon.20 Chart 10ASafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Safe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Safe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10BSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Safe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Safe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Chart 10CSafe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Safe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Safe Havens Don't Necessarily Age Well Another important finding is that the currency effect plays a key role during recent risk-off periods (Charts 11A & B). The best protector currencies are the ones that are negatively correlated with equity returns. According to our results, the CHF and the JPY have generally been risk-off currencies, while the USD has only been one since 2007, switching places with the euro. This reinforces the case for U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, which are supported by risk-off currencies. Chart 11ACurrencies Are Difference Makers Currencies Are Difference Makers Currencies Are Difference Makers Chart 11BCurrencies Are Difference Makers Currencies Are Difference Makers Currencies Are Difference Makers Bottom Line: Safe havens change over time. Gold fell out of favor due to global deflationary dynamics. With inflation on the horizon, we will keep monitoring the relationship between gold and equities for a possible return of the yellow metal as a safe haven. Since the July 4 North Korean ICBM test, for example, gold has rallied 4.8%. Part III - Red Herrings And Black Swans Since 1988, we identified 25 economic and (geo)political events that generated instant panic or acute uncertainty in the media and financial markets.21 We analyzed the short-term reactions of the safe-haven assets, both in USD and local-currency terms. This methodology allowed for the deconstruction of the impact of the events by the following factors: Country of origin of the crisis, the nature of the crisis, and whether the event was a "red herring" or a "black swan." Generally speaking, a red herring event is a crisis of some sort with little lasting financial impact. A black swan, on the other hand, is an event that has a very low probability of occurring but has a pronounced market impact if it does. Quantitatively, our definition of a black swan is an event that produces an immediate negative response in the S&P 500 below -1%, while creating a rise in either U.S., Japanese, or Swiss government bonds above 0% (Table 4). Of course, determining which event is a red herring or a black swan is only obvious post-facto and thus requires thorough geopolitical analysis. Table 4Understanding The Crises Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Results - Red Herrings And Black Swans Matter: Our event analysis solidifies our findings with regards to U.S., Japanese, and Swiss government bonds, but also builds a case for some European bonds as well as gold during black swan events. Our main findings can be summarized as follows. Fade The Red Herrings: Out of the sixteen geopolitical events, ten were identified as red herrings, in which safe havens underperformed the equity market. This, then, suggests that it is not always beneficial to buy safe-haven assets when tensions are rising. What is interpreted as a major geopolitical crisis - say, Ukraine in 2014 or Greece in 2015 - often ends up being a "red herring." Geopolitical Risk = Gold: Geopolitical black swan events, on the other hand, have a significant, negative impact on the market. During these events, gold emerges as the strongest hedge against a downturn in equities. U.S. Treasurys And The Swiss Franc Provide A Baseline: Under all black swan events considered - geopolitical and non-geopolitical - U.S. Treasurys and the Swiss franc had the strongest performance, generating positive returns on the day of the stock market crash in 85% of the cases. G10 Government Bonds Will Also Do: German, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish government bonds also provided protection during black swan events in local and common-currency terms, albeit to a lesser extent. U.S. And Swiss Bonds Outperform During Financial Episodes: During black swan financial crises, Swiss and U.S. government bonds stand out as the best safe havens due to their capacity to generate positive returns both in USD and local-currency terms in eight out of the nine examined crashes. Other findings that are interesting, yet less robust due to a limited sample size, include: When the crisis originated on U.S. soil, U.S. Treasurys and the dollar performed relatively poorly compared to other safe-haven assets. This is a somewhat surprising finding, as most investors believe that U.S. assets rally even at a time of U.S.-based crises, such as the 2011 budget crisis. We show that they may perform well, but in USD, non-U.S. based assets do better. When the crisis originated in Europe, European bonds performed very well both in USD and local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Europe, Swiss and U.K. government bonds performed poorly in USD terms, but offered strong protection in local-currency terms. When the crisis originated in Russia, precious metals acted as a poor hedge. Bottom Line: It is crucial to gain an understanding of the nature of any potential crisis. Red herrings should always be faded, not hedged against, as they produce poor results in safe-haven assets. U.S. Treasurys, Swiss and Japanese government bonds have been very consistent safe-haven assets during previous periods of acute risk. Part IV: Timing Is Everything As a final step in our quantitative approach, we put our results through numerous timing exercises to test how the assets would perform in real time. Based on our Risk Asset Spectrum (Diagram 1), which summarizes our findings, one could argue that investing in times of crisis simply boils down to buying an equal-weighted basket of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds. Although this is technically true, such a strategy would require perfect foresight, unparalleled timing, or dumb luck - since black swan events are, by definition, very difficult to predict. Diagram 1Risk Asset Spectrum Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Proof Of The Ultimate Safe Haven: The first experiment we conducted was to illustrate how powerful safe havens can be when timed perfectly in a trading strategy. We started off by comparing two baskets. The first was a benchmark portfolio comprised of 60% U.S. equities and 40% U.S. bonds. The other contained the same two assets, but with 100% allocated to a basket comprised of U.S. Treasurys, Swiss, and Japanese government bonds during times of negative returns for equities. Of course, this strategy is not realistic and would be impossible to implement, since the trading rule depends on future events. But as Chart 12 shows, if one were able to predict every single period of negative returns for global equities and hold safe-haven assets instead, the trading rule would outperform almost 10-fold. Chart 12Safe Havens Work Wonders With Perfect Information... Safe Havens Work Wonders With Perfect Information... Safe Havens Work Wonders With Perfect Information... One-Month Lag Is Already Too Late: Repeating the same exercise, but with a one-month lag in the execution, produces drastically different results. More specifically, whenever the previous month's equity return is negative (t=0), the portfolio allocates 100% to a single safe-haven asset for the current month (t=1), otherwise it keeps the allocation identical to that of the benchmark. The rationale for using such a simple rule is that average investors are generally late in identifying a crisis and only react once they have validation that the market is in a correction. Chart 13 shows that being late by one month changes the performance of the safe haven basket from astronomically outperforming the benchmark to underperforming it. Chart 13... But Timing Is Everything ... But Timing Is Everything ... But Timing Is Everything Reaction Is Key: As a final timing exercise, we analyzed the reaction function of our assets to see how quickly they react after the correction in equities begins (Chart 14). Unsurprisingly, the top assets that we identified start appreciating as soon as the crisis hits (t=0). Gold is, on average, the quickest asset to react from investors seeking refuge. Swiss bonds come in as a close second, almost mirroring gold during the first few days of the correction. But both assets start to flatten out and even roll over after a few days. Japanese bonds react slightly later than gold and Swiss bonds, but keep increasing for a longer period of time and start plateauing around the 30th day after the crisis. U.S. Treasurys and Quality Stocks, on the other hand, remain rather flat and constant over the short term. These results attest to the importance of timing the crisis using the best safe-haven assets. Chart 14Safe Havens React Instantly Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Bottom Line: Timing plays a crucial part in investing in safe-haven assets, as their performance is coincident to that of equities. Investment Implications: Is Pyongyang A Red Herring Or A Black Swan? The results of our quantitative analysis are clear: hedging geopolitical risk depends on whether it is persistent or fleeting. So, is Pyongyang a red herring or a black swan? From our geopolitical analysis we make three key conclusions: The U.S. is not likely to preemptively attack North Korea; However, the U.S. has an interest in signaling that it may conduct precisely such an attack; Brinkmanship could last for a long time. Even if the risk of a U.S. attack against North Korea itself is a red herring, the crisis itself is not. In fact, between now and when a negotiated solution emerges, investors may face several new crises, which may include limited military attacks or skirmishes. While markets have faded such North Korean provocations in the past, the current context is clearly different. As such, we would suggest that investors hedge the risk with an equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold. Even though a "buy and hold" strategy with such a "Doomsday Basket" will likely underperform the market if tensions with North Korea subside, we are betting that it may take time for the U.S. and North Korea to get to the negotiating table. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 6, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. We upgraded North Korea to the status of a genuine market-relevant risk in "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat'," dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017 available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0," dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. In particular, we argued, "the current saber-rattling is carefully orchestrated. But North Korea can no longer be consigned to the realm of satire. The very fact that the U.S. administration is adopting greater pressure tactics makes this year a heightened risk period. Investors should be especially wary of any missile tests that reveal North Korean long-range capabilities to be substantially better than is known to be the case today." Then, on May 13 and July 4, North Korea conducted its first ICBM launches; the UN Security Council agreed to a new round of even tighter economic sanctions on August 5; and the U.S. and North Korea engaged in an alarming war of words. 6 Specifically, we wrote: "Diplomacy is the only real option. And in fact it is already taking shape. The theatrics of the past few weeks mark the opening gestures. And theatrics are a crucial part of any foreign policy. The international context is looking remarkably similar to the lead-up to the new round of Iranian negotiations in 2012. The United States pounded the war drums and built up the potential for war before coordinating a large, multilateral sanctions-regime and then engaging in talks with real willingness to compromise." 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen," dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Forty-one assets were denominated in USD only, while G10 bonds, Credit Suisse Swiss Real Estate Fund, and European 600 real estate were used both in local-currency terms and USD, for a total of 65 assets. 11 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Geopolitics And Safe Havens," dated November 11, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Sile Li and Brian M. Lucey, "What precious metals act as safe havens, and when? Some U.S. evidence," Applied Economic Letters, 2013. 13 Dirk G. Bauer and Thomas K.J. McDermott, "Financial Turmoil and Safe Haven Assets," 2013. 14 Lieven Baele, Geer Bekaert, Koen Inghelbrecht and Min Wei, "Flights to Safety," National Bank of Belgium Working Paper No. 230, 2015. 15 Dirk G. Baur and Kristoffer J. Glover, "The Destruction of Safe Haven Asset?,"2012. 16 Angelo Ranaldo and Paul Soederlind, "Safe Haven Currencies," Review of Finance, Vol. 10, pp. 385-407, 2010. Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? 18 Quality stocks are defensive equity plays with high, steady earnings with an elevated return on investments. They are estimated by Deutsche Bank's Factor Index Equity Quality Excess Return in USD. Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market? 20 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, and BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 21 Since we were interested in the immediate, often unexpected, response to the event, we did not include economic recessions in our event analysis.

Highlights Duration: An environment characterized by strong global growth and a weak dollar is very bearish for U.S. bonds. According to our model, fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.6%. Stay at below-benchmark duration. The Fed & The Dollar: A weak dollar eases financial conditions and supports higher core goods inflation. All else equal, this will strengthen the Fed's hawkish resolve in the near term. However, a rebound in core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be necessary for core inflation to reach the Fed's target on a sustained basis. USD Sovereigns: USD-denominated sovereigns are not attractive compared to domestic Baa-rated U.S. credit. At the country level, Finland, Mexico and Colombia offer the most attractive spreads and Finnish debt offers the best risk/reward trade-off. Feature Please note there will be no U.S. Bond Strategy report next week. Our regular publishing schedule will resume on August 29, 2017. Chart 1Firm Growth, Despite Weaker $ Firm Growth, Despite Weaker $ Firm Growth, Despite Weaker $ Escalating tension between the U.S. and North Korea captured the market's attention during the past week, causing investors to ignore what in our view is a more important economic development: Global growth has managed to stay firm even in the face of significant dollar depreciation. Not only does this break the pattern of the past few years when periods of substantial dollar weakness were associated with slowing global growth (Chart 1), but in our view it sends a very bearish signal for U.S. bonds. Above all else, a weak dollar amidst strong global growth suggests that the breadth of the economic recovery is improving. This intuition is confirmed by the fact that our Global Manufacturing PMI Diffusion Index, which measures the net percentage of countries with PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line, is fast approaching 90% (Chart 2). Not only that, but PMIs from the four most important economic blocs are all showing signs of strength. Both the Eurozone and Japanese PMIs are holding firm at high levels, while the U.S. and Chinese PMIs have recently reversed their year-to-date downtrends (Chart 2, bottom two panels). Why is the breadth of the global recovery important? Precisely because a more synchronized recovery prevents the dollar from appreciating too quickly. All else equal, a stronger dollar causes investors to reduce their forecasts for future U.S. growth and inflation. This implies a slower expected pace of rate hikes and lower Treasury yields. Conversely, a weaker dollar causes investors to revise up their growth and inflation forecasts, leading to a quicker expected pace of rate hikes and higher yields. To capture the importance of both global growth and the exchange rate we turn to our 2-factor Treasury model (Chart 3). This is a simple model of the 10-year Treasury yield based on the Global PMI and bullish sentiment toward the dollar. A stronger Global PMI pressures the model's fair value higher, as does increasingly bearish dollar sentiment. Chart 2Synchronized Global Growth Synchronized Global Growth Synchronized Global Growth Chart 310-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value 10-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value 10-Year Treasury Yield Fair Value At present, the model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.6%, meaning the current 10-year Treasury yield of 2.22% is 38 bps below fair value. This is the most expensive Treasuries have appeared on our model since the immediate aftermath of last year's Brexit vote. Political Uncertainty & Flights To Quality While our 2-factor model does a good job, there is one important driver of Treasury yields it does not capture. That is the tendency for political events to drive a flight to safety into Treasuries (Chart 4). Typically, if it is possible to identify a purely politically-driven flight to safety - one that is unlikely to exert a meaningful economic impact during the next 6-12 months - then the correct strategy is to heed our model's message and position for higher yields. This strategy worked out perfectly following the Brexit vote, and we anticipate it will work again this time around. Chart 4Policy Uncertainty Is A Driver Of Bond Yields Policy Uncertainty Is A Driver Of Bond Yields Policy Uncertainty Is A Driver Of Bond Yields With regards to the catalyst for last week's flight to safety, our Geopolitical Strategy service wrote in a recent Special Report1 that a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. on North Korea is extremely unlikely. The theatrics of the past week demonstrate only that the U.S. needs to establish a "credible threat" if it wants to eventually open a new round of negotiations over North Korea - not unlike the Iranian nuclear negotiations of the past decade. Looking further down the road, if those talks eventually fail then the potential for military conflict is high. We therefore conclude that there is not much potential for U.S. / North Korean tensions to exert a meaningful economic impact during the next 6-12 months, and view the recent bond rally as an opportunity to position for sharply higher yields in the near-term. Bottom Line: An environment characterized by strong global growth and a weak dollar is very bearish for U.S. bonds. According to our model, fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.6%. Stay at below-benchmark duration. How The Fed Views A Weaker Dollar Financial Conditions Chart 5Weak $ Eases Financial Conditions Weak $ Eases Financial Conditions Weak $ Eases Financial Conditions The Fed views the 7% year-to-date depreciation of the dollar as a significant easing of financial conditions. In fact, most broad indicators of financial conditions have eased this year, even though the Fed has lifted rates by 75 bps since December (Chart 5). In the Fed's framework, this means that the pace of rate hikes might need to increase in order to tighten financial conditions as much as desired. New York Fed President William Dudley summed up this approach in a 2015 speech:2 All else equal, if financial conditions tighten sharply, then we are likely to proceed more slowly. In contrast, if financial conditions were not to tighten at all or only very little, then - assuming the economic outlook hadn't changed significantly - we would likely have to move more quickly. In the end, we will adjust the policy stance to support financial market conditions that we deem are most consistent with our employment and inflation objectives. Of course, all else is not equal. Core inflation has disappointed so far this year and our current assessment of monetary policy is that while the Fed will take action to start shrinking its balance sheet next month, rate hikes are on hold until inflation turns higher. We remain optimistic that inflation will show sufficient strength in time for the Fed to lift rates in December.3 Inflation Chart 6Weak $ = Higher Inflation Weak $ = Higher Inflation Weak $ = Higher Inflation A weaker dollar also increases the Fed's confidence that inflation will head higher. Although so far we have not seen much evidence that this is occurring. Last Friday's July CPI report showed that core CPI rose only 0.1% month-over-month, while the year-over-year growth rate held flat at 1.7%. However, evidence is mounting that core inflation will soon put in a bottom. Our CPI diffusion index bounced back into positive territory in July (Chart 6) and our PCE diffusion index is at its highest level since last October.4 Both of these measures have excellent track records capturing the near-term swings in core inflation. The year-to-date weakness in the dollar has led to a surge in import prices. Stronger import prices will soon translate into higher core goods inflation (Chart 6, panels 2 and 3). Unfortunately, any increase in core goods inflation is unlikely to be sustained beyond the next 12 months. If the year-to-date dollar weakness starts to reverse, as our currency strategists anticipate,5 then import prices will decline anew. Eventually, this will translate into a deceleration in core goods inflation. For core inflation to sustainably reach the Fed's target, improvement in the lagging core services (excluding shelter and medical care) component will be required. Historically, this component is the most tightly linked to wage growth (Chart 6, bottom panel). A Rising Wage Growth Environment Two related methods do an excellent job predicting the direction of wage growth on a cyclical horizon. First, wages accelerate when the unemployment rate is falling, and second, wages accelerate when the prime-age (25-54) employment-to-population ratio is increasing. The top two panels of Chart 7 show the relationship between wage growth and the unemployment rate. The shaded regions in both panels correspond to periods when the unemployment rate is falling. As can be seen, wage growth always rises during these periods. That being the case, we calculate that non-farm employment needs to grow by more than 125k per month (on average) for the unemployment rate to continue its downtrend, assuming the labor force participation rate remains flat. Chart 7A Rising Wage Environment A Rising Wage Environment A Rising Wage Environment Of course it is not guaranteed that the labor force participation rate will stay flat. In a recent report we discussed the risk that a large cyclical increase in the participation rate might cause the unemployment rate to rise even as the economy continues to recover.6 This is why we also look at the shaded regions in the bottom two panels of Chart 7 and see that wages always rise during periods when the prime-age employment-to-population ratio is rising. By looking at the employment-to-population ratio instead of the unemployment rate we do not need to make an assumption about the trend in labor force participation. Using this method, we calculate that monthly employment growth must exceed 140k (on average) for the prime-age employment-to-population ratio to keep increasing. Non-farm payroll growth has averaged 184k per month so far in 2017 and averaged 187k per month in 2016. In other words, the U.S. jobs machine is running at a fairly steady pace, well above the thresholds we see as necessary for the recovery in wage growth to continue. Bottom Line: A weak dollar eases financial conditions and supports higher core goods inflation. All else equal, this will strengthen the Fed's hawkish resolve in the near term. However, a rebound in core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be necessary for core inflation to reach the Fed's target on a sustained basis. Sovereigns Not Buying The Weak Dollar USD-denominated sovereign bonds should benefit from a falling dollar. A weaker U.S. dollar makes the debt obligation cheaper in the issuing nation's local currency. However, the USD Sovereign index has actually underperformed the duration-matched Baa U.S. Credit index during the past six months, despite a depreciating U.S. currency (Chart 8). The duration-matched Baa-rated U.S. Credit index is the closest comparable we can find for the Sovereign index. It matches the Sovereign index in terms of duration and average credit rating, although historically it also delivers less excess return volatility (Chart 8, bottom panel). The two main factors we consider when deciding whether to add USD-denominated sovereigns to our portfolio at the expense of domestic U.S. credit are relative valuation and the outlook for the dollar. Historically, spread differential has been an important driver of relative returns. Attractive starting valuations even allowed sovereigns to outperform credit in 2014 and 2015 despite the dollar's surge. But at the moment, relative value is skewed heavily in favor of domestic U.S. credit (Chart 8, panel 1). Chart 8Sovereigns Too Expensive Sovereigns Too Expensive Sovereigns Too Expensive Added to that, with U.S. growth likely to remain strong and U.S. inflation poised to rebound, we think there is a high likelihood that the Fed will deliver more rate hikes than are currently priced in. This will make it difficult for the dollar to decline further from current levels. Taken together, poor relative valuation and a bullish outlook for the dollar lead us to continue underweighting USD-denominated sovereigns in our portfolio. The Sovereign Index: Country Breakdown Even though the overall index is unappealing, opportunities might still exist at the country level. Chart 9 shows a risk/reward picture for each country in the Bloomberg Barclays Sovereign index. The upper panels show the option-adjusted spread for each country relative to its duration and credit rating. The lower panels show a risk-adjusted spread on the y-axis. This risk-adjusted spread is the excess spread that remains after we adjust for differences in credit rating and duration using a cross-sectional model. What sticks out immediately is that Finland, Colombia and Mexico all offer compelling spreads after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration. The outlook for each country's currency versus the U.S. dollar is obviously also important. And in fact, the lower-right panel of Chart 9 shows that exchange rate volatility is positively correlated with the risk-adjusted spreads from our cross-sectional model. This implies that the extra compensation available in Mexican and Colombian sovereigns is probably compensation for assuming highly volatile currency risk. By this measure, Finland looks even more attractive given the euro's slightly lower volatility. Chart 9USD Sovereign Index: Country Breakdown The Upside Of A Weaker Dollar The Upside Of A Weaker Dollar Bottom Line: USD-denominated sovereigns are not attractive compared to domestic Baa-rated U.S. credit. Remain underweight. At the country level, Finland, Mexico and Colombia offer the most attractive spreads and Finnish debt offers the best risk/reward trade-off. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire", dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2015/dud150605 3 For further details on our outlook for the near-term path of monetary policy please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long", dated August 8, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For a chart of the PCE diffusion index please see page 11 of U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "On Hold, But Not For Long", dated August 8, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen", dated August 11, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The GOP can bolster its case for re-election in 2018 by passing tax cuts and rolling back regulation. With U.S. equity valuations stretched, prolonged uncertainty in Northeast Asia may be a catalyst for a pullback. The global economic outlook is brightening and will be a tailwind for U.S. economic growth and equities. Rising wage pressure will be another headwind for EPS growth in 2018, although wages appear quite benign at the moment. Wages are not always a good leading indicator for the inflation cycle. Indeed, sometimes upturns in wage growth lags that of consumer prices. Feature Safe haven assets caught a bid last week while risk assets sold off as investors weighed geopolitical tensions in Northeast Asia and more uncertainty over fiscal policy in Washington. Last week's U.S. economic data highlighted the disconnect between a tighter labor market and a lack of wage pressures. Meanwhile, the data suggest that growth outside the U.S. is accelerating. Nonetheless, history shows that investors should be patient while waiting for an upturn in inflation. Next Up: Tax Cuts The GOP will deliver on tax cuts this year despite disarray at the White House and an incompetent Congress, but fiscal stimulus may fail to live up to its hype. Furthermore, a fiscal lift from infrastructure spending is unlikely anytime soon. Republicans need a win ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections and they have already laid the groundwork for tax reform via the budget reconciliation process. Moreover, cutting taxes is easier to justify politically than removing an entitlement program (i.e. Obamacare). Tax rates probably will not be lowered by as much as originally promised because conservative Republicans in the House will demand "revenue offsets" to pay for tax cuts. Internal GOP battles over how to fund tax cuts could spill over into some tension regarding raising the debt ceiling. However, it is in neither political party's interests to create another "fiscal cliff" out of thin air. The GOP needs Democratic votes to pass this legislation in the Senate and the Democratic leadership has indicated it is willing to support it. At what price? House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer may link the debt ceiling and spending bill to tax reform, and push for the tax cuts to extend to the middle class and to be revenue neutral. There is a chance that both parties will agree to temporarily eliminate the debt ceiling, perhaps beyond the 2018 mid-term elections. In any event, we expect a last minute resolution to both the U.S. debt ceiling and the potential government shutdown in September. Thus, there should be no lasting impact on financial markets from the debt ceiling debate. Turning to government regulation, the NFIB survey shows that small businesses are pleased with the Trump administration's attack on red tape. President Trump has made progress on slowing regulation and is on track to enact one-tenth the amount of economically significant regulation1 passed by the Obama administration (Chart 1). By this metric, Trump is even more frugal than Reagan. Trump and the GOP-held Congress have rolled back Obama-era rules and delayed others. Still, regulatory change is slow to impact the economy and it may take years for the regulatory rollback to provide any meaningful lift to growth. Accordingly, the "Trump Put"2 is still in place. 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 (Chart 2). Chart 1Trump Has Had Success In Slowing Regulation Still Waiting For Inflation Still Waiting For Inflation Chart 2The Trump Put The Trump Put The Trump Put Bottom Line: Trump will not be impeached until after the 2018 mid-term election, and only then if the Democrats manage to take control of the House. The GOP can bolster its case for re-election in 2018 by passing tax cuts and rolling back regulation. The intensifying Mueller investigation and White House incompetence will only fuel the "Trump Put", which has been positive for U.S. equities, neutral for Treasuries, and bad for the dollar, all else equal. A significant uptick in inflation could overwhelm the "Trump Put" and spark a dollar rally. As such, investors should focus on inflation prospects rather than on White House politics. Fire And Fury Investors are on high alert and with the Q2 earnings season over, may look beyond the positive news on corporate profits for direction. Our colleagues in the BCA Geopolitical Strategy service have long maintained that Northeast Asia is ripe for economic/political risk.3 The underlying driver of uncertainty on the Korean Peninsula is the Sino-American rivalry. China is an emerging "great power" that threatens the global dominance of the U.S. and its allies. The immediate consequence is mounting friction in China's periphery. That is why Taiwan, the South China Sea, and North Korea, are all heating up. North Korea's regime is highly unpredictable as evidenced by events in the past few weeks. In that sense, it is more significant than the other "proxy battles" between the U.S. and China. In essence, North Korea is no longer merely an object of satire. A new round of negotiations over North Korea's nuclear and missile programs is about to begin. The potential for a military conflict is high unless diplomacy succeeds in convincing North Korea to freeze its weapons programs. The events on the Korean peninsula are unfolding as we expected they would. North Korea has a history of rational action. It wants a nuclear deterrent and a peace treaty, but not a regime change. The U.S. has forsworn regime change as an intention and China has recommitted to new sanctions. South Korea is pro-engagement. Moreover, we are seeing the U.S. establish a credible military as part of the "arc of diplomacy," comparable to U.S.-Iran relations 2010-15. Bottom Line: We do not expect a pre-emptive strike by the U.S. on North Korea, as the constraints to conflict are extremely high and not all diplomatic options have been exhausted. Nonetheless, with U.S. equity valuations stretched, prolonged uncertainty in the region may be a catalyst for a pullback. A Rosy Global Picture The global economic outlook is brightening and will be a tailwind for U.S. economic growth and equities. Global real GDP estimates continue to move higher, a welcome departure from years past when estimates slid relentlessly lower (Chart 3). Since the start of 2017, global GDP estimates for this year have increased from 2.8% to 3%, while 2018 forecasts have accelerated from 2.7% to 2.9%. This upward trajectory has occurred despite a recalibration by many major central banks away from accommodative policies. Aggressive central bank actions or escalating tensions in Northeast Asia, or both, may halt the improving growth forecasts. Falling oil prices would also challenge a quickening of global growth, but our view is that oil prices will move higher in the coming months.4 Chart 3Global Growth Estimates Accelerating Despite Stalled U.S. Growth Global Growth Estimates Accelerating Despite Stalled U.S. Growth Global Growth Estimates Accelerating Despite Stalled U.S. Growth Global leading indicators are on the upswing (Chart 4). The BCA Global Leading Indicator Index (excluding the U.S.) in July 2017 was the strongest since 2010 when it slowed after a sharp rebound from the global financial crisis. The increase in growth still has room to run. Admittedly, the LEI's diffusion index has dipped below 50%. It would be a warning sign for global growth if the diffusion index does not soon turn up. Nominal global GDP growth is speeding up, boosted by improving consumer and business confidence, rising capital spending and declining policy uncertainty (Chart 5). The global economic surprise index is also climbing, which provides additional support. Investors may be concerned that the global PMIs have peaked (Chart 6), but they remain at levels consistent with above-trend GDP growth and we see no reason why they should drop below 50. Chart 4LEIs Pointing Higher LEIs Pointing Higher LEIs Pointing Higher Chart 5Supports For Global Growth In Place Supports For Global Growth In Place Supports For Global Growth In Place Chart 6Global Economic Activity Brightening bca.usis_wr_2017_08_14_c6 bca.usis_wr_2017_08_14_c6 Industrial production (IP) overseas is expanding nearly twice as fast as in the U.S. (Chart 5). This suggests that U.S. economic activity will be pulled up by foreign demand. A stronger dollar (as much as a 10% appreciation in the next year) may dampen U.S. exports and earnings, but this will be more a problem for 2018 than 2017. Bottom Line: Improving economic activity outside the U.S. is a tailwind for both U.S. economic growth and profits of U.S. firms with significant business abroad. Solid foreign demand will help the economy hit the Fed's GDP target and also support additional, but gradual, tightening by the central bank. Stay overweight U.S. equities and remain short duration. Waiting For Wages Rising wage pressure will be another headwind for EPS growth in 2018, although wages appear quite benign at the moment. Both primary and secondary indicators point to a tighter U.S. labor market. The July jobs report (released in early August) was yet another sign that the slack in the jobs market is vanishing.5 Data released last week on job openings (JOLTS) and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) further supported this trend, and indicated that the labor market may tighten even more. Job openings rose to a new all-time high along with BCA's quit rate less layoffs indicator (Chart 7). The hire rate remained at a cycle peak. The NFIB data was equally impressive, with hiring plans and job openings surging in July. Small businesses are also finding it increasingly difficult to find quality labor. (Chart 7, panel 4) The strength in the labor market has not yet translated into accelerating wages, but patience is required. The July NFIB survey noted that "while a tight job market may point to higher wages and rising consumer spending down the road, which is also good for small businesses, the current expansion efforts by small business owners are being choked by their difficulties in hiring and keeping workers." The NFIB's compensation plans (Chart 7) provided quantitative support for the group's qualitative assessment. However, the latest readings on labor compensation from the Q2 productivity report, the tepid July average hourly earnings data and the Atlanta Fed wage tracker suggest that the labor market is still not tight enough to generate much wage pressure (Chart 8). Chart 7Widespread Evidence That##BR##Labor Market Is Tightening Widespread Evidence That Labor Market Is Tightening Widespread Evidence That Labor Market Is Tightening Chart 8Not Much Wage##BR##Pressure Yet Not Much Wage Pressure Yet Not Much Wage Pressure Yet Inflation And Long-Expansion Dynamics That said, wages are not always a good leading indicator for the inflation cycle. Indeed, sometimes upturns in wage growth lag that of consumer prices. In previous research we split U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from medium and long expansions is the speed at which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerated, and the time it took unemployment to reach a full employment level. Long expansions were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a very slow return to full employment, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession. Chart 9 compares the current cycle to the average of two of the long cycles (the 1980s and the 1990s). We excluded the long-running 1960s expansion because the Fed delayed far too long and fell well behind the inflation curve. We define the 'late cycle' phase to be the time period from when the economy first reached full employment to the subsequent recession (shaded portions in Chart 9). The average late-cycle phase for these two expansions lasted almost four years, highlighting that reaching full employment does not necessarily mean that a recession is imminent. Inflation pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, allowing the Fed to proceed slowly. The Fed waited an average of 25 months to tighten policy after reaching full employment in these two long expansions, in part because core CPI inflation was roughly flat. The result was an extended late-cycle phase that was very rewarding for equity investors because the economy and earnings continued to grow. Of course, inflation eventually did turn higher, signaling the beginning of the end for the expansion and equity bull phase. In Chart 10, we compare the core PCE inflation rate in the current cycle with the average of the previous two long expansion episodes (the inflection point for inflation in the previous cycles are aligned with June 2017 for comparison purposes). The other panels in the chart highlight that, in the 1980s and 1990s, wage growth gave no warning that an inflation upturn was imminent. Indeed, wages were a lagging indicator of consumer price inflation. Chart 9Labor Market, Inflation And Stocks##BR##In The Long 80's & 90's Expansions Labor Market, Inflation And Stocks In The Long 80's & 90's Expansions Labor Market, Inflation And Stocks In The Long 80's & 90's Expansions Chart 10In The 80's & 90's Wage Growth##BR##Gave No Early Warning On On Inflation In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth Gave No Early Warning On On Inflation In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth Gave No Early Warning On On Inflation Market commentators often assume that inflation is driven exclusively by "cost push" effects, such that the direction of causation runs from wage pressure to price pressure. However, causation runs in the other direction as well. Households see rising prices and then demand better wages to compensate for the added cost of living. Chart 11Leading Indicators Of Inflation##BR##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Leading Indicators Of Inflation In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Leading Indicators Of Inflation In "Slow Burn" Recoveries This is not to say that we should totally disregard wage information. But it does suggest that we must keep an eye on a wider set of data. Indicators that provided some leading information for inflation in the previous two long cycles are shown in Chart 11. To this list we would also add the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressure index, which is not shown in Chart 11 because it does not have enough history. All of these indicators have moved higher over the past 18 months, after bottoming at extremely low levels in 2015 and early 2016. However, they have all pulled back to some extent in recent months. This year's pipeline inflation "soft patch" continued into July, according to last week's release of the Producer Price Index. The easing in cost pressures at the producer level has been broadly based (i.e. one cannot blame special factors). These indicators suggest that consumer price inflation, according to either the CPI or the PCE, will struggle to rise in the next few months. The July CPI report revealed another tepid 0.1% monthly rise in the core price index, while the year-over-year rate remained at 1.7%. Rising prices for health care goods and services were offset by price declines for new and used cars. The diffusion index for the CPI moved up to the zero line in July, indicating that disinflation was a little less broadly based in the month. Bottom Line: Our base case is that core PCE inflation edges higher in the coming months, which will be enough for the FOMC to justify a rate hike in December. We also expect that inflation will be high enough in 2018 for the Fed to hike rates by more than is discounted in the bond market. Nonetheless, the warning signs of an inflation upturn are mixed at best. It would flatter our stocks-over-bonds recommendation if we are wrong on the inflation outlook, but our short duration stance would not be profitable in this case. 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 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of Office of Management and Budget (OMB): https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain and https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoCountsSearchInit?action=init 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The Trump Put Last" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire, dated April 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "KSA's Tactics Advance OPEC' 2.0's Agenda," dated August 10, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stay The Course" dated August 7, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The G20 summit highlighted our theme of multipolarity, which encourages global instability; U.S.-China tensions have resumed their escalation after a brief pause; The Middle East is still a "red herring" for investors this year, but tail risks are rising; Any negative impact on oil production from these risks should be minor; Iran stands to benefit; Egypt is a buy on the back of cyclical recovery and Saudi support. Feature For the first time in the history of G20 summits, the "sherpas" (emissaries) who prepared the event failed to reach any notable policy agreements. Allegedly, the only policy that the U.S. administration endorsed prior to the summit was women's entrepreneurialism, Ivanka Trump's pet project. Why should investors care? G20 meetings have always been abstract, retroactive (as opposed to proactive), and barely able to move the markets. But they have occasionally mattered. The summits in Washington D.C. (November 2008) and London (April 2009) set the agenda for economic stimulus and global financial regulatory reform that brought the world back from the brink of abyss. The London summit, in particular, set the stage for coordinated, global, fiscal policy that reflated the economy. At the September 2009 Pittsburgh summit, the G20 replaced the Western-dominated G8 as the premier economic governance platform. (The latter is now the G7 because of Russia's exclusion after annexing Crimea.) The idea behind the expanded forum was to give emerging markets like China, India, and Brazil a say in the global economic architecture. It was the forum's expansion that ultimately doomed its effectiveness. To our knowledge, no multilateral framework has ever successfully coordinated global affairs. Global stability has always been underpinned by hegemony, which is why we have warned our readers since 2011 that emerging global multipolarity - caused by America's relative geopolitical decline - would lead to instability.1 The press will inevitably blame President Trump's "America First" for the failures of the G20. We do not disagree, but there is more to it than just politics. "America First" is a natural political reaction to the reality of American geopolitical decline. It is also a reaction to nearly two decades of foreign policy decisions to commit massive amounts of U.S. hard and soft power to pursuing nation-building policies in the Middle East. As such, "America First" is a symptom, not the cause, of global multipolarity. The "Trump Doctrine" could indeed be highly destabilizing, if followed through to its logical conclusion.2 Ostensibly, President Trump seeks to renegotiate global security and economic arrangements that have taken advantage of American magnanimity. But it was America that initially designed these arrangements, at the height of its power in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, to secure its own interests. Institutions like NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank underpin, they do not undermine, American hegemony. Without these institutions, American allies will seek their own negotiated arrangements more freely and frequently with U.S. adversaries, slowly eroding Washington's global influence. Over the long term, the Trump Doctrine could also undermine the U.S. dollar's status as the global reserve currency. The dollar's reserve currency status is a privilege that monetizes American geopolitical hegemony. America's allies are essentially already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets.3 Chart 1 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege."4 Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability of the market, and its deep liquidity, but also because the U.S. provides them with assurances of peace through security. If Washington raises barriers to its markets and becomes a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and thus diversify more rapidly. They could also be forced to diversify by new security guarantors, regional hegemons, and geopolitical bullies. Chart 1Exorbitant Privilege G19 G19 The concept of exorbitant privilege - and its economic benefits - cannot easily be explained to voters. What voters understand is that China's rapid industrialization has been accomplished at the cost of American manufacturing jobs. Candidate Trump successfully tapped into this angst during the campaign. President Trump, however, initially shied away from seriously applying the "America First" doctrine. The April Trump-Xi summit at Mar-a-Lago was hailed as evidence that fears of global protectionism were overblown and that the "globalist" camp of advisers in the White House were prevailing over the nationalists. As we expected, however, the détente did not last long. Over the past several weeks, China and the U.S. have clashed over several key issues: Taiwan: On June 29, the U.S. announced that it will sell $1.42 billion worth of arms to the island nation.5 Secondary sanctions: At the end of June, the Trump administration sanctioned a Chinese shipping company, bank, and two citizens for their ties to North Korea. Human rights: Also at the end of June, the U.S. State Department announced it would list China among the worst human trafficking offenders, which could trigger punitive actions and complicate trade negotiations in the future. Steel tariffs: President Trump asked the Department of Commerce back in April to study whether steel imports were harming national security, under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and a potential decision by Trump on tariffs is due within days. While China only accounts for 2% of U.S. steel imports, new tariffs could set in motion more protectionist measures that target additional industries. Sovereignty claims: The U.S. Navy and Air Force have made sojourns into disputed maritime areas. The navy conducted a "freedom of navigation" operation in the South China Sea in July, with USS Stethem steaming within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island. The air force also conducted separate missions sending B-1 bombers over the South China Sea, and over the Korean peninsula and East China Sea along with Japanese and South Korean F-15 fighter jets. This flurry of brinkmanship has largely emanated from Washington, not Beijing. As Trump's domestic political agenda stalled - with both health care and tax reform now in doubt - the administration has set its sights on the policy realm where the U.S. president has few constraints: foreign and trade policy. That is not to say that Beijing has not invited these actions. It has continued to militarize its artificial islands in the South China Sea and has failed to impose meaningful sanctions on North Korea. The Trump administration is clearly disappointed that its Mar-a-Lago summit failed to produce any tangible effect on these fronts, particularly with North Korea having launched a purported intercontinental ballistic missile for the first time. It is the Trump administration itself, however, that is to be blamed for China's lack of enthusiasm. One of the first acts of the Trump administration was to bring into question Washington's "One China" policy. As we remarked at the time, this would have serious implications for Sino-American policies. Defending sovereignty is a core pillar of the Chinese Communist Party; it is part of its "creation myth," and this is nowhere truer than in regard to Taiwan. When Trump brought into question the "One China" principle, he signaled to Beijing policymakers that Washington is not to be trusted. North Korea is both formally and in practical terms a Chinese ally. Though the Xi administration evidently wishes that the North was not providing the U.S. with excuses to enhance the American position on the Korean Peninsula, nevertheless it is longstanding Chinese policy to avoid destabilizing the North Korean regime. A collapse, possibly followed by a unified Korean Peninsula, could benefit the U.S. in the region. In other words, China will pressure the North enough to encourage a new round of talks but not enough to risk fracturing the regime. Chart 2Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over Mar-A-Lago Summit Is Over What investors are seeing today is the impact of words - "signaling" to be technical - in geopolitics. To be fair to President Trump, he has not pursued a revolutionary foreign policy yet. However, his mere words - literally dithering on NATO's Article V and calling into question the "One China" policy - have pushed other global powers into realignment. The rest of the world takes Trump very seriously because he may one day act on his unorthodox policies, or because American voters may elect someone in the future who will. The likely result is further erosion of U.S. global influence. Notably, the U.S. president stood alone on several crucial global issues at the G20 summit in Germany, making it look more like a "G19" summit. American isolation makes sense from Trump's short-term, domestic-political vantage. In the long term, however, it accelerates the drift toward geopolitical multipolarity and thus encourages global instability. Over the near term, we are particularly concerned that Sino-American tensions could escalate and spill over into a trade war. Since Donald Trump's election, and particularly since the Mar-a-Lago summit, the market has largely priced out economic tensions between the two superpowers, with China-exposed S&P 500 equities outperforming the market (Chart 2). We would bet against the continuation of this trend. Lack of cooperation over North Korea is a sign that the Sino-American relationship is systematically broken. Middle East Update: Watch Power Vacuums In Iraq And Syria At the beginning of this year, we made a forecast that geopolitics in the Middle East would not be investment relevant.6 So far we are correct. However, we continue to worry that vacuums in Iraq and Syria - in the Sunni-dominated territories formerly occupied by the now-collapsing Islamic State - could become greater sources of instability in the region. We are particularly concerned about three potential flash points: North Iraq, North Syria, and East Syria. East Syria In East Syria, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) loyal to President Bashar al-Assad - as well as its Lebanese Shia ally Hezbollah - has aggressively moved to establish control over the Syrian-Iraqi border. As indicated on Map 1, SAA forces have created a land-bridge through Islamic State territory to Tayyara on the Iraqi border. This has put SAA troops in close proximity to "Free Syrian Army" (FSA) forces operating in the southeast of the country. Map 1Syria's Army Has Created A Land-Bridge To Iraq G19 G19 The FSA was created by the U.S. and its allies. Its forces are trained by the U.S., and the U.S. Air Force provides cover for its territory. The recent downing of Syrian fighter jets and Iranian drones have occurred near the U.S. FSA base, which is based in the proximity of the FSA stronghold at Al Tanf. Without committing land troops, however, the best the U.S. can hope for is to limit SAA incursions into FSA-held territory. The push by SAA and Hezbollah to the Iraqi border creates an all-important land-bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean. It allows Tehran to reinforce Assad's SAA and Hezbollah by land, rather than relying on sea routes - which can be intercepted by the U.S. and Israel's superior naval capabilities in the Mediterranean - or through air. Not only will Iran and Shia-dominated Iraq be able to supply Assad with weapons, but also with troops. After a five-year war of attrition, the main resource that has been depleted on all sides is manpower. A significant influx of "fresh blood" means that the power balance will shift more easily in favor of Assad. Following the collapse of the Islamic State in Mosul, Iraq will be able to deploy significant resources from its Shia militias to Syria. This could be the game changer that ends the conflict in Syria in Assad's favor over the next 12 months. The SAA penetration to Tayyara has now set up the next target: Al Bukamal to the north and also on the Iraqi border. From there, the SAA will be able to round back deep into Islamic State territory and capture Deir ez-Zor. This will give Assad control over most of Syria's border with Iraq as well as the country's highway infrastructure. It will also pin the U.S.-backed FSA to a largely irrelevant corner of Syria. The success of Iranian and Russian-backed SAA in Eastern Syria is very important for the geopolitics of the region. By creating a land-bridge between Iran and the Mediterranean, Syrian forces have now opened up the possibility of one day hosting massive natural gas and oil pipeline infrastructure that would link natural gas from the Persian Gulf, developed jointly by Qatar and Iran, and oil from Iran and Iraq to European markets (Map 2). Map 2The Path Is Opening For Iranian Pipelines Through Syria G19 G19 Such an alternative route to Iranian energy exports would give Tehran an upper hand over Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies. In a hypothetical conflict scenario between Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, Tehran would be more willing to try to close shipping in the Straits of Hormuz if it possessed an alternative route for energy exports. This is clear to Saudi Arabia, which is why it has lashed out against Qatar in recent weeks. The main Saudi demand of Qatar is that it abandon its pro-Iranian foreign policy. It is becoming clear to Saudi Arabia that Iran's power is set to grow in the wake of the Islamic State's defeat in Iraq and Syria. As such, Saudi Arabia is trying to tie loose ends in its own coalition, starting with Qatar. Despite the reported Trump-Putin ceasefire agreed at the G19, U.S. and Russian forces could still become entangled as their proxies battle in the strategic regions near the Syrian-Iraqi border. SAA troops have also begun to operate near Raqqa, where the Kurdish forces supported by the U.S. are currently encircling the Islamic State capital. Final stages of wars tend to be erratic and even more violent. As belligerents glimpse the end of conflict they rush to seize as much territory as possible before negotiations begin. This is effectively what is happening in East Syria and around Raqqa today. Northern Syria In the Kurdish dominated northern Syria, the People's Protection Units (YPG) have massively increased the territory under their control. Supported by the U.S., YPG have encircled Raqqa and will soon defeat the Islamic State in the North. Assad's SAA will concede Raqqa in order to move onto the more strategic Resafa and Deir ez-Zor, effectively abandoning northern Syria to the Kurds to focus on establishing the land-bridge with Iraq. Turkey, however, is not interested in conceding northern Syria to YPG. The latter are allied to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that Ankara considers a terrorist organization. With SAA focused on controlling population centers and the Syrian-Iraqi border, northern Syria will descend further into Kurdish domination. This would give PKK militants a large territory from which to regroup and resupply operations in Turkey. It is therefore a real possibility that Turkey will invade YPG-controlled northern Syria as soon as the operations against the Islamic State end. This will put the U.S. into a difficult position. On one hand, Turkey is a NATO ally. On the other, the Kurds are informal U.S. allies. The YPG have fought valiantly against the Islamic State and are perhaps the group most deserving of thanks for the defeat of its so-called Caliphate. Northern Iraq In northern Iraq, a similar dynamic has emerged where the Kurds have benefited the most from the rise of the Islamic State (Map 3). Operations in Mosul will soon end the Islamic State's dominion over parts of Iraq, which will allow Iraqi forces to focus on two tasks. First, resupplying Assad's SAA with weapons and troops. Second, turning to Kurdish gains in the north, particularly in the city of Kirkuk. Map 3Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey G19 G19 Iraqi Kurds, for their part, have called an independence referendum for September 25, 2017. President Masoud Barzani will not necessarily proclaim an independent Kurdistan following the referendum. The exercise could be a bid to negotiate more autonomy with Baghdad or a pre-election ploy to secure a majority in upcoming general elections and bolster the eventual presidential bid of his nephew, Nechirvan Barzani (current Prime Minister of Iraqi Kurdistan). Iraqi Kurds may be able to find some sort of an arrangement with Baghdad for greater autonomy. The problem is that both sides claim parts of the region. Kirkuk, for example, is not officially part of Iraqi Kurdistan. However, Kurds see it as their ancient capital and thus seized it in June 2014 as a preventative move to ensure that it did not fall into the hands of the Islamic State. Not only is Kirkuk a major Iraqi population center, but it is also a significant oil-producing region. Investment Implications Over the next several months, we would expect tensions in these three geographies to increase. Given the proximity of Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and American forces, we would expect the probability of accidents to rise significantly. This could temporarily move the markets and assign some geopolitical risk premium to oil prices. However, investors should realize that the regions involved are not major producers of oil, aside from Iraqi Kurdistan where we do not expect large-scale warfare. As such, any effect on oil production would be a minor blip in the global supply. Over the long term, the clear winner in the region remains Iran. Bashar al-Assad, Iran's ally in Syria, will stay in power. It is also clear that the Sunni Islamic State Caliphate will disappear, giving back the Shia-dominated Iraqi government control over its territory. For Saudi Arabia, this is a reality that cannot be changed at the moment. As we have pointed out before, low oil prices are a constraint to war.7 They reduce government revenue and force leaders to focus on domestic stability. A major conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is therefore unlikely. However, Saudi Arabia will respond by building a Sunni alliance against Iran. With Syria and Iraq now in the Iranian sphere, the imperative for Saudi Arabia is to counter Iranian regional hegemony through alliances. Egypt will remain a clear beneficiary of this strategy. The country is already the Middle East's candidate for the "too big to fail" moniker. Its population, economy, demographics, and security challenges all make it the main candidate for chief regional security risk. As such, it will continue to receive support from the international community. For Saudi Arabia, Egypt is a way to diversify its security portfolio away from the aloof United States. As such, we would expect the Saudis to continue to prop up the Egyptian economy with loans and grants in return for being able to call on the Egyptian military in time of need. Given a cyclical recovery in Egypt, which BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy has recently elucidated, this creates a structural buying opportunity in the country's equity market.8 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist EM Equity Sector Strategy obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 The closest the world ever got to a powerful and effective multilateral structure was the nineteenth-century "Concert of Europe," which kept general peace in Europe for a century (1814-1914), but at the cost of dividing up the rest of the planet into imperial spheres of influence where European states could play out their mercantilist rivalries. Ultimately, even that architecture crumbled as the British hegemony that underpinned it weakened after the 1870s. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive almost nothing for holding U.S. assets, while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 5 The deal is not particularly significant in a military sense, and it is smaller in value than the last deal in December 2015, but it still sends a signal that angers Beijing, which also expects more controversial deals to be forthcoming given the Trump administration's signals that it plans to strengthen the Taiwan alliance. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust?" dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report, "Egypt: A Cyclical Recovery Amid Lingering Structural Challenges," dated June 20, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Financial markets have returned to 'risk on' in late April, after becoming overly gloomy on the growth, political and policy outlooks in recent months. There are also some worrying signs in our global forward-looking growth indicators for 2018, and Chinese policy is tightening. Nonetheless, investors read too much into the distorted U.S. first-quarter economic data. They also went too far in pricing out U.S. fiscal action. It is positive for risk assets that centrist candidate Macron is poised to win the French election and we do not see much risk for markets lurking in the German election. Italian elections could be troublesome, but that is a story for next year. The fact that China finally appears willing to apply pressure to Pyongyang is good news. North Korea might be persuaded to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a non-aggression pact from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. Disappointing U.S. Q1 real GDP growth largely reflects weather and seasonal adjustment factors. The deceleration in bank credit growth is also temporary. The window for reflation trades will remain open for most of this year because the underlying economic and profit fundamentals remain constructive. Importantly, signs of improving pricing power in the U.S. corporate sector are finally emerging, which should allow margins to expand somewhat in the coming quarters. The bond rally has depressed yields to a level that makes fixed-income instruments highly vulnerable to a reversal of the factors that sparked the rally. Market expectations for the fed funds rate are far too benign. The ECB will announce the next tapering step later this year, and may remove the negative deposit rate. But the central bank will not be in a position to lift the refi rate for some time. Yield spreads will shift in a way that allows one last upleg in the U.S. dollar. The recent pullback in oil prices will not last, as OPEC and Russia manage global stockpiles lower this year. Feature Chart I-1Reflation Trades Returning? Reflation Trades Returning? Reflation Trades Returning? Traders and investors gave up on the global reflation story in early April, sending the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield below the year's trading range. Missile strikes, European elections and U.S. saber rattling regarding North Korea lifted the allure of safe havens such as government bonds (Chart I-1). At the same time, the Fed was unwilling to revise up the 'dot plot', doubts grew over the ability of the Trump Administration to deliver any stimulus and U.S. data releases disappointed. The major equity indexes held up well against the onslaught of bad news, but looked increasingly vulnerable as April wore on. The market gloom was overdone in our view, and it appears that financial markets have now returned to a 'risk on' phase. It is difficult to forecast the ebb and flow of geopolitical news so we cannot rule out another bout of risk aversion. Nonetheless, the global economic backdrop remains upbeat and tensions regarding North Korea have eased. President Trump also unveiled his Administration's tax reform plan, raising hopes of a fiscal boost to the economy. Moreover, investors have read too much into the distorted U.S. first quarter data, and our corporate pricing power indicators support our constructive earnings view in 2017. There are clouds hanging over the outlook for 2018, but the backdrop will favor risk assets for most of this year. Investors should remain overweight equities versus bonds and cash, and bullish the dollar. Geopolitics Weigh On Risk Tolerance President Trump's military show of force in Asia and comments about "losing patience" with North Korea have the world on edge. The U.S. has acted tough with the regime before, but nothing beyond economic sanctions ever materialized. The balance of power vis-à-vis China and the military threat to South Korea made North Korea a stalemate. Nonetheless, our geopolitical team argues that the calculus of the standoff is changing. Most importantly, the rogue regime is getting closer to being capable of hitting the U.S. with long-range missiles. Second, China is unhappy with the increased U.S. military presence in its backyard that North Korea is inviting. China also sees North Korea's missile tests as a threat to its own security. Third, the U.S. is prepared to use the threat of trade sanctions as leverage with Beijing. It is demanding that China use its own economic leverage to convince North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile programs. We do not believe that an attack on North Korea is imminent. But doing nothing is not an option either. Our base case is that the U.S. military's muscle-flexing is designed to force North Korea to the negotiating table. The fact that China finally appears willing to apply pressure to Pyongyang is good news. Over the next four years, the North might be persuaded to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a non-aggression pact from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. The safe-haven bid in the Treasury market will moderate if Kim Jong-un agrees to negotiations. That said, this is probably North Korea's last chance to show it can be pragmatic. A failure of negotiations would induce a real crisis in which the U.S. contemplates unilateral action. It would be a bad sign if North Korea's long-range missile tests continue, are successful, and show greater distances. Chart I-2Macron Appears Set For Victory Macron Appears Set For Victory Macron Appears Set For Victory Turning to Europe, investors breathed a sigh of relief following the first round of the French Presidential election. The pre-election polls turned out to be correct, and our Geopolitical Team has no reason to doubt the polls regarding the second round (Chart I-2). We expect Macron to sweep to victory on May 7 because Le Pen will struggle to get any voters from the candidates exiting the race. What should investors expect of a Macron presidency? A combination of President Macron and a right-leaning National Assembly should be able to accomplish some reforms. Several prominent center-right figures have already come out in support of Macron, perhaps to throw their name in the ring for the next prime minister. This is positive for the markets as it means that French economic policy will be run by the center-right, with an ultra-Europhile as president. Over in the U.K., the big news in April was Prime Minister Theresa May's decision to hold a snap election, which reduces the risk of a "hard Brexit". The current slim 12-seat majority that the Conservatives hold in Parliament has made May highly dependent on a small band of hardline Tories who would rather see negotiations break down than acquiesce to any of the EU's demands, including that the U.K. pay the remaining £60 billion portion of its contribution to the EU's 2014-20 budget. If the Conservatives are able to increase their seats in Parliament - as current opinion polls suggest is likely - May will have greater flexibility in reaching an agreement with Brussels and will face less of a risk that Parliament shoots down the final deal. U.S. Fiscal Policy: Positive For 2017, But Long-Term Negative Chart I-3Long-Term U.S. Budget Pressures Long-Term U.S. Budget Pressures Long-Term U.S. Budget Pressures The drama will be no less interesting in Washington in the coming weeks. As we go to press, Congress is struggling to pass a bill to keep the U.S. government running through the end of fiscal year 2017 (the deadline is the end of April). We expect a deal will get done, but a partial government shutdown lasting a few weeks could occur. Separately, Congress will need to approve an increase in the debt ceiling by July-September in order for the Treasury to avoid defaulting on payments. Both events could see temporary safe-haven flows into Treasurys. However, markets may have gone too far in pricing-out tax cuts or fiscal stimulus. For example, high tax-rate companies have given back all of their post-election equity gains. Even if Republicans are unable to overhaul the tax code, this will not prevent them from simply cutting corporate and personal taxes. "Dynamic scoring" will be used to support the argument that the tax cuts will self-funding through faster growth. We also expect that Trump will get his way on at least a modest amount of infrastructure spending. The so-called Trump trades may wither again in 2018, but we see a window this year in which the stock-to-bond total return ratio lifts as growth expectations rebound. Looking further ahead, it seems likely that the U.S. budget deficit is headed significantly higher. Health care and pension cost pressures related to population aging are well known (Chart I-3). A recent Special Report by BCA's Martin Barnes highlighted that "it is not reasonable to believe that there can be tax cuts and increases in defense spending and domestic security, while protecting entitlement programs and preventing a massive rise in the budget deficit."1 There is simply not enough non-defense discretionary spending to cut. Larger U.S. Federal budget deficits could lead to a widening fiscal risk premium in Treasury yields, although that may take years to show up. Perhaps more importantly, the U.S. government sector will be a larger drain on the global pool of available savings in the coming years. We highlight in this month's Special Report, beginning on page 20, that there are several key macro inflection points under way that will temper the "global savings glut" and begin to place upward pressure on global bond yields. A Temporary Soft Patch Or Something Worse? The first quarter GDP report for the U.S. is due out as we go to press, and growth is widely expected to be quite weak. The retail sales and PCE consumer spending data have fed concerns that the U.S. economy is running out of gas, despite the surge in the survey data such as the ISM. We believe that growth fears are overdone. Financial markets should be accustomed to weak readings on first quarter GDP. Over the past 22 years, the first quarter has been the weakest of the four on 12 occasions, or 55% of the time. Second quarter GDP growth has been faster than Q1 growth 70% of the time. A large part of the depressed Q1 GDP growth rate and lackluster "hard data" readings likely reflect poor seasonal adjustment and weather distortions. The "soft" survey data are more consistent with the labor market. Aggregate hours worked managed to increase by 1.5% at an annualized rate in Q1. If GDP growth really was barely above zero, this would imply an outright decline in the level of labor productivity. Even in a world where structural productivity growth is lower than it was in the past, this strikes us as rather implausible. The March reading of the Conference Board's Leading Economic Indicator provided no warning that underlying growth is about to trail off, although a couple of the regional Fed surveys have pulled back from their recent highs. With April shaping up to be warmer than usual across the U.S., we expect a bounce back in the weather-impacted "hard" data in May and June. What about the slowdown in commercial and industrial loan growth and corporate bond issuance late in 2016 and into early 2017? This is a worry, but it partly reflects the lagged effects of the contraction in capital spending in the energy patch. C&I loan growth is still responding to the surge in defaults that resulted from the energy sector's 2014 collapse. Now that the defaults have waned, this process will soon go into reverse. Higher profits more recently have permitted these firms to pay back old bank loans, while also enabling them to finance new capital expenditures using internally-generated funds. In addition, the rising appetite for corporate debt has allowed more companies to access the bond market. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. leveraged-loan market saw $434 bn in issuance in Q1, the highest level on record (Chart I-4). The rest we chalk up to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. election. The recent spikes in the political uncertainty index correspond with the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union as well as the U.S. election in November. There has been a close correlation between these spikes and the deceleration in C&I loan growth. CEOs are also holding back on capex in anticipation of new tax breaks from Congress. The good news is that bond issuance has rebounded strongly in January and February of this year (Chart I-5). The soft March U.S. CPI release also appeared to be quirky, showing a rare decline in the core price level in March (Chart I-6). However, the March reading followed two months of extremely strong gains and it still appears as though measures of core inflation put in a cyclical bottom in early 2015. While our CPI diffusion index is still below zero, signaling that inflation is likely to remain soft during the next couple of months, it would be premature to suggest that the gradual uptrend in core inflation has reversed. Chart I-4U.S. Bank Credit Slowdown Is Temporary U.S. Bank Credit Slowdown Is Temporary U.S. Bank Credit Slowdown Is Temporary Chart I-5U.S. Corporate Bond Issuance Is Rebounding U.S. Corporate Bond Issuance Is Rebounding U.S. Corporate Bond Issuance Is Rebounding Chart I-6U.S. Inflation: Sogginess Won't Last U.S. Inflation: Sogginess Won't Last U.S. Inflation: Sogginess Won't Last Global Economic Data Still Upbeat For the major industrialized economies as a group, the so-called "hard" data are moving in line with the "soft" survey data for the most part. For example, retail sales growth continues to accelerate, reaching 4½% in February on a year-over-year basis (Chart I-7). This follows the sharp improvement in consumer confidence. Manufacturing production growth is also accelerating to the upside, in line with the PMIs. The global manufacturing sector is rebounding smartly after last year's recession that was driven by the collapse in oil prices and a global inventory correction. Readers may be excused for jumping to the conclusion that the rebound is largely in the energy space, but this is not true. Production growth in the energy sector is close to zero on a year-over-year basis, and is negative on a 3-month rate of change basis (Chart I-8). The growth pickup has been in the other major sectors, including consumer-related goods, capital goods and technology. In the U.S., non-energy production has boomed over the six months to March (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Global Pick-Up On Track Chart I-8Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Manufacturing Rebound Is Not About Energy Chart I-9U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging U.S.: Non-Energy Production Surging The weak spot on the global data front has been capital goods orders (Chart I-7). We only have data for the big three economies - the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone - but growth is near zero or slightly negative for all three. These data are perplexing because they are at odds with an acceleration in the production of capital goods (noted above) and a pickup in capital goods imports for 20 economies (Chart I-7, third panel). Improving CEO sentiment, accelerating profit growth and activity surveys all suggest that capital goods orders will catch up in the coming months. That said, one risk to our positive capex outlook in the U.S. is that the Republicans fail to deliver on their promises. This is not our base case, but current capex plans could be cancelled or put on indefinite hold were there to be no corporate tax cuts or immediate expensing of capital spending. As for China, the economic data are holding up well and deflationary pressures have eased. Fears of a debt crisis have also ebbed somewhat. That said, fiscal and monetary stimulus is fading and it is a worrying sign that money and credit growth have decelerated because they tend to lead production. Our China experts believe that growth will be solid in the first half of the year, but they would not be surprised to see a deceleration in real GDP growth in the second half that would weigh on commodity prices. Bond Market Vulnerable To Fed Re-Rating A rebound in the U.S. activity data in the coming months should keep the Fed on track to raise rates at least two more times in 2017. A May rate hike is unlikely, but we would not rule out June. The bond market is vulnerable to a re-rating of the path for the fed funds rate because only 45 basis points of tightening is priced for the next 12 months. This is far too low if growth rebounds as we expect. The FOMC also announced that it intends to start shrinking its balance sheet later this year by ceasing to reinvest both its MBS and Treasury holdings. Our bond strategists do not think this by itself will have much of an impact on Treasurys because yields will continue to be closely tied to realized inflation and the expected number of rate hikes during the next 12 months (Chart I-10). Fed policymakers are trying to de-emphasize the size of the balance sheet and would rather investors focus on the fed funds rate to assess the stance of monetary policy. It is a different story for mortgage-backed securities, however, where spreads will be pressured wider by the lack of Fed purchases. All four of our main forward-looking global economic indicators appear to have topped out, except the Global Leading Economic Indicator (GLEI), suggesting that the period of maximum growth acceleration has past (Chart I-11). Nonetheless, all four are still consistent with robust growth. They would have to weaken significantly before they warned of a sustained bond bull market. Chart I-10Shrinking Fed Balance Sheet: ##br##Bearish For Bonds? Shrinking Fed Balance Sheet: Bearish For Bonds? Shrinking Fed Balance Sheet: Bearish For Bonds? Chart I-11Leading Indicators: ##br##Some Worrying Signs Leading Indicators: Some Worrying Signs Leading Indicators: Some Worrying Signs The rapid decline in the diffusion index, based on the 22 countries that comprise our GLEI, is the most concerning at the moment. The LEIs for two major economies and two emerging economies dipped slightly in February, such that roughly half of the country LEIs rose and half fell in the month. While it is too early to hit the panic button, the diffusion index is worth watching closely; a decline below 50 for several months would indicate that a peak in the GLEI is approaching. The bottom line is that global bond yields have overshot on the downside: underlying U.S. growth is not as weak as the Q1 figures suggest; market expectations for the fed funds rate are too benign; the Republicans will push ahead with tax cuts and infrastructure spending; the global economy has healthy momentum, and the majority of the items on our Duration Checklist suggest that the bond bear market will resume; the ECB will announce another tapering of its asset purchase program this autumn, placing upward pressure on the term premium in bond yields across the major markets; and the Treasury and bund markets no longer appear as oversold as they did after the rapid run-up in yields following last November's U.S. elections. Large short positions have largely unwound. For the U.S., we expect that the 10-year yield to rise to the upper end of the recent 2.3%-2.6% trading range in the next couple of months, before eventually breaking out on the way to the 2.8%-3% area by year-end. We recommend keeping duration short of benchmarks within fixed-income portfolios. One Last Leg In The Dollar Bull Market Chart I-12ECB In No Hurry To Lift Rates ECB In No Hurry To Lift Rates ECB In No Hurry To Lift Rates While we see upside for the money market curve in the U.S., the same cannot be said in the Eurozone. The economic data have undoubtedly been robust. The composite PMI is booming and capital goods orders are in a clear uptrend. Led by gains in both manufacturing and services, the composite PMI rose from 56.4 in March to 56.7 in April, a six-year high. The current PMI reading is easily consistent with over 2.0% real GDP growth (Chart I-12). This compares favorably to the sub-1% estimates of trend growth in the euro area. Private sector credit growth reached 2½% earlier this year, the fastest pace since July 2009. Despite this good news, the ECB is in no rush to lift interest rates. The central bank will taper its asset purchase program further in 2018, but ECB President Draghi has made it clear that he will not raise the refi rate until well after all asset purchases have been completed, which probably will not be until late 2019 at the earliest (although the ECB could eliminate the negative deposit rate to ease the pressure on banks). Unemployment is still a problem in Spain and Italy, while core CPI inflation fell back to just 0.7% in March. The euro could strengthen further in the near term if Macron wins the second round of the French elections, easing euro break-up fears. Nonetheless, we expect the euro to trend lower on a medium-term horizon versus the dollar as rate expectations move further in favor of the greenback. Some real rate divergence is already priced into money and currency markets, but there is room for forward real spreads to widen further, possibly pushing the euro to parity versus the dollar before this cycle is over. We are also bullish the dollar versus the yen for similar reasons. On a broad trade-weighted basis, we still expect the dollar to rally by another 10%. Positive Signs For U.S. Corporate Pricing Power Chart I-13U.S. Corporations Gaining Pricing Power U.S. Corporations Gaining Pricing Power U.S. Corporations Gaining Pricing Power Turning to the equity market, it is still early days for Q1 U.S. earnings, but the results so far are positive for a pro-risk asset allocation. After a disappointing Q4, positive Q1 earnings surprises for the S&P 500 are on track to match their highest level in two years, with revenue surprises also materially higher than previous quarters. At the industry level, banks and capital goods companies stand out: the former registered an earnings beat of nearly 8%, and it was nearly 12% for the latter. We highlighted the positive 2017 outlook for U.S. corporate profits in our March 2017 Monthly Report. Earnings growth is in a catch-up phase following last year's profit recession, which was related to energy prices and a temporary slowdown in nominal GDP growth relative to aggregate labor costs. Proprietary indicators from our sister publication, the U.S. Equity Sectors Strategy service, confirm our thesis. First, deflation pressures appear to be abating. A modest revival in corporate pricing power is underway according to our Pricing Power Proxy (Chart I-13). It is constructed from proxies for selling prices in almost 50 industries. Importantly, the rise in the Proxy is broadly-based across industries (as shown by the diffusion index in the chart). As a side note, the Profit Proxy provides some evidence that recent softness in core CPI inflation will not last. Second, the upward march of wage growth appears to be taking a breather (Chart I-13). Average hourly earnings growth has softened in recent months. Broader measures, such as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, tell a similar story. We do not expect wage growth to decelerate much given tightness in the labor market. Nonetheless, the combination of firming pricing power and contained wage growth (for now) suggests that margins will continue to expand modestly in the first half of the year. Our model even suggests that U.S. EPS growth has a very good shot at matching perpetually-optimistic bottom-up estimates for 2017 (Chart I-14). Many companies have supported per share profits in this expansion via share buybacks, often funded through debt issuance. This has generated some angst that companies are sacrificing long-term earnings growth potential for short-term EPS growth. This appeared to be the case early in the expansion, but the story is less compelling today. Chart I-15 compares the cumulative dollar value of equity buybacks and dividends in this expansion with the previous three expansion phases. The cumulative dollar values are divided by cumulative nominal GDP to make the data comparable across cycles. By this metric, capital spending has lagged previous expansion, but not by much. While capital spending growth has been weak, the same is true for GDP. Chart I-14U.S. Profit Model Is Very Upbeat U.S. Profit Model Is Very Upbeat U.S. Profit Model Is Very Upbeat Chart I-15U.S. Corporate Finance Cycle Comparison May 2017 May 2017 Dividend payments have been stronger than the three previous expansions. Buyback activity was also more aggressive compared with the 1990s and 2000s, although repurchase activity has been roughly in line with the expansion that ended in 2007. Net equity issuance since 2009, which includes the impact of IPOs, share buybacks and M&A activity, has not been out of line with previous expansions (positive values shown in Chart I-15 represent net equity withdrawals). CFOs have not been radically different in this cycle in terms of apportioning funds between capital spending and returning cash to shareholders. Nonetheless, buybacks have boosted EPS growth by almost 2% over the past year according to our proxy (Chart I-16). We expect this tailwind to continue given the positive reading from our Capital Structure Preference Indicator (third panel). Firms have a financial incentive to issue debt and buy back shares when the indicator is above zero. Stronger global growth should continue to power an acceleration in corporate earnings outside the U.S. over the remainder of the year. Chart I-17 shows that the global earnings revision ratio has turned positive for the first time in six years, implying that analysts have been behind the curve in revising up profit projections. Our profit indicators remain constructive for the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. Chart I-16Incentive To Buy Back ##br##Stock Remains Strong Incentive To Buy Back Stock Remains Strong Incentive To Buy Back Stock Remains Strong Chart I-17Global Profit ##br##Growth On The Upswing Global Profit Growth On The Upswing Global Profit Growth On The Upswing It is disconcerting that the rally in oil prices has faltered in recent days as investors worry that increased U.S. shale production will thwart OPEC's plans to trim bloated inventories. A breakdown in oil prices could spark a major correction in the broader equity market. Indeed, commercial oil inventories finished the first quarter with a minimal draw. The aim of last year's agreement between OPEC and Russia to remove some 1.8mn b/d of oil production from the market in 2017 H1 was to get visible inventories down to five-year average levels. They are well short of that goal. Without trimming stockpiles to more normal levels, storage capacity remains too close to topping out, which raises the risk of another price collapse. This is an extremely high-risk scenario for states like Saudi Arabia, Russia and their allies, which are heavily dependent on oil-export revenues to fund government budgets and much of the private sector. This is the reason why our commodity strategists expect the OPEC/Russia production cuts to be extended when OPEC meets on May 25. This will significantly raise the odds that OECD commercial oil stocks will be drawn down to more normal levels. We expect WTI and Brent to trade on either side of $60/bbl by December, and to average $55/bbl to 2020. Investment Conclusions Financial markets have returned to 'risk on' in late April, after becoming overly gloomy on the growth, political and policy outlooks in recent months. Admittedly, some of the U.S. data have been disappointing given the extremely upbeat survey numbers. There are also some worrying signs in our global forward-looking growth indicators, and Chinese policy is tightening. Nonetheless, investors read too much into the distorted U.S. economic data in the first quarter. They also went too far in pricing out U.S. fiscal action. As for European political risk, centrist candidate Macron is poised to win the French election and we do not see much risk for markets lurking in the German election. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the economic and profit outlook in 2018. Nonetheless, we believe that the window for reflation trades will remain open for most of this year because the underlying economic and profit fundamentals are constructive. The passage of market-friendly fiscal policies in the U.S. later in 2017 will be icing on the cake. Perhaps more importantly, we are finally seeing signs that pricing power in the U.S. corporate sector is improving, allowing margins to expand somewhat in the coming quarters. Our profit models remain upbeat for the major advanced economies and for China. It has been frustrating for those investors looking for an equity buying opportunity. Despite the surge in defensive assets such as gold and Treasurys, the major equity bourses did not correct by much. Value remains stretched in all of the risk asset classes. Nonetheless, investors should stay positioned for another upleg in the stock-to-bond total return ratio in the coming months. Perhaps the largest risk lies in the bond market. The rally has depressed yields to a level that makes bonds highly vulnerable to a reversal of the factors that sparked the rally. Within an underweight allocation to fixed-income in balanced portfolios, investors should overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds in the U.S. and U.K. We are more cautious on Eurozone corporates as the ECB's support for that sector will moderate. Looking ahead to next year, our bond strategists foresee a shift to underweight credit given the advanced nature of the releveraging cycle in the U.S. corporate sector. Our other recommendations include: Within global government bond portfolios, overweight JGBs and underweight Treasurys. Gilts and core Eurozone bonds are at benchmark. Underweight the periphery of Europe. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. Continue to favor defensive over cyclical equity sectors in the U.S. for now, but a shift may be required later this year. Overweight the dollar versus the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market. Recent underperformance is a buying opportunity. Value has improved and cyclical conditions favor small caps. Stay exposed to oil-related assets, and favor oil to base metals within commodity portfolios. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 27, 2017 Next Report: May 25, 2017 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Fiscal Policy: Facts, Fallacies and Fantasies," dated April 5, 207, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds The fundamental drivers of the low rate world are considered by many to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields quite depressed by historical standards for years to come. However, some of the factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. The age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. Global investment needs will wane along with population aging, but the majority of the effect on equilibrium interest rates is in the past. In contrast, the demographic effects that will depress desired savings are still to come. The net impact will be bond-bearish. Moreover, the massive positive labor supply shock, following the integration of China and Eastern Europe into the world's effective labor force, is over. Indeed, this shock is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power, sparking a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby placing upward pressure on global real bond yields. It is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. This could be inflationary if it disrupts global supply chains. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. As for China, the fundamental drivers of its savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Technological advance will remain a headwind for real wage gains, but at least the transition to a world that is less labor-abundant will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations for bond yields are too low. Investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. In the September 2016 The Bank Credit Analyst, we summarized the key drivers behind the major global macroeconomic disequilibria that have resulted in deflationary pressure, policy extremism, dismal productivity, and the lowest bond yields in recorded history (Chart II-1). The disequilibria include income inequality, the depressed wage share of GDP, lackluster capital spending, and excessive savings. Chart II-1Global Disequilibria May 2017 May 2017 The fundamental drivers of the low bond yield world are now well documented and understood by investors. These drivers generally are considered to be structural, and thus likely to keep global equilibrium bond yields and interest rates at historically low levels for years to come according to the consensus. Based on discussions with BCA clients, it appears that many have either "bought into" the secular stagnation thesis or, at a minimum, have adopted the view that growth headwinds preclude any meaningful rise in bond yields. However, bond investors might have been lulled into a false sense of security. Yields will not return to pre-Lehman norms anytime soon, but some of the factors behind the low-yield world have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. Most importantly, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool. We have reached the tipping point. Equilibrium real bond yields will gradually move higher as a result. But before we discuss what is changing, it is important to review the drivers of today's macro disequilibria. Several of them predate the Great Financial Crisis, including demographic trends, technological advances, and the integration of China's massive workforce and excess savings into the global economy. Ultra-Low Rates: How Did We Get Here? (A) Demographics And Global Savings Chart II-2Global Shifts In The Saving ##br##And Investment Curves May 2017 May 2017 The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. We won't go through all of the forces behind the glut, but a key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. The Great Financial Crisis only served to reinforce the desire to save, given the setback in the value of boomers' retirement nest eggs.1 The corporate sector also began to save more following the crisis. Even more importantly, the surge in China's trade surplus since the 1990s had to be recycled into the global pool of savings. While China's rate of investment was very high, its propensity to save increased even faster, resulting in a swollen external surplus and a massive net outflow of capital. Other emerging economies also made the adjustment from net importers of capital to net exporters following the Asian crisis in the late 1990s. By leaning into currency appreciation, these countries built up huge foreign exchange reserves that had to be recycled abroad. In theory, savings must equal investment at the global level and real interest rates shift to ensure this equilibrium (Chart II-2). China's excess savings, together with a greater desire to save in the developed countries, represented a shift in the saving schedule to the right. The result was downward pressure on global interest rates. (B) Demographics And Global Capital Spending Demographics and China's integration also affected the investment side of the equation. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. Chart II-3 shows that the growth rate of global capital spending that is required to maintain a given capital-to-output ratio has dropped substantially, due to the dramatic slowdown in the growth of the world's working-age population.2 Keep in mind that this estimate refers only to the demographic component of investment spending. Actual capital expenditure growth will not be as weak as Chart II-3 suggests because firms will want to adopt new technologies for competitive or environmental reasons. Nonetheless, the point is that the structural tailwind for global capex from the post-war baby boom has disappeared. Chart II-3Demographics Are A Structural Headwind For Global Capex May 2017 May 2017 (C) Labor Supply Shock And Global Capital Spending While the working-age population ratio peaked in the developed countries years ago, it is a different story at the global level (Chart II-4). The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. Relative prices must adjust in the face of such a large boost in the supply of labor relative to capital. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. In terms of Chart II-2, the leftward shift of the investment schedule reinforced the impact of the savings impulse in placing downward pressure on global interest rates. (D) Labor Supply Shock And Income Inequality The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie (Chart II-5). In theory, a surge in the supply of labor is a positive "supply shock" that benefits both developed and developing countries. However, a recent report by David Autor and Gordon Hanson3 highlighted that trade agreements in the past were incremental and largely involved countries with similar income levels. The sudden entry of China to the global trade arena, involving a massive addition to the effective global stock of labor, was altogether different. The report does not argue that trade has become a "bad" thing. Rather, it points out that the adjustment costs imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting, as Chinese firms destroyed entire industries in developed countries. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners (Chart II-6). The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the emerging world. Chart II-4Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Working-Age Population Ratios Have Peaked Chart II-5Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Labor Share Of Income Has Dropped Chart II-6Hollowing Out Hollowing Out Hollowing Out Greater inequality, in turn, has weighed on aggregate demand and equilibrium interest rates because a larger share of total income flowed to the "rich" who tend to save more than the low- and middle-income classes. (E) The Dark Side Of Technology Advances in technology also contributed to rising inequality. In theory, new technologies hurt some workers in the short term, but benefit most workers in the long run because they raise national income. However, there is evidence that past major technological shocks were associated with a "hollowing out" or U-shaped pattern of employment. Low- and high-skilled employment increased, but the proportion of mid-skilled workers tended to shrink. Wages for both low- and mid-skilled labor did not keep up with those that were highly-skilled, leading to wider income disparity. Today, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. This may be because machines are not just replacing manual human tasks, but cognitive ones too. A recent IMF report made the case that technology and global integration played a dominant role in labor's declining fortunes. Technology alone explains about half of the drop in the labor share of income in the developed countries since 1980.4 Falling prices for capital goods, information and communications technology in particular, have facilitated the expansion of global value chains as firms unbundled production into many tasks that were distributed around the world in a way that minimized production costs. Chart II-7 highlights that the falling price of capital goods in the advanced economies went hand-in-hand with rising participation in global supply chains since 1990. Falling capital goods prices also accelerated the automation of routine tasks, contributing especially to job destruction in the developed (high-wage) economies. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. The effects of technology, global integration, population aging and China's economic integration are demonstrated in Chart II-8. The world working-age-to-total population ratio rose sharply beginning in the late 1990s. This resulted in an upward trend in China's investment/GDP ratio, and a downward trend in the G7. The upward trend in the G7 capital stock-per-capita ratio began to slow as a result, before experiencing an unprecedented contraction after the Great Recession and Financial Crisis. Chart II-7Economic Integration And ##br##Falling Capital Goods Prices Economic Integration And Falling Capital Goods Prices Economic Integration And Falling Capital Goods Prices Chart II-8Macro Impact Of ##br##Labor Supply Shock Macro Impact Of Labor Supply Shock Macro Impact Of Labor Supply Shock The result has been a deflationary global backdrop characterized by demand deficiency and poor potential real GDP growth, both of which have depressed equilibrium global interest rates over the past 20 to 25 years. Transition Phase Chart II-9Working-Age Population ##br##To Shrink In G7 And China Working-Age Population To Shrink in G7 and China Working-Age Population To Shrink in G7 and China It would appear easy to conclude that these trends will be with us for another few decades because the demographic trends will not change anytime soon. Nonetheless, on closer inspection the global economy is transitioning from a period when cyclical economic pressures and all of the structural trends were pushing equilibrium interest rates in the same direction, to a period in which the economic cycle is becoming less bond-friendly and some of the secular drivers of low interest rates are gradually changing direction. First, the massive labor supply shock of the past few decades is over. The world working-age population ratio has peaked according to United Nations estimates. This ratio is already declining in the major advanced economies and is in the process of topping out in China. The absolute number of working-age people will shrink in China and the G7 countries over the next five years, although it will continue to grow at a low rate for the world as a whole (Chart II-9). Unions are unlikely to make a major comeback, but a backdrop that is less labor-abundant should gradually restore some worker bargaining power, especially as economies regain full employment. The resulting upward pressure on real wages will support capital spending as firms substitute toward capital and away from (increasingly expensive) labor. Consumer demand will also receive a boost if inequality moderates and the labor share of income begins to rise. Globalization On The Back Foot Chart II-10Globalization Peaking? Globalization Peaking? Globalization Peaking? Second, it is too early to declare globalization dead, but the neo-liberal trading world order that has been in place for decades is under attack. Global exports appear to have peaked relative to GDP and average tariffs have ticked higher (Chart II-10). The World Trade Organization has announced that the number of new trade restrictions or impediments outweighed the number of trade liberalizing initiatives in 2016. The U.K. appears willing to sacrifice trade for limits to the free movement of people. The new U.S. Administration has ditched the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and is threatening to impose punitive tariffs on some trading partners. Anti-globalization policies could paradoxically be positive for capital spending, at least for a few years. If the U.S. were to impose high tariffs on China, for example, it would make a part of the Chinese capital stock redundant overnight. In order for the global economy to produce the same amount of goods and services as before, the U.S. and other countries would need to invest more. Any unwinding of globalization would also be inflationary as it would disrupt international supply chains. Demographics And Saving: From Tailwind To Headwind... Third, the impact of savings in the major advanced economies and China on global interest rates will change direction as well. In the developed world, aggregate household savings will come under downward pressure as boomers increasingly shift into retirement. Economists are fond of employing the so-called life-cycle theory of consumer spending. According to this theory, consumers tend to smooth out lifetime spending by accumulating assets during the working years in order to maintain a certain living standard after retirement. The U.N. National Transfer Accounts Project has gathered data on spending and labor income by age cohort at a point in time. Chart II-11 presents the data for China and three of the major advanced economies. Chart II-11Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Income And Consumption By Age Cohort Income And Consumption By Age Cohort The data for the advanced economies suggest that spending tends to rise sharply from a low level between birth and about 15 years of age. It continues to rise, albeit at a more modest pace, through the working years. Other studies have found that consumer spending falls during retirement. Nonetheless, these studies generally include only private spending and therefore do not include health care that is provided by the government. The data presented in Chart II-11 show that, if government-provided health care is included, personal spending rises sharply toward the end of life. The profile is somewhat different in China. Spending rises quickly from birth to about 20 years of age, and is roughly flat thereafter. Indeed, consumption edges lower after 75-80 years of age. These data allow us to project the impact of changing demographics on the average household saving rate in the coming years, assuming that the income and spending profiles shown in Chart II-11 are unchanged. We start by calculating the average saving rate across age cohorts given today's age structure. We then recalculate the average saving rate each year moving forward in time. The resulting saving rate changes along with the age structure of the population. The results are shown in Chart II-12. The saving rates for all four economies have been indexed at zero in 2016 for comparison purposes. The aggregate saving rate declines in all cases, falling between 4 and 8 percentage points between 2016 and 2030. Germany sees the largest drop of the four countries. Chart II-12Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving Aging Will Undermine Aggregate Saving The simulations are meant to be suggestive, rather than a precise forecast, because the savings profile across age cohorts will adjust over time. Moreover, governments will no doubt raise taxes to cover the rising cost of health care, providing a partial offset in terms of the national saving rate.5 Nonetheless, the simulations highlight that the major economies are past the point where the baby boom generation is adding to the global savings pool at a faster pace than retirees are drawing from it. The age structure in the major advanced economies is far enough advanced that the rapid increase in the retirement rate will place substantial downward pressure on aggregate household savings in the coming years. It is well known that population aging will also undermine government budgets. Rising health care costs are already captured in our household saving rate projection because the data for household spending includes health care even if it is provided by the public sector. However, public pension schemes will also be a problem. To the extent that politicians are slow to trim pension benefits and/or raise taxes, public pension plans will be a growing drain on national savings. Could younger, less developed economies offset some of the demographic trends in China and the Advanced Economies? Numerically speaking, a more effective use of underutilized populations in Africa and India could go a long way. Nevertheless, deep-seated structural problems would have to be addressed and, even then, it is difficult to see either of these regions turning into the next "China story" given the current backlash against globalization and immigration. ...And The Capex Story Is Largely Behind Us Demographic trends also imply less capital spending relative to GDP, as discussed above. In terms of the impact on global equilibrium interest rates, it then becomes a race between falling saving and investment rates. Chart II-13Demographics And Capex Requirements May 2017 May 2017 Some analysts point to the Japanese experience because it is the leading edge in terms of global aging. Bond yields have been extremely low for many years even as the household saving rate collapsed, suggesting that ex-ante investment spending shifted by more than ex-ante savings. Nonetheless, Japan may not be a good example because the deterioration in the country's demographics coincided with burst bubbles in both real estate and stocks that hamstrung Japanese banks for decades. A series of policy mistakes made things worse. Economic theory is not clear on the net effect of demographics on savings and investment. The academic empirical evidence is inconclusive as well. However, a detailed IMF study of 30 OECD countries analyzed the demographic impact on a number of macroeconomic variables, including savings and investment.6 They estimated separate demographic effects for the old-age dependency ratio and the working-age population ratio. Applying the IMF's estimated model coefficients to projected changes in both of these ratios over the next decade suggests that the decline in ex-ante savings will exceed the ex-ante drop in capex requirements by about 1 percentage point of GDP. This is a non-trivial shift. Moreover, our simulations highlight that timing is important. The outlook for the household saving rate depends on the changing age structure of the population and the distribution of saving rates across age cohorts. Thus, the average saving rate will trend down as populations continue to age over the coming decades. In contrast, the impact of demographics on capital spending requirements is related to the change in the growth rate of the working-age population. Chart II-13 once again presents our estimates for the demographic component of capital spending. The top panel presents the world capex/GDP ratio that is necessary to maintain a constant capital/output ratio, and the bottom panel shows the change in that ratio. The important point is that the downward adjustment in world capex/GDP related to aging is now largely behind us because most of the deceleration in the growth rate of the working-age population is done. This is in contrast to the household saving rate adjustment where all of the adjustment is still to come. China Is Transitioning Too Chart II-14China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China's Savings Rates Have Peaked... China must be treated separately from the developed countries because of its unique structural issues. As discussed above, household savings increased dramatically beginning in the mid-1990s (Chart II-14). This trend reflected a number of factors, including: the rising share of the working-age population; a drop in the fertility rate, following the introduction of the one-child policy in the late 1970s that allowed households to spend less on raising children and save more for retirement; health care reform in the early 1990s required households to bear a larger share of health care spending; and job security was also undermined by reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOE) in the late 1990s, leading to increased precautionary savings to cover possible bouts of unemployment. These savings tailwinds have turned around in recent years and the household saving rate appears to have peaked. China's contribution to the global pool of savings has already moderated significantly, as measured by the current account surplus. The surplus has withered from about 9% in 2008 to 2½% in 2016. A recent IMF study makes the case that China's national saving rate will continue to decline. The IMF estimates that for every one percentage-point rise in the old-age dependency ratio, the aggregate household saving rate will fall by 0.4-1 percentage points. In addition, the need for precautionary savings is expected to ease along with improvements in the social safety net, achieved through higher government spending on health care. The household saving rate will fall by three percentage points by 2021 according to the IMF (Chart II-15). Competitive pressure and an aging population will also reduce the saving rates of the corporate and government sectors. Chart II-15...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink ...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink ...Suggesting That External Surplus Will Shrink Of course, investment as a share of GDP is projected to moderate too, reflecting a rebalancing of the economy away from exports and capital spending toward household consumption. The IMF expects that savings will moderate slightly faster than investment, leading to a narrowing in the current account surplus to almost zero by 2021. A lot of assumptions go into this type of forecast such that we must take it with a large grain of salt. Nonetheless, the fundamental drivers of China's savings capacity appear to rule out a return to the days when the country was generating a substantial amount of excess savings. Moreover, a return to large current account surpluses would likely require significant currency depreciation, which is a political non-starter given U.S. angst over trade. The risk is that China's excess savings will be less, not more, in five year's time. Tech Is A Wildcard It is extremely difficult to forecast the impact of technological advancement on the global economy. We cannot say with any conviction that the tech-related effects of "hollowing out", "winner-take-all" and the "skills premium" will moderate in the coming years. Nonetheless, these effects have occurred alongside a surge in the world's labor force and rapid globalization of supply chains, both of which reinforced the erosion of employee bargaining power. Looking ahead, technology will still be a headwind for some employees, but at least the transition from a world of excess labor to one that is more labor-scarce will boost workers' ability to negotiate a larger share of the income pie. We will explore the impact of technology on productivity, inflation, growth, and bond yields in a companion report to be published in the next issue. Conclusion: The main points we made in this report are summarized in Table II-1. All of the structural factors driving real bond yields were working in the same (bullish) direction over the past 30-40 years. Looking ahead, it is uncertain how technological improvement will affect bond prices, but we expect that the others will shift (or have already shifted) to either neutral or outright bond-bearish. Table II-1Key Secular Drivers May 2017 May 2017 No doubt, our views that globalization and inequality have peaked, and that the labor share of income has bottomed, are speculative. These factors may not place much upward pressure on equilibrium yields. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the demographic effect that has depressed capital spending demand is well advanced. We see it shifting from a positive factor for bond prices to a neutral factor in the coming years. It is also clear that the massive positive labor supply shock is over, and is heading into reverse as the global working-age population ratio falls. This may improve labor's bargaining power and the resulting boost consumer spending will be negative for bonds. This may also spark a shift toward using more capital in the production process and thereby place additional upward pressure on global real bond yields. Admittedly, however, this last point requires more research because theory and empirical evidence on it are not clear. Perhaps most importantly, the aging of the population in the advanced economies has reached a tipping point; retirees will drain more from the pool of savings than the working-age population will add to it in the coming years. We have concentrated on real equilibrium bond yields in this report because it is the part of nominal yields that is the most depressed relative to historical norms. The inflation component is only a little below a level that is consistent with central banks meeting their 2% inflation targets in the medium term. There is a risk that inflation will overshoot these targets, leading to a possible surge in long-term inflation expectations that turbocharges the bond bear market. This is certainly possible, as highlighted by a recent Global Investment Strategy Quarterly Strategy Outlook.7 Pain in bond markets would be magnified in this case, especially if central banks are forced to aggressively defend their targets. Please note that we are not making the case that real global bond yields will quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. It will take time for the bond-bullish structural factors to unwind. It will also take time for inflation to gain any momentum, even in the United States. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors have adopted an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2021 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-16). We doubt that short-term rates will be negative for that long, given the structural factors discussed above. Chart II-16Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Market Expects Negative Short-Term Rates For A Long Time Another way of looking at this is presented in Chart II-17. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is not far above the lowest levels ever recorded. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-17Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History Forward Rates Very Low Vs. History The implication is that investors should have a bond-bearish bias on a medium- and long-term horizon. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 It is true that observed household savings rates fell in some of the advanced economies, such as the United States, at a time when aging should have boosted savings from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s. This argues against a strong demographic effect on savings. However, keep in mind that we are discussing desired (or ex-ante) savings. Ex-post, savings can go in the opposite direction because of other influencing factors. As discussed below, global savings must equal investment, which means that shifts in desired capital spending demand matter for the ex-post level of savings. 2 Arithmetically, if world trend GDP growth slows by one percentage point, then investment spending would need to drop by about 3½ percentage points of GDP to keep the capital/output ratio stable. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 205-240 (October 2016). 4 Please see "Understanding The Downward Trend In Labor Income Shares," Chapter 3 in the IMF World Economic Outlook (April 2017). 5 In other words, while the household savings rate, as defined here to include health care spending by governments on behalf of households, will decline, any associated tax increases will blunt the impact on national savings (i.e. savings across the household, government and business sectors). 6 Jong-Won Yoon, Jinill Kim, and Jungjin Lee, "Impact Of Demographic Changes On Inflation And The Macroeconomy," IMF Working Paper no. 14/210 (November 2014). 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook: Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The modest correction in April did not improve equity valuation by much in any of the major markets. Our U.S. valuation metric is still hovering just below the +1 sigma mark, above which would signal extreme overvaluation. Measures such as the Shiller P/E ratio are flashing red on valuation, but our indicator takes into consideration 11 different valuation measures. Technically, the U.S. equity market still has upward momentum, while our Monetary indicator is neutral for stocks. The Speculation index indicates some froth, although our Composite Sentiment indicator has cooled off, suggesting that fewer investors are bullish. The U.S. net revisions ratio is hovering near zero, but it is bullish that the earnings surprise index jumped over the past month. First-quarter earnings season in the U.S. has got off to a good start, while the global earnings revisions ratio has moved into positive territory for the first time in six years (see the Overview section). Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500, although it is now so elevated that it suggests that there could be little 'dry power' left to buy the market. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. In contrast to the U.S., the WTP indicators for both the Eurozone and Japan are rising from a low level. This suggests that a rotation into these equity markets is underway and has some ways to go. We remain overweight both the Eurozone and Japanese markets relative to the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. April's rally in the U.S. bond market dragged valuation close to neutral. However, we believe that the market is underestimating the amount of Fed rate hikes that are likely over the next year. Now that oversold technical conditions have been absorbed, this opens the door the next upleg in yields. Bonds typically move into 'inexpensive' territory before the monetary cycle is over. The trade-weighted dollar remains quite overvalued on a PPP basis, although less so by other measures. Technically, the dollar has shifted down this year to meet support at the 200-day moving average and overbought conditions have largely, but not totally, been worked off. We still believe there is more upside for the dollar, despite lofty valuation readings, due to macro divergences. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights The latest saber-rattling signals a turn in U.S. policy; New negotiations, with tighter sanctions, will follow; The Iran playbook can work with North Korea ... ... But failure could mean war down the road. Feature The United States's "Pivot to Asia" was not a passing fancy, as the past two weeks of saber-rattling have shown. Over this period, U.S. President Donald Trump took two largely symbolic actions in Syria and Afghanistan. First he launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base, then he dropped the world's largest non-nuclear bomb on an underground hub of the Islamic State in Afghanistan. Neither action implied an increase in commitment to the region. Instead, the spotlight shifted to North Korea. Trump's multiple conversations with Chinese President Xi Jinping, his orders to move three aircraft carriers to the peninsula, and his standoff with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un over a failed missile launch, all indicated that one of our major geopolitical themes is alive and well: the rotation of risk from the Middle East to Asia Pacific (Chart 1).1 Chart 1The Pivot To Asia Is Not Done Yet The Pivot To Asia Is Not Done Yet The Pivot To Asia Is Not Done Yet The underlying driver of geopolitical risk on the Korean peninsula is Sino-American rivalry. China is an emerging "great power" that threatens the global dominance of the United States and its alliance system. The immediate consequence is rising friction in China's periphery. That is why Taiwan, the South China Sea, and North Korea are all heating up in various ways.2 However, North Korea's regime is highly unpredictable and potentially able to strike the American homeland in a few years. In that sense it is more significant than the other "proxy battles" between the U.S. and China.3 In essence, North Korea is no longer merely an object of satire. A big new round of negotiations over Korea is about to begin - not unlike the Iranian nuclear negotiations over the past decade. Unless diplomacy succeeds in convincing North Korea to freeze its nuclear and missile progress, the potential for a military conflict is high. What Caused The Latest Spike In Tensions? This past week the new U.S. administration, hitherto untested in foreign affairs, has drawn a stark line on how it intends to manage global security. Both President Barack Obama and Presidential Candidate Trump sowed doubts about America's willingness to remain involved in maintaining global order.4 Obama seemed reluctant to reinforce American "red lines" in Syria, Ukraine, and the South China Sea; Trump threatened outright isolationism, rejecting NATO, and notably suggesting that U.S. allies Japan and South Korea might have to fend for themselves. In office, however, Trump is rapidly "normalizing" and abandoning his isolationist rhetoric. Notably, he is maintaining the Obama administration's "pivot" away from the Middle East and toward Asia Pacific. Though he unilaterally withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, he has emphasized the need to renegotiate America's relationship with China, voiced aggressive support for Taiwan, reinforced U.S. freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, and sent Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and Vice President Mike Pence on high-profile regional tours. He may visit China himself in May. The current tense standoff with North Korea - which has seen high-flying rhetoric, the aircraft carrier strike groups diverted to the region, extra military exercises with South Korea and Japan, and no less than three conversations with President Xi of China - should remove any doubt that Asia is high on his foreign-policy list. Another major factor contributing to the current flare-up in Korean tensions is Korean peninsula politics. The past year has seen extraordinary South Korean domestic political turmoil and a sharp increase in the frequency of North Korean nuclear and missile tests (Chart 2). These issues are connected. Robust empirical research shows that North Korean foreign policy from 1960-2011 has been more likely to turn hostile in the context of internal difficulties as well as periods of South Korean power transition (Chart 3).5 The past year's events support that conclusion: Chart 2North Korea Run Amok? North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire Chart 3Bull Market For North Korean Threats North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire South Korean turmoil: South Korea's ruling party, the conservative Saenuri Party - hawkish on North Korea - has collapsed in flames under the Park Geun-hye administration. She has been impeached and removed from office and is now under arrest and investigation. It is a sequence of events without comparison since the turmoil that accompanied the country's transition to democracy in the late 1980s. Essentially, the past ten years of conservative rule in the South appear discredited, even as North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has consolidated power through purges of enemies and family members at home. If there was ever a time for the North to flex its muscles, the past year has been it. Economic weakness: Kim's muscle-flexing at home and abroad have also coincided with internal economic difficulties. China accounts for about 91% of North Korea's trade ex-South Korea, and the North has suffered from the secular slowdown in Chinese growth. Bilateral trade with China collapsed by 10% since its peak in January 2014 (Chart 4). This slowdown has been particularly pronounced in China's northeast, namely Liaoning province, which is key for North Korea. A composite indicator of Chinese and Russian provinces bordering North Korea suggests that internal demand is still contracting (Chart 5). Moreover, the North is mainly an exporter of commodities, such as coal and iron ore, and did not escape the general commodity bust of 2014-16. The Kim regime, already concerned about the pace of pseudo-liberalization of the economy, is using its military advances to distract its populace. Chart 4China Trade Took A Hit Chinese Trade Took A Hit Chinese Trade Took A Hit Chart 5Regional Economic Weakness North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire These factors coalesced late last year - as we argued - to create a situation ripe for a new Korean crisis.6 The collapse of South Korea's conservatives meant that left-leaning candidates became the only real contenders in the presidential election, now scheduled on May 9 (Chart 6). All leading candidates are more likely to try diplomacy and economic engagement with North Korea than to maintain the past ten years of conservative efforts to strengthen military deterrence via stronger alliances with the U.S. and Japan.7 As a result, early this year the U.S. and the flailing Park regime rushed ahead with the deployment of the controversial THAAD missile defense system and ratcheted up pressure tactics on the North via high-intensity regular and irregular military exercises.8 The North responded by testing four short-range missiles at once, threatening to attack Japan and American bases with nuclear weapons, launching another unidentified missile in the face of U.S. warnings, and preparing to conduct another nuclear test and an intercontinental ballistic missile test for the first time. Meanwhile, China imposed sanctions on both Koreas - the former for its missile tests and the latter for THAAD, which China resolutely opposes (Chart 7).9 China sees South Korean weakness as an opportunity to increase its sway in the region, but is sanctioning the North as well because it does not want the latter to provide the U.S. with a pretext to intervene on the Korean Peninsula or take anti-China trade measures. Chart 6Leftward Swing In South Korea North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire Chart 7China Imposes Sanctions On Seoul? China Imposes Sanctions On Seoul? China Imposes Sanctions On Seoul? Bottom Line: The recent spike in Korean tensions (as opposed to some in the past) is driven by real, geopolitical factors - not by media hype alone. The Trump administration is going forward with the "Pivot to Asia" in all but name, and showing a lower threshold than its predecessor for military action globally, while South Korea's power vacuum has emboldened North Korea in its weapons tests and China in its willingness to affect peninsular politics. Is North Korea A Red Herring? Despite the above, this week's spike in Korean tensions failed to generate real panic among global investors, though it did cause a 32% rise in Korean credit-default swaps price and a 2% depreciation of the Korean won from end of March to mid-April (Chart 8). North Korea did not conduct a major provocation on April 15 or thereafter, as it warned it might do.10 The tensions have not fizzled, but seem likely to, once again raising the question of whether North Korea is a red herring for investors. Normally we would say "Yes." Chart 9 explains why. The North has committed a number of acts of aggression over recent decades, killing American as well as South Korean citizens and servicemen. None of these acts has had a pronounced market impact. That is because there is a balance of power on the Korean peninsula and the major players refuse to allow the North to upset that balance through provocations. Chart 8South Korean Risks Rising South Korean Risks Rising South Korean Risks Rising Chart 9North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Specifically, the North already has a "nuclear option," and it has nothing to do with an atomic bomb. It is approximately 9,000 units of artillery hidden and deeply ensconced in the hills just 35 miles north of the South Korean capital Seoul. This conventional fighting force is ready to attack on a moment's notice and would take days to defeat even granting the vast superiority of American and South Korean forces. In that time it could cause massive casualties in the metropolitan area. In 1994 - when the U.S. chose diplomacy with North Korea for lack of an acceptable military option - a simulation estimated that 1 million people or 9% of the city's population might die - the equivalent of which would be 2.4 million today.11 A conventional attack on Seoul is North Korea's longstanding and well-known trump card. It has prevented the U.S. or South Korea from trying to "solve" the North Korea problem militarily for decades and it remains an active threat. The question, then, is whether this stalemate is changing in a way that breaks the cycle of transgression-and-containment and poses real risks to regional economies and political stability. The answer is "Yes" again. North Korea is no longer a red herring because its nuclear and missile capabilities are improving and it is becoming a bigger problem in U.S.-China relations. Capabilities First, North Korean capabilities are advancing steadily forward, giving the U.S. a smaller window of opportunity to decide whether it can accept a nuclear-armed North Korea. Previous crises with North Korea occurred after the Soviets fell, after 9/11, and after the Great Recession - they were driven exogenously and the U.S. had the luxury of time and distance. That is gradually proving no longer to be the case. To be clear, North Korea has not proved the ability to launch ICBMs reliably. The farthest it has ever shot a missile is around 1,000km, aside from tests of space launch vehicles, which are comparable but as yet inconclusive. Map 1 demonstrates that its missiles are currently a risk to U.S. military bases and allies in Asia Pacific more so than to the continental U.S. Even hitting Guam may be a stretch at the moment. Effective ICBM capabilities are exceedingly rare, as revealed by the fact that only a handful of countries have achieved them (the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, India, and arguably North Korea itself). Map 1North Korea's Proven Missile Reach North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire Nevertheless, a number of prominent U.S. defense and intelligence officials have asserted that the U.S. government must be "prudent" and "assume the worst" - i.e. that the North can attach a nuclear warhead to one of its ICBMs (which may function properly) and fire it at the continental U.S.12 The North has surprised the world several times in recent memory with marked advances on everything from nuclear miniaturization to uranium enrichment to the types of long-range missiles in development. While it has not gained the ability to strike the U.S. reliably and accurately, the U.S. wants to stay ahead of the curve. Moreover, nuclear weapons will give the North a much more influential position on the global stage even assuming that it never intends to push the button. (Pyongyang is unlikely to use nukes because to do so would be regime suicide - the response of the U.S. and its allies would be devastating.) As it gains the ability to strike U.S. bases and neighboring Asian countries, it would be able to blackmail the U.S. and its allies more effectively. One result is that the U.S. and South Korea may start to drift apart. As the North gains the ability to strike the U.S. directly, the U.S. loses the willingness to delay military strikes on account of the people of Seoul. Since South Korea knows this, it has an incentive to engage with North Korea and strike a bilateral deal. This is particularly the perception among Koreans born in the 1970s and 1980s, who are gradually assuming power in the country. Though they still support the U.S., like all Koreans, nevertheless they favor it less than other age groups. They also have the highest sympathy for North Korea and China - especially compared to those born after 1988 (Chart 10 A&B). The latter are too young to take charge of policy while the more conservative elderly cohort has been discredited with the fall of Park, at least until the political pendulum swings back again at some point in the future. This suggests a basis for peace overtures. Chart 10AMiddle-Aged Koreans ##br##Sympathetic With China... North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire Chart 10B... And With ##br##North Korea North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire The May 9 election is likely to point in this direction. An inter-Korean thaw may encourage the North to calm down outwardly, but may also encourage its technological efforts inwardly. This occurred during the "Sunshine Policy" of liberal South Korean governments from 1998-2007. The North will expect to face greater diplomatic leniency and economic assistance. Such a thaw will also raise the potential that the U.S. and Japan eventually grow frustrated with South Korean (and Chinese) inaction over the course of talks, especially if the North breaks faith, as it did in the late 1990s and early 2000s.13 This is why a new round of negotiations is crucial to the probability of war. China The second reason North Korea is no longer a red herring for investors is that the U.S.'s approach to China is shifting - it is threatening to slap China with secondary sanctions, trade tariffs, and other measures. The U.S. is demanding that China enforce sanctions and use its economic leverage to convince the North to freeze its nuclear and missile programs. For the first time ever, the U.S. has sanctioned Chinese companies and individuals for their involvement in the North Korean missile program - this is a trend that will continue to evolve.14 Judging by China's stated willingness to ban some coal imports this year (Chart 11), Beijing knows that the U.S. is getting more serious and needs to be pacified. Chart 11Chinese Yet To Punish Pyongyang Chinese Yet To Punish Pyongyang Chinese Yet To Punish Pyongyang But unless "this time is different," China will not impose crippling sanctions on North Korea. The latter is a military and ideological ally, a proxy state that helps keep the U.S. alliance at bay, and a massive liability in the event of collapse (North Korean refugees would flood into northeast China). Investors should remember that the U.S. and China fought a war directly against one another over the Korean peninsula. Time and again, China chooses not to destabilize North Korea, even if that means abetting its nuclear and missile advances.15 In short, North Korea is one more reason - along with trade, China's maritime assertiveness, and Taiwan - that U.S.-China relations will worsen over time, notwithstanding the beginnings of a Trump-Xi détente at Mar-a-Lago in early April. There is some military urgency here as well: Chinese military capabilities are rapidly improving and that further narrows the window for the U.S. to shape the outcome on the peninsula militarily. The longer the U.S. waits, the greater China's ability to deter U.S. action against the North. Hence the U.S.'s simmering conflict with the North could easily feed into a larger U.S.-China confrontation. Moreover, if we are wrong and China imposes crippling sanctions on the North, the investment-relevance of North Korea still goes up. The latter will become unstable in that case, given its vast overreliance on China. Eventually the regime could fragment and impact China's economy and internal stability, or lash out at its other neighbors and instigate tit-for-tat conflicts. Bottom Line - The current saber-rattling is carefully orchestrated. But North Korea can no longer be consigned to the realm of satire. The very fact that the U.S. administration is adopting greater pressure tactics makes this year a heightened risk period. Investors should be especially wary of any missile tests that reveal North Korean long-range capabilities to be substantially better than is known to be the case today. Table 1 provides a checklist for investors to determine if the current tensions get out of hand. Table 1Will The U.S. Attack North Korea? North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire Investors should also be wary of U.S. sanctions on China, or broader U.S.-China tensions, which are structurally driven and have not substantially subsided despite the Trump-Xi talks. In lieu of war, a deterioration in Sino-American relations is the key investment risk from North Korea. What Is The End Game? The U.S. has three paths it can take: Do nothing: The U.S. has allowed murderous tyrants to develop deliverable nuclear weapons before: see Stalin and Mao. It is possible that the U.S. could do the same for North Korea, essentially "setting in stone" the current status quo for lack of willingness to fight a second Korean war. Such an arrangement would put "rational actor theory" to the test - and so far that has been the case, with no second Korean war occurring. Attack, attack, attack! The North holds the South hostage, but Washington might decide someday to "shoot the hostage." For instance, if its own security needs outweigh its loyalty to its ally. Negotiate a solution: China's tentative cooperation on sanctions this year suggests that a major multilateral initiative is getting under way, comparable to the Iranian negotiations that concluded with the nuclear-monitoring and sanctions-lifting deal of 2015. The solution would likely consist of North Korea retaining its nuclear capability but admitting some inspections and refraining from developing long-range missile capabilities. It would seek a peace treaty to replace the 1953 armistice as well as sanctions relief and economic aid. Chart 12The Great East Asian Powder Keg The Great East Asian Powder Keg The Great East Asian Powder Keg What is wrong with these options? First, the U.S. has not yet accepted the North as a nuclear-armed state. Trump's naval buildup this month was evidence of a policy change designed to increase pressure tactics, with the aim of getting a better (non-nuclear-armed) result. It is still believed that the North will use its nuclear deterrent as a cover to expand its campaign of military intimidation and coercion against sovereign states: it has a record of attacks on civilians, attempted assassinations, and acts of war, including but not limited to the Chonan sinking and Yeonpyeong Island shelling in 2010. As the North gains the ability to strike the U.S., any hostilities will become harder for the U.S. public and defense establishment to ignore. Moreover, doing nothing allows a nuclear-armed Korea to kick off a nuclear arms race in a region that is already developing into a powder keg (Chart 12). More generally, it reduces America's ability to shape outcomes regarding China. A preemptive strike, on the other hand, would devastate Seoul and deliver a shock to the global economy. It would destabilize the peninsula and call all alliances and relationships into question. This option is extremely unlikely unless the U.S. is attacked, believes it is about to be attacked, or sees one of its allies suffer a serious attack. Diplomacy is the only real option. And in fact it is already taking shape. The theatrics of the past few weeks mark the opening gestures. And theatrics are a crucial part of any foreign policy. The international context is looking remarkably similar to the lead-up to the new round of Iranian negotiations in 2012. The United States pounded the war drums and built up the potential for war before coordinating a large, multilateral sanctions-regime and then engaging in talks with real willingness to compromise (Chart 13). Chart 13Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin North Korea: Beyond Satire North Korea: Beyond Satire Today the U.S. is similarly showing off its capabilities and willingness to use force to the North, thus establishing a "credible threat."16 The other actors are playing their parts. China is offering to assist with tougher sanctions than usual; South Korea is heading for a policy shift; Japan is raising alarms and demonstrating its lock-step with the U.S.; Russia is calling for calm and a return to talks. However, over time, diplomacy could be unsatisfactory if it merely approximates the first option of "doing nothing." This is likely North Korea's last chance to prove that it can be pragmatic. Bottom Line: Therefore we are at the critical phase - within say one-to-four years - in which the U.S. must decide whether to attack. Given the current heightened tensions, the danger zone consists of (1) the near-term, in which the U.S. is applying more pressure, tensions are spiking, and talks have not yet taken shape (2) the long term, when talks could fail. Conclusion The Korean peninsula is the site of a proxy battle between China and the U.S. However, China sees the dangers of a nuclear-armed North Korea and recognizes that its patronage has a strategic downside by provoking U.S. military intervention. Like Russia in the Iranian negotiations, it can be brought to the table if the U.S. is convincing in warning that it may take matters into its own hands. China's apparent decision to enforce sanctions on coal imports, combined with the U.S. aversion to preemptive strikes and South Korean political leftward tilt, make this new round of talks especially likely to occur. Japan also prefers North Korea to be a threat, but a contained threat, as it looks to normalize its defense posture yet avoid an economic destabilization. The threat in North Korea will be a convenient excuse for Prime Minister Abe to pursue his re-militarization agenda. Thus, over the next four years, the North might be persuaded to freeze its programs to create an uneasy modus vivendi, as with Iran. This would require a non-aggression nod from the U.S. and a lifting of sanctions. It could also bring economic engagement with all parties into focus, even though North Korea does not have as much economic resources to offer as Iran. It is looking to trade national security for national security. All of this has a limit, however. China will not cripple the North Korean economy or force out the regime. Remember that in the case of Iran it was only willing to go so far, and received a waiver for the Iranian oil sanctions - yet North Korea is even closer to its immediate security. Therefore the North's willingness to change its behavior - to demonstrate that it is a rational player if brought in from the cold - is critical to the effectiveness of negotiations. Trump's reelection prospects may also be critical. A lame duck Trump in 2020, in the face of another failed North Korea policy, could attempt a decisive action, especially if the North is belligerent. By contrast, there is very little risk that Japan will "go rogue" and attack North Korea - even less so than there was with Israel in the Iran talks. It is Trump who is playing the role of the unpredictable negotiator who might "go it alone." The U.S. will continue to make the military option credible in spite of Seoul's vulnerability to retaliation. Therefore any failure of negotiations will induce a real crisis in which the U.S. contemplates unilateral action. The final question of whether the U.S. will attack may hinge on the fact that the U.S. has a potent form of nationalism in the country that could be directed against North Korea under certain circumstances, as has happened against other regimes like Vietnam and Iraq. A North Korean act of war, or even a suspected imminent act of war in certain scenarios, could prompt a wave of reaction. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist EM Equity Sector Strategy obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and EM Equity Sector Strategy Joint Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2017, Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Robert Daniel Wallace, "The Determinants Of Conflict: North Korea's Foreign Policy Choices, 1960-2011," doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University (2014), available at krex.k-state.edu. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Most notably, the South Korean foreign policy shift will likely put an end to the unified U.S.-Japan-Korea stonewalling of North Korea that has prevailed since 2008. If Moon Jae-In wins, in particular, it will call the U.S. THAAD missile system emplacement into question. It will also call into question the progress in Korea-Japan relations, which includes a Japanese attempt to settle the "comfort women" controversy and a notable military-cooperation and intelligence-sharing agreement. 8 Including letting it be known that they would simulate special-forces operations to strike at the leadership in Pyongyang and decapitate the regime. 9 China opposes THAAD because its radar will be able to penetrate deep into China's territory. More broadly, it opposes U.S. efforts to upgrade its military capabilities in the region or otherwise shift the regional balance of power. 10 Kim Il Sung Day, or the "Day of the Sun," is, like several regime holidays, a possible occasion for missile tests or other provocative actions or revelations. However, Pyongyang is rarely predictable. Faced with a notable display of force by the U.S., the North conducted a small missile test, which failed. Notably, it steered clear of testing another nuclear device, as predicted. More may be to come. 11 Please see W. J. Hennigan and Barbara Demick, "Trump administration faces few good military options in North Korea," April 14, 2017, available at www.latimes.com. 12 Please see Admiral Bill Gortney's comments: "Our assessment is that they have the ability to put a nuclear weapon on a KN-08 [ICBM] and shoot it at the homeland ... That is the way we think, and that's our assessment of the process," in Aaron Mehta, "US: N. Korean Nuclear ICBM Achievable," April 8, 2015, available at www.defensenews.com. In 2013, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that "in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case, and that's ... why we're postured as we are today," quoted in "Hagel: North Korea Near 'Red Line,'" UPI, April 10, 2013, available at www.upi.com. See also Mark Landler, "North Korea Nuclear Threat Cited by James Clapper, Intelligence Chief," New York Times, February 9, 2016; Siegfried S. Hecker, "The U.S. Must Talk To North Korea," New York Times, January 12, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com; Jeff Seldin, "N. Korea Capable of Nuclear Strike at US, Military Leader Says," Voice of America, April 7, 2015, available at www.voanews.com. 13 Japan is especially likely to diverge from South Korea as a left-leaning government in Seoul will likely see relations decline far faster with Japan than with the U.S. Increasingly, Japan is concerned about North Korea's risk and is boosting its Self-Defense Forces and attempting to win popular support for controversial constitutional revisions that would ultimately have a bearing on national security posture. North Korea is both a real and a convenient threat at this time. 14 Please see "US sanctions Chinese company for alleged support of North Korea," The Guardian, September 26, 2016, available at www.theguardian.com; see also the Department of Commerce, "Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. Announces $1.19 Billion Penalty For Chinese Company's Export Violations To Iran And North Korea," dated March 7, 2017, available at www.commerce.gov. 15 And Chinese state-owned companies are implicated in significant and recent military advances, such as the provision of Transporter-Erector-Launchers (TELs) for North Korea's mobile-launched ICBM prototypes. Please see Melissa Hanham, "North Korea's Procurement Network Strikes Again: Examining How Chinese Missile Hardware Ended Up In Pyongyang," Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 31, 2012, available at www.nti.org. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Feature Game theory teaches us that "credible threats" are an important part of creating stable equilibria. To enforce a credible threat, a geopolitical actor must have the capability and willingness to act on a standing threat. For example, if a country A states that action X will produce a response a, it must follow through decisively with a if X occurs. Otherwise, the lack of action will incite other actors to shirk compliance and conduct action X with little threat of retaliation. The lack of enforcement raises the probability of action X occurring in the future. President Donald Trump has re-established American credibility when it comes to the long-standing opposition to the use of chemical weapons. According to various news reports, approximately 50 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from two U.S. Navy destroyers - USS Porter and USS Ross - in the Eastern Mediterranean. The air strike targeted Syrian government-controlled Shayrat Air Base 30km southeast of Homs. The air base was allegedly used by Syrian forces earlier in the week to launch the chemical attack that left at least 86 people, including 28 children, dead. The following are facts that we know surrounding the attack: Russian angle: Russian military has had a presence at the Shayrat air base since December 2015, which has included a contingent of attack helicopters since April 2016.1 This information is public knowledge and therefore was known to American officials ahead of the strike. According to news reports, U.S. officials informed their Russian counterparts of the strike earlier in the day, but President Trump did not speak to President Vladimir Putin ahead of the attack. Limited target: Cruise missiles focused on the parts of the airbase critical to launching further air strikes: runway, aircraft hangars, and fuel depots. However, given the American warning to Russia of the incoming attack, it is highly likely Syrian forces had advance warning as well. Therefore, the attack is likely to have had no discernable military effect. Justification: President Trump justified the attack in broad terms in his statement following the attacks, citing "vital national security interest... to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons." He also cited Syria's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and U.N. Security Council rulings. There is no evidence that the U.S. is preparing a more comprehensive intervention in Syria. While such an action cannot be ruled out, given that Trump has been overseeing a comprehensive policy review, the nature of the strike suggests that it was designed to re-establish America's credible threat against the use of chemical and biological weapons. What does America's commitment to use of military force mean in broader geopolitical sense? We think that the timing and the optics of the attack are relevant in five ways: Re-establishing "red lines": The alleged chemical attack - if indeed perpetrated by the armed forces of the Syrian government and not by rebel forces or the Islamic State to draw the U.S. into conflict - has little or no military utility. As such, it appears to have been conducted precisely to test President Trump's credibility and commitment to enforcing American "red lines," which were put into question in Syria in particular by the previous administration. We speculate, but the attack may have been encouraged by Assad's allies Iran and Russia to create a low-cost crisis - where both could claim plausible deniability - that tests Trump's resolve to retaliate militarily. Objectively speaking, President Trump has passed the test. Signaling: The quick reaction from Washington signals to potential foes like Iran and North Korea that President Trump has a lower threshold for using military force than his predecessor. Most notably, President Trump did not seek authorization of U.S. Congress for the attack, instead justifying the use of force via international law and longstanding U.S. commitment to defending allies.2 Timing: The attack occurred while President Trump and China's President Xi Jinping were dining at the Mar-a-Lago Florida resort. President Trump notably stated ahead of Xi's visit that "if China is not going to solve North Korea, we will." His administration has also said that time was running out on North Korea and all options were on the table. Words like these carry greater weight in light of Trump's actions today. On the other hand, the attack against Syria does allow Trump to scale-down rhetoric on North Korea and South China Sea - having now proven his military mettle - where conducting a military show-of-force would have been much more difficult for the U.S. Capabilities: The attack reminds the world that U.S. military capabilities and its global reach are unrivaled. Much has been made of Russian power-projection capabilities since their successful intervention in Syria. However, the U.S. was able to deliver a payload of 50-60 cruise missiles without tipping its hand and with little fanfare.3 Russian and Chinese capabilities to project power within their spheres of influence have increased dramatically over the past ten years. However, the U.S. remains the only actor capable of acting globally. Doctrine: President Trump's quick decision to use force suggests that he will not follow an extreme isolationist foreign policy. As we wrote in a February note, a truly isolationist America would produce paradigm shifting outcomes, including the eventual loss of U.S. dollar reserve currency status.4 However, Trump's decision to cite international law and American responsibility to allies as justifications for the Syrian air strikes suggest that the Trump White House has abandoned the isolationist rhetoric of the campaign. It also reveals the preferences of the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment, which has re-established its influence in the Trump White House. Incidentally, the air strike coincides with the removal of ultra-isolationist Steve Bannon - campaign chief and White House Chief Strategist - from the National Security Council. Investment Implications We believe that the air strikes are a limited attack whose main purpose is messaging. If the U.S. planned to accomplish broader goals, we would have expected to see multiple strikes against Syrian air force, air defense installations, and command and control capabilities. A risk to this view would be any follow-up rhetoric from the White House on establishing "no-fly zones" above Syrian air space. We suspect that the attack against Shayrat air base will instead be eventually followed by closer coordination with Russia and other regional players to find a diplomatic solution to the Syrian civil war. As such, any negative market reaction, bid-up in oil prices, or safe-haven flows should be temporary (Chart 1). In fact, the attack is bullish for risk assets for three reasons: Political recapitalization: We suspect that President Trump will see a bump in approval rating due to the limited, but resolute, air strikes. Currently, Trump is plumbing unseen lows in overall popularity and even his support among Republican voters appears to be slipping (Chart 2).The strikes will be a shot-in-the-arm, at least among GOP voters. This will further aid President Trump in his ongoing squabbles with the fiscally conservative Freedom Caucus and thus increase the probability of tax legislation being passed by Congress later this year.5 Chart I-1Market Reaction ##br##Should Be Temporary Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Chart 2Can A Resolute Strike ##br##Rescue Trump's Popularity? Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Trump Re-Establishes America's "Credible Threat" Establishment strikes back: The air strikes are a highly orthodox reaction to a foreign policy crisis, suggesting that the extreme isolationist rhetoric of the Trump's presidential campaign has been abandoned. It also suggests that the U.S. establishment has wrestled control of foreign policy from unpredictable novices like Steve Bannon. Escalation is limited: We don't see the probability of air strikes against North Korea as having risen. As we will show in a forthcoming military assessment of the risks on the Korean peninsula, North Korea retains considerable retaliatory capacity. It can still inflict massive civilian casualties on Seoul via a conventional artillery barrage. We suspect that the market will quickly realize the objective superiority of a foreign policy that enforces credible threats. As such, the probability of future use of force declines, now that the U.S. has reestablished its commitment to military retaliation when its "red lines" are crossed. The two risks to our view are that: Russia decides it must respond to the U.S. attack for either strategic or domestic political reasons; President Trump is emboldened by the political recapitalization that follows the attack to expand operations in Syria or to attempt a similar strike in North Korea. We doubt that either will happen, but it may take time for the market to be convinced. First, Russia will likely oppose U.S. involvement rhetorically, given the close proximity of its forces to the attack. This is despite the fact that the U.S. informed Russia, showing the courtesy of a geopolitical peer. Indeed, Russian officials are already threatening to scuttle the agreement with the U.S. that keeps the two militaries informed of each other movement in Syria. Second, we doubt that the U.S. defense establishment will advise President Trump to attack North Korea, as it has understood Pyongyang's retaliatory capability for decades. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The airport was used by the Russian forces as an "advance airfield," which means that it was mainly used for quick refueling and rearming of frontline aviation. There was no permanent presence of Russian troops. 2 In his statement following the attacks, President Trump stated that destabilization of the region and ongoing refugee crisis threatened the U.S. and its allies. 3 As a side note, the number of cruise missiles involved in the strike appears to be complete overkill given the limited nature of the attack. The number appears to have been selected for maximum PR effect, showing again that the attack was meant to serve a signaling purpose. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.