Developed Countries

Highlights The divergence in political uncertainty measures and the VIX index suggests that equity prices are vulnerable to Washington disappointments. Longer term, a self-reinforcing, low-inflation recovery is in place, which sets a fundamentally positive cyclical backdrop for equities. Monetary policy is still in a sweet spot for risk assets. Fed policy decisions throughout the current cycle have been in line with the Taylor Rule, once the model is adjusted for regional growth disparities. The most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey runs counter to most other data on the consumer. Improved consumer confidence should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. Feature Equity market performance over the past few weeks has been impressive. Still, there are starting to be signs that investors are becoming nervous. Safe-haven assets have been undergoing a stealth recovery since mid-December: gold, the Japanese yen, and the Swiss franc have all appreciated (Chart 1). In relation to these trends, the equity market is the so-called "odd man out": even though several safe-haven assets bottomed out mid-December, the stock market continued to make new highs. A second worrying divergence is the behavior of two popular risk indexes: the VIX and the Global Policy Uncertainty Index. The former - a measure of the cost of equity insurance - remains very low, while political uncertainty is making record highs. In fact, Chart 2 shows that the gap between these two risk measures is at a historic extreme. This reinforces our view that the equity market is vulnerable to negative surprises. Chart 1A Message From Safe Havens? Chart 2Different Signals? One main risk is that investors will become disappointed with the timing and magnitude of market-friendly policies from Washington. Meanwhile, the possibility of less friendly policies being passed is rising. Our Geopolitical team believes that the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) proposal, though the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show.1 We would expect market volatility to rise as the BAT debate intensifies. Longer term, the economy is entering a self-reinforcing phase. And since it is premature to expect inflation to flare up to a point that would require aggressive monetary tightening,2 we expect that the cyclical bull market will be prolonged. Policy Sweet Spot We have shown on several occasions3 that equities perform well in the early phases of a rising interest environment, i.e. for as long as rates remain in accommodative territory. We have identified four phases of the fed funds rate cycle, which are defined by the policy rate relative to its equilibrium level (accommodative or restrictive) and the direction of its last move: Phase I = Policy is accommodative, but the Fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed funds is still rising. Phase III = Policy is tight, but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easing and the Fed is cutting rates. As one would expect, the best equity market returns occur when the Fed funds rate is accommodative (below the equilibrium rate) and the Fed is still cutting and/or on extensive hold, i.e. Phase IV. The second best phase for equity performance is the current one: when policy is still accommodative, but rates are rising (Chart 3). Granted, the magnitude of returns in this phase depend markedly on earnings performance, but the general message is that risk assets will continue to eke out positive gains, so long as the Fed finds reason to stay accommodative. Chart 3Policy Sweet Spot Can Last A Long Time To this end, this week we examine the Taylor rule - which prescribes a value for the federal funds rate based on the values of inflation and economic slack - and its usefulness in the current economic (and political) environment. The Robotization Of The Fed In mid-January, FOMC Chair Janet Yellen gave a speech4 that outlined the merits of using statistical rules to guide monetary policy. Her speech served as a rebuttal to the FORM Act (Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act). The FORM Act - whose main feature is to have Fed officials determine a mathematical formula to guide their interest-rate decisions - is only one of several measures that have been proposed over the years to revamp the Fed to put it under greater Congressional scrutiny and limit its discretionary powers. The Senate has never voted on the FORM Act, but Yellen's speech on rule-based approaches to monetary policy suggest that this type of legislation should be on investors' radars. In the past, plenty of simple policy rules have been suggested to guide central banks' decisions.5 But in her speech, Yellen spoke about the relevance of the Taylor Rule. The Taylor rule calls for systematic adjustments in the federal funds rate relative to its expected longer-run neutral level in response to movements in inflation and the output gap, defined as the percentage difference between actual output and the economy's productive potential. The traditional Taylor Rule shows that the Fed is currently behind the curve and should be much more hawkish (Chart 4, top panel). Chair Yellen's preferred variant is to use a "balanced approach," which is twice as responsive to the movements in resources utilization (Chart 4, bottom panel). Simply put, it doubles the coefficient of the output gap, putting more emphasis on maintaining sustainable growth. But even with this methodological tweak, Yellen warned of the danger of using simple rules to conduct policy and quoted the uncertain footing of the global economic growth pattern. She also highlighted that the uncertainty related to upcoming fiscal policy: "simple rules ignore such important factors as fiscal policy, trends affecting global growth, structural developments influencing supply of credit, and overall financial conditions." For this reason, we created an Augmented Taylor rule that improves on the Traditional as well as Yellen's preferred modified Taylor rule. Our version of the Taylor rule has a better track record in explaining the Fed's policy decisions historically. Chart 4Taylor Vs. The Fed Chart 5Different Rates For Different States Augmenting The Taylor Rule One of the difficulties in conducting monetary policy in the U.S. is that growth is unevenly distributed. For example, according to the BEA, state level real GDP growth varied between -0.1% (In Alaska and New Mexico) and 7.1% (in South Dakota). Regulating interest rates over such an eclectic base has the potential to create distortions. Therefore, determining a mathematical formula for monetary policy should take into account these asymmetric patterns. By studying state-specific variables, we augment the Taylor Rule and come up with a more accurate reading of the Fed's behavior. The Augmented Taylor Rule is calculated using an average of 51 state-specific Taylor rules,6 using state GDP deflator and state unemployment rate as inputs. Please note that the following work does not make us advocates for the Fed following a mathematical formula. However, our model does better formulize the Fed's historical actions. To construct our Augmented Taylor rule we do the following: Step 1 - State Taylor Rules: NAIRU and the Fed's targets for interest rates and for inflation were used at the national level. As such, we used state-specific variables for the rest of the variables. Specifically, we used each states' GDP deflator and unemployment rate as inputs for inflation and resource utilization, respectively. With these variables, we calculated each states' Taylor Rule using Janet Yellen's preferred formula, the balanced approached. We then aggregated the data by calculating a simple average of the 51 Taylor Rules. As a reference, the top panel of Chart 5 shows that the averaged state Taylor Rules and Yellen's balanced approach are similar despite slightly different methods. Step 2 - Quantifying Asymmetry: As the middle panel of Chart 5 shows, there are large divergences between states' Taylor Rule-prescribed interest rates throughout time. Therefore, we calculated the standard deviations of the Taylor Rules across the 51 states Taylor Rules to come up with a value of asymmetry measure (Chart 5, bottom panel). Step 3 - Augmenting The Taylor Rule: We then deducted the asymmetry measure from the average Taylor Rule (Chart 6). The rationale for doing so is that it is much more difficult for the Fed to raise rates when outputs gaps vary greatly across states. Step 4 - Validating The Rule: Chart 7 shows the relationship between the national balanced Taylor rule (i.e. Yellen's preferred approach) and the Fed funds rate, and the augmented Taylor rule and the Fed funds rate. The main difference between our adjusted Taylor rule and Yellen's balanced approach is that we give equal weight to each state Taylor rule and then subtract the variance across states. Recall that both the Traditional and Balanced Taylor rules use national aggregate data, and do not account for state variances. The augmented Taylor Rule improves the R2 over the national rule, therefore providing more explanatory power of the Fed's decisions. Chart 6The Fed Is Constrained By Asymmetry Chart 7Validating The Augmented Taylor Rule The bottom line is that the Augmented Taylor Rule allows us to understand and quantify the economic asymmetry within the U.S. Further, it appears as though the Fed has been following this rule even if policymakers are not aware of it! Given the current message from our rule, investors should expect the Fed to remain gradual in raising rates. We do not foresee the Fed "catching up" with the Traditional Taylor (which currently calls for a policy rate of over 4%). The above Taylor Rule analysis corroborates our view that policy will stay in a sweet spot for equities. The bond market currently is priced for two rates in the next twelve months. If that is realized, interest rates would still be below the equilibrium rate, underscoring that monetary policy will be a benign factor for risk assets. Economy Update: Too Early To Worry About Rising Rates The most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, completed after most of the run up in interest rates, showed that banks' lending standards for loans to businesses remained largely unchanged, though lending standards for consumer loans stiffened, especially for auto loans and credit cards (Chart 8). There was also reportedly less demand for consumer credit. These results run counter to most other data on the U.S. consumer. As we highlighted in previous reports, consumer confidence has soared to its highest level in the cycle and the labor market is approaching full employment. These trends should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. This was not borne out in the Fed's Q1 lending survey, especially as it relates to auto and credit card loans: banks expect the asset quality of auto and credit card loans to further deteriorate this year. These survey results are difficult to ignore as they tend to correlate reasonably well with consumer spending patterns. We maintain an optimistic view on household spending for 2017, driven by the strong labor market, though the next survey (to be released in early May) will tell whether the Q1 results were an aberration or the start of a weaker trend. Importantly, recent work from our Bank Credit Analyst service7 concluded that household interest payment burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100bps for today's levels. According to their analysis, it would require a much more significant shock, i.e. 300bps or greater, to move interest payments as a share of GDP back toward historical averages. Projections are shown in Chart 9. Chart 8Banks Are Still Cautious On Lending Chart 9Rising Rates Are Not Problematic More broadly for the major economies, global debt has soared by over 40 percentage points since 2007. However, The BCA report uncovers that a doomsday scenario for global growth due to a rising interest rate environment (led chiefly by the Fed) is unlikely to unfold. First, the starting point for debt service burdens in the corporate, household and government sectors is low. These burdens have generally trended down since 2007 because falling interest rates have more than offset debt accumulation, with the major exception of China. Second, the maturity distribution of debt means that it takes time for interest rate shifts to filter into debt servicing costs. For example, the average maturity of corporate investment-grade bond indexes in the major economies is between 3 and 12 years. The average maturity of government indexes range from 7½ to 16 years. Moreover, the majority of household debt is related to fixed-rate mortgages. Even a significant portion of consumer debt is fixed for 5 years and more in some countries. Third, even following the backup in yield curves since the U.S. election, current interest rates on new loans are still significantly below average rates on outstanding household loans, corporate debt and government debt. The implication is that most older loans and bonds coming due over the next few years will be rolled over at a lower rate compared to the loans and bonds being replaced. This will even be true if current yield curves shift up by 100bps in many cases (except for the U.S. where current yields are closer to average coupon and loan rates). The bottom line is that a rising interest rate backdrop will only become problematic much later in the economic cycle. In the meantime, the strength of the consumer spending upcycle depends on (stronger) income trends and banks' willingness to spend. We are optimistic about the former and will continue to monitor the latter. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat," dated January 9, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Lingering In The Policy Sweet Spot," dated September 26, 2016 and "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see a transcript of Janet Yellen's January 19, 2017 speech, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20170119a.htm 5 Taylor, J. and Williams, J. "Simple and Robust Rules for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco, Working Paper Series, Dated April 2010. 6 We used the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 7 Please see, The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg?," dated February 2017, available at bca,bcaresearch.com. Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommendation for cash has been upgraded to benchmark at the expense of bonds. The weightings for the major asset classes are: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), neutral Treasury allocation at 30% (benchmark 30%) and cash at 10% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with slight advances for both the breadth & trend and momentum indicators. The monetary component, which measures overall liquidity conditions, though still favorable for equities, is giving a less bullish signal. The earnings-driven component continues to give a cautious signal. Even as real operating earnings continue to gradually improve, they still remain at a significant distance from positive economic expectations which have moved higher yet again. Earnings momentum is also still sluggish, based on our earnings diffusion index. The model's recommendation for bonds is now at benchmark which fits with our neutral qualitative stance for Treasuries in balanced portfolios since November 7, 2016. Although the valuation and cyclical components of the bond model are still constructive, the deterioration of the technical component triggered a "sell" signal changing the allocation from overweight tot benchmark. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report “Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model”, February 6, 2009.

Highlights The USD bull case is now well known by the market, but this is not strong enough a hurdle to end the dollar's run. The behavior of positioning, the U.S. basic balance of payments, interest rate expectations, and relative central bank balance sheets suggest we are entering the overshoot phase of the rally. Volatility will increase and differentiation on the dollar's pairs is becoming more important. Reflation plays are especially in danger, and the euro could be handicapped by political risk. The yen remains the preferred mean to play the ongoing dollar correction. Feature The dollar bull market has been echoing the path traced in the 1990s (Chart I-1). The key question for investors now is whether the dollar can continue to follow this road map or is the bull market over. The dollar bullish arguments are now well known by market participants, increasing the risk that purchases of the dollar might exhaust themselves. We review the indicators that worry us most and conclude that the dollar bull market could run further. However, as the dollar is now moving into overshoot territory, we expect that the volatility of the rally will only grow. Also, divergences in the dollar on its pairs are becoming more likely. We remain short USD/JPY, and explore the risks to the euro's near-term outlook. Signs Of An Overshoot? Sentiment The first factor that worries us about the future of the USD bull market is the near universality of the positive disposition of investors toward the dollar. However, two observations are in order. First, both sentiment and net speculative positions are not nearly as stretched as they were at the top of the Clinton USD bull market (Chart I-2). Second, it took six years of elevated bullishness and long positioning to prompt the end of the bull market in 2002. Either way, the dollar can continue to climb despite this handicap. Chart I-1Will History Repeat Itself? Chart I-2In The 1990s, The Consensus Was Right This reflects the fact that currency markets can often fall victim to something called the "band-wagon" effect, where a strong trend attracts more funds and perpetuates itself. Chart I-3America Is Great Again, ##br##At Least According To Investors We think this is caused by two factors. Valuation signals in the currency market have a poor track record at making money on a less than 2-year basis. This means that such signals need to be extremely strong before investors act on them. The dollar being 10% overvalued does not fit this description, instead a 20% to 25% overvaluation would hit that mark. Also, a strong upward move in a currency attracts funds to that economy. This creates liquidity in that nation's banking sector, alleviating some of the economic pain created by a rising currency or the tighter monetary policy that often caused the currency in question to rise in the first place. Today, the U.S. economy fits this bill, as private investors are rapaciously grabbing U.S. assets (Chart I-3). The Basic Balance Of Payments We have been struggling with how to interpret a strong basic balance of payment position. On the one hand, an elevated basic balance suggests that there is buying out there supporting a nation's currency. On the other hand, a strong basic balance position, especially if not caused by a current account surplus, suggests that market participants have already implemented their purchases of that nation's currency's and assets. These investors thus need further positive shocks to buy even more of that currency in order to lift its exchange rate ever higher. Today, the basic balance of payments in the U.S. is at a record high of 3.8% of GDP, begging the question of how it can climb higher from here (Chart I-4). However, as the same chart reveals, each of the previous dollar bull markets ended a few years after the U.S. basic balance of payments had peaked. Thus, we currently continue to expect the dollar to strengthen even if the U.S. basic balance position were to deteriorate. Additionally, the euro area basic balance is very depressed today at -3.4% of GDP, despite a current account surplus of 3% of GDP. However, in 1999, the region's basic balance bottomed at -5.6% of GDP, and it took until 2002 before the euro could durably rally, at which point the euro area basic balance had move back near 0% of GDP. Therefore, we would need to see a marked improvement in the euro area's basic balance in order to buy and hold the euro on a 12-to-18 months basis. Interest Rate Expectations Investors have rarely been as convinced as they are today that the Fed will increase interest rates over the coming months. This implies that the room for disappointment is large. However, as Chart I-5 illustrates, this is still not a reason to begin betting on an end to the dollar cyclical bull market. An overshoot in the dollar is marked by a fall in expectations of interest rate hikes as the strong dollar hurts the economy, preventing the Fed from hiking as much as anticipated. Moreover, except in 1994, a decreasing prevalence of rising rate expectations has lead dollar bear markets by more than a year. This suggests that there is room for the dollar to strengthen even if markets downgrade their U.S. rates expectations. Chart I-4The Basic Balance##br## Is A Small Hurdle Chart I-5In An Over Shoot, The Dollar Can Rally ##br##Even If Investors Doubt The Fed Even when looked comparatively, the broad consensus of investors regarding the continuation of monetary divergences between the Fed and the ECB is not yet a hurdle for the dollar to continue beating the euro on a 12-18 months basis. Not only is EUR/USD currently trading in line with relative expectations, previous euro rallies have been preceded by a big upgrade of the expected path of policy in Europe relative to the U.S. We currently expect the ECB to go out of its way to telegraph that even if asset purchases get curtailed in the second half of 2017, this will in no way foretell an imminent increase in European rates. Meanwhile, the Fed is in a firm position to increase rates as U.S. slack has dissipated (Chart I-6). Moreover, the proposed fiscal stimulus of the Trump administration should create inflationary pressures in this environment, solidifying the Fed's resolve to hike rates further. Chart I-6The Fed Pass Toward Higher Rates In Being Cleared Balance Sheet Positions One indicator concerns us more than the others at this point in time. As we wrote two weeks ago, one factor that has propelled the dollar higher has been its relative scarcity. The limited supply of dollar in the offshore markets - courtesy of the meltdown in the prime money-market funds industry and the heavier regulatory burden on banks - has caused cross-currency basis swap spreads to widen, pushing the greenback higher.1 Chart I-7Balance Sheet Dynamics And##br## The Scarcity Of Dollars Currently, the cross-currency basis swap spreads are hovering near record lows. However, as Chart I-7 illustrates, the surplus of euros created by the ECB's balance-sheet expansion as the Fed stopped its own purchases had a role to play in this phenomenon. While we expect the ECB to stand pat on the interest rate front for the foreseeable future, a further tapering of asset purchases in the second half of 2017 and beyond is very likely. This could limit the widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads that has been so helpful to the dollar, especially if the Fed elects not to curtail the size of its balance sheet. Net Net Many indicators suggest that the potential for dollar buying may be on the verge of exhausting itself. However, when looked closer, while these factors are a cause for concern, they still do not preclude an overshoot in the dollar. In fact, if anything, they suggest that the dollar is only now beginning its overshoot phase, a leg of the bull market that historically begins to inflict deeper pain on the U.S. economy as the dollar gets ever more dissociated from its fundamentals. So What? While the above indicators do not yet point to an end of the bull market, they in no way suggest that the dollar cannot suffer episodic corrections. We believe we are in the midst of such an event. Can the correction last further? Yes. To begin with, while the heavy net long positioning in the dollar does not represent much of a cyclical hurdle to beat, it does still constitute an important tactical risk. Our models corroborate this view. DXY is only currently fairly valued based on our intermediate-term timing model. Historically, tactical corrections fully play out once this model is in cheap territory (Chart I-8). Moreover, our capitulation index paints a similar story. This indicator has corrected some of its overbought excesses but remains above levels suggestive of an oversold environment. To the contrary, the fact that this index is still below its 13-week moving average points to additional selling pressures on the USD (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Dollar Tactical Correction Is Not Over Chart I-9Confirming The Dollar Tactical Downside However, other factors suggest that the dollar could strengthen on certain pairs. The outlook seems especially grim for the reflation plays like the commodity currencies. Our reflation gauge, based on the prices of lumber, industrial metals, and platinum, has moved upward exactly as the U.S. dollar has rallied, a short-lived phenomenon that happened in 2001, 2002, and 2009. In all these cases, the Fed was easing policy and U.S. rates were softening relative to the rest of the world (Chart I-10). We doubt this phenomenon can continue much longer, especially as the Fed is currently tightening policy and U.S. rates are rising relative to the rest of the world. Moreover, Chinese fiscal stimulus was crucial in supporting this divergence in both 2009 and 2016. However, Chinese government spending went from growing at a 25% annual rate in November 2015, to a near 0% rate now. Moreover, the PBoC has already increased rates twice on its medium-term facilities and has also stopped injecting liquidity in the interbank market despite recent upward pressures on the SHIBOR. This tightening could prove problematic for natural resources like coking coal, iron ore, or copper, commodities highly levered to the Chinese real estate market and of which China recently accumulated large inventories (Chart I-11). Chart I-10An Unusual Move Chart I-11Elevated Chinese Metal Inventories Additionally, on the back of the longest expansion in the global credit impulse in a decade, G10 economic surprises have become very perky. However, it will be difficult to beat expectations going forward. Not only have investors ratcheted up their global growth expectations, the recent increase in global interest rates limits the capacity of the credit impulse to grow further. In fact, the recent tightening in U.S. banks credit standards for consumer loans, the fall in the quit rates in the U.S. labor market, and the underperformance of junk bonds relative to Treasurys since late January only re-inforce this message. Sagging global growth, even if temporary, is always a problem for commodities and commodity currencies. The euro faces its own risk: France. Last week, along with our colleagues from BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, we wrote that the chance of a Le Pen electoral victory is still extremely low and we would buy the euro on any sell-off caused by a rising euro-area breakup risk premium.2 Yet, we are not oblivious to the risk that before the second round of the election is over on May 7th, investors can continue to place bets that Marine will win and that France will exit the euro area. The recent widening of the OAT/Bund spread reflects these exact dynamics as François Fillon's hardship and Macron's love life have taken center stage. So real has been the perception of this risk that spreads on Italian and Spanish bonds have followed suit (Chart I-12). While we are inclined to lean against this move, it is a risk that investors may want to bet on or hedge against. At the current juncture, the euro is fully pricing in these developments, and no mispricing is evident. However, as our model based on real rates differentials, commodity prices, and intra-European spreads shows, if France spreads were to widen further, EUR/USD could suffer (Chart I-13). In fact, if French spreads retest their 2011 levels, the euro could fall toward parity. Chart I-12Le Pen Is Causing A Repricing ##br##Of The Euro Area's Breakup Chance Chart I-13The Euro Will Suffer If French ##br##Bonds Underperform Further Investors wanting to speculate on the French election but wanting to avoid taking on some USD exposure can do so by shorting EUR/SEK, a very profitable strategy when the euro crisis was raging (Chart I-14) or could short EUR/GBP, as interest rates expectations have begun to move against the common currency and in favor of the pound (Chart I-15). While EUR/CHF tends to weaken during times of euro-duress, it is currently trading close to the unofficial SNB floor and we worry that growing intervention by the Swiss central bank will limit any downside on this pair. The currency that is likely to benefit the most against the dollar remains the yen. Not only are investors still very short the yen, but based on our intermediate-term timing model, the yen remains very attractive (Chart I-16). Moreover, the recent large improvement In the Japanese inventory-to-shipment ratio only highlights that the Japanese economy has gathered momentum, decreasing the likelihood of an enlargement of the current set of ultra-stimulative measures from the BoJ. Chart I-14Short EUR/SEK: A Hedge Against Le Pen Chart I-15Downside Risk For EUR/GBP Chart I-16Yen: Biggest Winner If USD Corrects Additionally, any risk-off event caused by a correction of the reflation trade would benefit the yen. Falling commodity prices will hurt Japanese inflation expectations and lift real rate differentials in favor of the yen. A correction in the reflation trade would also put downward pressure on global bond yields, which means that due to the low yield-beta of JGBs, Japanese nominal interest rates spread would further contribute to a narrowing of real interest rate differentials in favor of the JPY. Finally, if investors begin to bet even more aggressively on a breakup of the euro area fueled by the perceived prospects of a Le Pen electoral victory, the vicious wave of risk aversion unleashed around the globe by such an event would likely support the yen beyond our expectations. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism", dated January 27, 207, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Foreign Exchange/ Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution", dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 As we highlighted in previous reports, DXY's losses extended no further than the 99-100 support range, and the index has rebounded since then. A key external driver of the USD is EUR, whose roll-over has coincided with the DXY's rebound. In the coming months, EUR/USD could display downside risk as markets price in election jitters. This could be bullish for the greenback. The budget plan is in discussion. Due in around a month, the tentative plan comprises tax cuts and defense spending mostly. While this is still speculative, this plan may be bullish for the dollar. Until then, it is likely that the DXY will follow in its seasonal trend and be largely unchanged with little upside this month. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017 - January 20, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Two main factors are weighing on the euro this week. Firstly, Draghi continues to retain his dovish stance. He stated that there is still "significant degree of labour market slack", which is limiting wage growth, a key contributor to underlying inflation. Secondly, and more substantial, are politically-induced anxieties in the run up to the European elections. In particular, French elections have increased risk premia, forcing the 10-year OAT-Bund spread to reach early-2014 highs. Greek 2-year yields have also spiked above 10%. Volatility is likely to be elevated in the lead up to the French election and possibly through Italian elections. The longer-term outlook will remain dictated by the development of the ECB's monetary policy stance. Report Links: The French Revolution - February 3, 2017 GBP: Dismal Expectations - January 13, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Then yen continues to rally, with USD/JPY already down by almost 5% this year. Uncertainty surrounding the European elections should help continue this trend, given that the yen should benefit from safe haven flows. Nevertheless, the outlook for the yen remains bearish on a cyclical basis, as the measures that the BoJ has taken, such as anchoring 10-year rates near 0, and switching to de facto price level targeting will eventually lower Japanese real rates vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The BoJ has taken these measures to kick start an economy plagued by deflation. Early returns from this policy are mixed: Machinery Orders grew by 6.7% YoY, outperforming expectations. However both housing starts growth and Nikkei Manufacturing PMI fell below expectations, coming at 3.9% and 52.7 respectively. Report Links: Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 On Wednesday, the U.K. House of Commons finally gave their approval to a bill authorizing the government to start exits talks with the European Union. The House of Lords will be the next hurdle that Brexit hopefuls will have to overcome. Although cable suffered from some volatility following the decision it has remained relatively unaffected. We continue to think that the pound has further upside, particularly against the euro, as the negative consequences of Brexit on the British economy are already well priced into cable. Furthermore, increasing uncertainty regarding the French elections should also be bearish for EUR/GBP. If the fear of a Le Pen presidency starts to increase, Brexit will become an afterthought as exiting the European Union takes on a completely different meaning if the integrity of the EU starts being put into question. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The RBA held rates at 1.5% this week on the basis of upbeat business and consumer confidence, and above-trend growth in advanced economies. This decision helped the AUD, as investors repriced dovish bets and interpreted a change in stance. While above-trend growth is possible, Chinese demand is particularly important for Australia. Last week, the PBoC silently tightened their 7-, 14-, and 28-day reverse repo rates by 10 bps each to help alleviate looming risks in the real estate market and general financial stability. This may signal an end to an easing cycle, which may limit demand growth going forward. Australia has its own financial worries. Household debt is at its highest ever, at 186% of disposable income, which would be catastrophic if rates are raised. Lowe also highlighted concerns about a strong AUD and its impact on Australia's economic transition. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The RBNZ decided to keep interest rates unchanged at 1.75% in their monetary policy meeting this Wednesday. Additionally, as expected, Governor Graeme Wheeler stated that the RBNZ had shifted from having a dovish bias to a having neutral one. Nevertheless, the kiwi has depreciated sharply since the announcement, not only because Governor Wheeler highlighted that the currency "remains higher than is sustainable for balanced growth" but also because the RBNZ showed a cautious approach by stating that "premature tightening of policy could undermine growth and forestall the anticipated gradual increase in inflation". However, we believe that the RBNZ will turn more hawkish, as inflationary forces in the economy will eventually put upward pressure on rates. This will lift the NZD, particularly against the AUD. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Uncertainty has come up as a key issue in the Bank of Canada's headlights, as Poloz remains nervous about the future of U.S.-Canada relations. CAD has recently displayed some strength despite this uncertainty. It has appreciated against USD, AUD and NZD. This is likely due to a brightening perception of the Canadian economy with the Ivey PMI recording a reading above 50 for January, at 52.3, above the previous 49.3. Additionally, housing starts beat expectations, dampening housing market concerns. Exports have been strong, which has also fed into this appreciation. A rapidly appreciating currency would exacerbate trade concerns further and adversely affect the Canadian economy. Therefore, it is likely that the BoC remains tilted to the dovish side, which will generate downside for the CAD through rate differentials. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has reached its lowest level since August 2015. At around 1.065, this cross is hovering in the lower range of the implied floor set by the SNB. Increased uncertainty caused by the upcoming European elections cycle will continue to test this floor, as the increased odds of an Eurosceptic government in France will not only decrease the value of the euro but will also put upward pressure on the franc, given its safe haven status. Nevertheless, the SNB will do everything in its power to weaken its currency as the Swiss economy continues to be plagued by deflationary forces: After showing glimpses of a recovery last month Real retail sales contracted by 3.5% YoY, falling well short of expectations. The SVMI Purchasing Manager's Index also came below expectations coming in at 54.6. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has rebounded after reaching 8.20, its lowest level since Trump got elected. Interestingly, the NOK has not been as correlated with oil prices since the start of 2017 as it has been in the past. This is a trend worth monitoring. The inflation picture remains complex, although core and headline inflation have deaccelerated slightly as of late, inflation expectations are at their highest level of the last 9 years. Additionally house prices are growing at nearly 20%, a pace not seen since before the 2008 crisis. The Norges Bank is now facing a tough dilemma between risking an inflation overshoot if they keep their dovish bias or raising rates in an economy where growth for employment, real retail sales and nominal GDP is still in negative territory. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK continues to duplicate the dollar's movements, rolling over slightly from the 7% appreciation it saw over a month and a half. A more accurate measure of the SEK's value, EUR/SEK, paints a similar picture. These movements have been more or less in line with the Riksbank's desired developments, as it indicates a deceleration in the pace of recent appreciation. However, we believe that the rebound in EUR/SEK is not likely to run further. Political turbulence is being priced into the euro. After sustaining near oversold levels, the rebound could be nothing more than momentum exiting from oversold territories. Nevertheless, it is likely that EUR/SEK will correct in the coming months due to European elections. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Fears that the Trump Administration will brow-beat America's trading partners into strengthening their currencies have pushed down the dollar in recent weeks. The likelihood of another Plaza-type accord remains extremely low, however. History suggests that such agreements only work when currency interventions are aligned with the underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. With the Fed eager to hike rates, that is not the case today. The only situation where a multilateral agreement to weaken the dollar could be reached is one where the dollar ascends so high that major financial stresses begin to form, particularly in emerging markets. We are not there yet. The real trade-weighted dollar is likely to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. A stronger greenback will hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. Feature Dollar Under Pressure Chart 1The Recent Dollar Dip Is Not ##br##Reflected In Interest Rate Spreads After rallying sharply following the U.S. presidential election, the greenback has given up some of its gains. Since peaking in late December, the trade-weighted dollar has fallen by around 2.5%. Notably, the dollar's swoon has not been accompanied by a narrowing of 2-year real interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 1). This suggests that shifts in relative growth expectations have played a relatively minor role during this latest dollar selloff. In our view, the more important factor has been the "weak dollar" rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration. Historically, U.S. officials have at least given lip service to America's "strong dollar policy." As with many other political customs, Trump has thrown this one out the window. Peter Navarro, head of Trump's National Trade Council, made headlines last week by calling Germany a "currency manipulator" - even though, strictly speaking, Germany does not have a currency to manipulate. This came on the heels of Trump's comments to The Wall Street Journal earlier in January where he lamented that "our currency is too strong... it's killing us." The President reiterated that sentiment last week, telling a group of pharmaceutical company executives: "You look at what China's doing, you look at what Japan has done over the years ... they play the devaluation market and we sit there like a bunch of dummies." A Deal That Worked The Trump administration's efforts to talk down the dollar have raised the question of whether another Plaza Accord is on the horizon. The original agreement was concluded at The Plaza Hotel in 1985. As fate would have it, Trump ended up buying the landmark property three years later. It would go on to be the setting for such historically momentous events as Trump's wedding to Marla Maples and his Oscar-worthy cameo in Home Alone 2: Lost In New York. The Plaza Accord prescribed that G5 nations - the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., and France - intervene in currency markets with the aim of driving down the value of the dollar. At least in this respect, the Accord was a smashing success. Between early 1985 - when rumors of a deal began to swirl - and January 1987, the dollar fell by 54% against both the yen and the mark, 49% against the franc, and 44% against the pound. In fact, so effective was the Plaza Accord that it necessitated the Louvre Accord two years later, an agreement that was drawn up in order to halt the dollar's slide. Chart 2A Widening Current Account ##br##Deficit Sowed The Seeds For The Plaza Accord Then And Now: Some Similarities... There are some clear similarities between 1985 and the present. Just like today, the greenback strengthened significantly in the years leading up to the Accord. At first, the Reagan administration was content to let the dollar appreciate, seeing this as validation of its pro-growth policies. The Fed was also happy to go along with a stronger dollar since lower import prices helped to dampen inflation. As time wore on, however, the damage from an overvalued dollar became increasingly apparent: The current account balance swung from a modest surplus at the start of the 1980s to a deficit of 2.7% of GDP by the end of 1985 (Chart 2). The Big Three automakers, along with companies such as Caterpillar, IBM, and Motorola, began to lobby the U.S. government for trade sanctions against foreign competitors. With Reagan's appointment of James Baker to the post of Treasury Secretary in February 1985, U.S. trade policy moved away from being governed by a doctrinaire free market philosophy and took on a more pragmatic tone. Fearing further protectionist measures, the Japanese and Europeans agreed to take action to strengthen their currencies. ...But Some Notable Differences Despite the clear parallels between 1985 and the present, there are also a number of critical differences. First, there is the issue of magnitude. By early 1985, the greenback was entering the seventh year of a massive bull market - one that had lifted the real broad trade-weighted dollar up 53% from its lows in October 1978 (Chart 3). In contrast, the current dollar bull market is a mere 2.5 years old and has seen the dollar strengthen by "only" 20% since July 2014. Moreover, the current bull market began from a point where the dollar was highly undervalued. As a consequence, as of today, the real trade-weighted dollar remains 21% below its 1985 peak and 11% below its 2002 peak. Second, one of the reasons the Plaza Accord worked so well was because policymakers ensured that their currency interventions were consistent with the macroeconomic fundamentals. The combination of tight monetary policy and loose fiscal policy created a fertile backdrop for the dollar's ascent in the early 1980s. By 1984, however, those bullish dollar fundamentals started to break down. Chart 4 shows that the dollar continued to appreciate into 1985, even though U.S. interest rates were declining relative to other G5 economies. The dollar, in other words, had entered a full-fledged bubble - one that was ripe for a pricking. Chart 3The Dollar Is ##br##Below Past Peaks Chart 4A Full-Fledged Dollar ##br##Bubble Preceded The Plaza Accord Once the dollar bubble burst, monetary policy amplified the downward pressure on the greenback. Most notably, the Federal Reserve continued cutting interest rates, ultimately taking the effective Fed funds rate down from 11.8% in July 1984 to 5.8% in October 1986. As a result, the 2-year nominal interest rate differential shrank by 454 basis points against Japan over this period. For the U.K., the interest rate differential fell by 630 basis points, while for Germany it declined by 407 basis points. In contrast to the mid-1980s, the Fed is unlikely to lean into dollar weakness this time around. The output gap in the U.S. has been nearly eliminated and the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. This suggests that the Federal Reserve will keep raising rates. We expect the Fed to hike rates three times this year, one more than the market is pricing in. Most other central banks are nowhere near the point where they can start tightening monetary policy. As such, the interest rate differential between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen further. In a world where foreign exchange trading now exceeds $5 trillion per day, any currency intervention - unless it is backed by an underlying shift in the economic fundamentals - is bound to backfire. A Political Reality Check Chart 5China's Weight Matters Political considerations also render another Plaza Accord highly improbable. In the 1980s, West Germany and Japan were politically subservient to the U.S. That is less the case today. China's role in the global economy has also expanded. The RMB now accounts for 22% of the Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar basket, the largest weight of any country (Chart 5). China's government will fiercely resist negotiating any agreement that is not in the country's best interests. The economic circumstances facing most of America's trading partners could also scuttle any hopes for a deal to weaken the dollar. Inflation expectations in Japan have risen over the past six months, but still remain well below the BoJ's 2% target. A stronger yen would undermine efforts to reflate the economy. The German economy is certainly benefiting from an undervalued exchange rate. However, a continued weak currency is necessary for Southern Europe, where unemployment is still very high. Moreover, it is not clear that Germany could stomach a much stronger euro. The German unemployment rate is at a 25-year low, but that is because the country is running a massive 9% of GDP current account surplus. Take away Germany's ability to export its excess savings abroad, and the German economy would look a lot like Japan's. The only scenario in which a new multilateral accord would be seriously entertained is if a rising dollar began to wreak havoc on the global economy. A modestly stronger dollar would boost global growth to the extent that it redistributed demand from the U.S. to economies such as Europe and Japan with greater levels of economic slack. However, if the greenback were to ascend into bubble territory, this could instigate a vicious circle where an appreciating dollar increases the local-currency value of EM dollar-denominated debt, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and defaults, and, in the process, generating even further selling pressure on EM currencies. That said, the dollar would probably need to appreciate by another 15% or so before a crisis occurred. And even if a meltdown seemed imminent, the bar for currency intervention would remain quite high. No emerging market wants to go cap-in-hand to the IMF or the U.S. Treasury. This is particularly true for China, which would likely shun any offers of assistance, even if capital were flooding out of the country. In any case, if a deal were reached, it would likely seek to prevent the dollar from rising further, rather than falling in value. That is a critical distinction. Trump, Trade, And The Fed The discussion above suggests that a new Plaza-style accord is not in the cards, at least not unless the dollar strengthens substantially from current levels. Where does that leave Trump's pledge to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.? We see two possible ways that Trump could try to square this circle. First, Trump could lean on the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative monetary stance. Since inflation expectations are likely to rise further as the economy begins to overheat, it is possible that real rates would actually decline unless the Fed raised rates fast enough, pushing down the dollar in the process. The problem with this theory is that Trump's public pronouncements on monetary policy have generally been on the hawkish side. He criticized Janet Yellen on the campaign trail, accusing her of trying to goose the economy in order to help the Democrats at the polls. Granted, Trump's views on the hard money/easy money debate may have changed now that he is President and poised to benefit politically from a more stimulative monetary policy. Nevertheless, it will be difficult for him to make a complete U-turn on the subject, especially since Congressional Republicans are likely to resist efforts to pack the FOMC with doves. As long as the economy is doing well, our guess is that Trump will accede to Republican demands that he nominate members to the FOMC with a somewhat hawkish disposition. This should keep the dollar uptrend intact. If a policy U-turn does occur, it will happen towards the end of the decade, by which time the economy will be due for another recession. With another presidential election looming at that point, Trump might end up taking a page out of the old Nixon playbook and browbeat the Fed chair into pursuing a massively expansionary monetary policy.1 This could set the stage for a stagflationary episode, a prediction we discussed at length in our latest Strategy Outlook.2 In the meantime, Trump will try to mitigate the effects of a stronger dollar on U.S. manufacturing by pursuing a more protectionist trade agenda. This is likely to entail expanding the use of countervailing duties which target foreign industries that are alleged to be engaging in unfair trade practices - similar to what Obama did when he slapped an extra 35% duty onto Chinese tires in 2009. Trump is also likely to continue "twitter shaming" companies that have moved, or are contemplating moving, production abroad. On the whole, however, a radical departure from existing trade policy is unlikely as long as the economy continues to expand. Nevertheless, as with his approach to Fed policy, Trump could break with all established traditions if unemployment starts rising and his poll numbers begin tumbling. In other words, a major trade war is coming, just not yet. Investment Conclusions Chart 6The Dollar Can Climb Amid ##br##Bullish Sentiment In politics, as in life, preferences are not the only things that matter. Constraints are as important, if not more so. Just as in the early 1980s, the U.S. is pursing a policy of fiscal easing and monetary tightening. As was the case back then, this has led to a stronger dollar. It would be easy to say that Trump could badger other countries into tightening monetary policy in order to keep the dollar from appreciating. Even if we ignore the political implausibility of such a strategy, it still would not work. If a country needs a low interest rate to keep growth from stalling, then raising rates is unlikely to boost that country's currency. The market will realize in short order that the central bank will eventually have to reverse course and cut rates to keep deflationary forces from setting in. The point is that trying to influence exchange rates without changing the economic fundamentals is destined to fail. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. Granted, bullish dollar sentiment is widespread these days (Chart 6). However, dollar bulls were around in even greater numbers in the second half of the 1990s, and this did not prevent the greenback from scaling to new highs. If the dollar resumes its ascent, as we expect, this could hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. A stronger greenback would also weigh on commodity prices, with metals being the most vulnerable. The risks to our dollar view are fairly symmetric. On the downside, the failure of the Trump administration to loosen fiscal policy could prevent the Fed from hiking rates as much as planned. The risk here is not so much that the tax cuts will be scuttled, but rather that Congressional Republicans succeed in pushing through big spending cuts as part of any budget deal. On the upside, the passage of a Border Adjustment Tax - something to which we assign 50% odds - would lift the dollar.3 Rising stress in emerging markets could also push money into safe haven markets such as U.S. Treasurys, similar to what happened during the late 1990s. This could cause the dollar to appreciate more than our baseline forecast implies. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Burton A. Abrams, "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence From The Nixon Tapes," The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, no. 4 (2006), pp.177-188. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

The downside of a transitioning to a self-reinforcing economic dynamic is tighter financial conditions. This backdrop poses a challenge for the high-beta biotech group. The top panel of the chart shows that more restrictive monetary settings tend to coincide with biotech underperformance (the shadow Fed funds rate is shown inverted). Higher interest rates boost the discount rate, undermining valuations in the highest multiple market sectors. Similarly, U.S. dollar liquidity drainage - which represents a tightening in global monetary conditions - has historically been an excellent indicator of biotech stock momentum: the current message is also bearish (second panel). On the back of Gilead's recent revenue warning, we expect the biotech bubble to continue to deflate. Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction underweight status on the Nasdaq biotech index (ETF ticker: IBB:US).

Highlights Weekly swings in U.S. inventories notwithstanding, we believe global storage is on track to draw ~ 10% by early- to mid-3Q17, which will have achieved the goal of the OPEC - Russia production Agreement negotiated late last year. This will not require an extension of the pact beyond June, based on our modeling. Unexpectedly high compliance by OPEC producers to agreed cuts is being offset somewhat by increased production in those states exempted from the deal. Strong oil consumption on the back of a synchronized global uptick in GDP growth, which started to emerge late last year, provides the impetus for sustained storage draws. Markets are overestimating offshore production's resilience, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, where we see material declines beginning to set in next year. Backwardation likely persists in 2018, absent a U.S. policy-induced USD rally that crimps EM demand and spurs production ex U.S. Energy: Overweight. The return of contango in the WTI forward curve gives us the opportunity to reset our strategic front-to-back position (long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18) at tonight's close. Our balances assessment supports our view backwardation will return in the deferred part of the curve. Our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread buy stop was elected at $0.07/bbl. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, but are keeping a close watch on copper. Unions working at BHP's Escondida mine, the world's largest, are set to strike today. Negotiations resumed this week, following BHP's request for government mediation. Precious Metals: Neutral. We continue to look to get long gold at $1,180/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain fundamentals remain unsupportive for a rally. We remain underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Oil Storage On Track For 10% Drop Global oil storage levels remain on track to hit the ~ 10% draw targeted in last year's OPEC - Russia production Agreement by early- to mid-3Q17, weekly gyrations in U.S. inventories notwithstanding. This means an extension of the agreement beyond its June expiry will not be required. Early reports suggest compliance with the deal is unexpectedly high by OPEC states that agreed to cut production by up to 1.2mm b/d - exceeding 80% by various accounts. However, OPEC states not required to cut - Libya, Nigeria, and Iran - have increased production and partially offset those declines, which took total reductions in OPEC output to ~ 840k b/d, based on a Bloomberg tally last week.1 This brought total Cartel compliance to ~ 60% of the agreed cuts, which, as we noted in our 2017 Commodity Outlook in December, would be sufficient to achieve the Agreement's goal of pulling inventories in the OECD down by ~ 10% by 3Q17.2 Non-OPEC producers also appear to be complying with the Agreement. Notable among them is Russia, which is ahead of its commitment with cuts of close to 120k b/d in January, due partly to extreme cold in Siberian fields. We expect cuts in Russia to average 200k b/d in 1Q17, going to 300k b/d in 2Q17. These cuts will allow demand to outstrip supply in 1H17 and into year-end. By early- to mid-3Q17, draws to OECD storage of 300mm bbl can be expected, without extending the OPEC - Russia production agreement (Chart of the Week). We expect to see these cuts show up in OECD inventory data this month and next and continue into the end of 2017. For non-OECD states, the draws will show up in JODI data beginning in March.3 The physical deficits - i.e., supply less than demand - will force storage to draw, backwardating the WTI forward curve later this year (Chart 2).4 If markets are not surprised by a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of a U.S. border-adjustment tax (BAT), or a too-aggressive tightening by the Fed as it seeks to normalize monetary policy, we expect the drawdown in inventories to continue keeping markets backwardated. Even with production returning to pre-Agreement levels in 2H17 in states with the capacity to expand and reliably sustain production - Gulf Arab producers, Russia and U.S. shales - we expect storage to continue to draw through the year and into 2018 (Chart 3). Chart 2We Continue To Expect Backwardation Chart 3Storage Drawdown On Track In 4Q16 the impact of the higher Kuwaiti and UAE output is apparent, along with higher Russian production. This put more crude on the market, which found its way into storage late in 4Q16 and early 1Q17, reversing the trend in draws seen earlier in 2H16. This put the market back in a temporary surplus condition, with the result being more storage will have to be worked off in 1H17 than our earlier estimates indicated. But these draws will occur, following the implementation of the production accord. Extending The KSA - Russia Deal Beyond June Is Unnecessary In our estimates, OPEC crude production increases by ~ 850k b/d in 2H17 versus 1H17 levels. Despite this recovery, the storage drawdown continues. Our modeling assumes Gulf OPEC will account for slightly more than +1mm b/d growth, and non-Gulf OPEC will see production continue to fall by 170k b/d. Russia's total liquids production goes from 10.95mm b/d in 1H17 to 11.34mm b/d in 2H17. We estimate U.S. shale production grows at an average rate of ~ 300k b/d in 2H17, while total U.S. liquids production increases 720k b/d over the same interval. Setting aside the possibility of a policy-induced rally in the USD on the back of too-aggressive Fed tightening or a border-adjusted tax becoming the law of the land, both of which would depress demand and raise production ex U.S., we expect the crude-oil market to remain backwardated next year. The globally synchronized upturn in GDP will keep demand robust, with growth coming in close to even with this year's rate of ~ 1.50mm b/d. We have global liquids production and OPEC crude output growing less than 1.0% next year. We believe the market is overestimating the resilience of offshore production next year, particularly in the U.S. Gulf, based on the stout performance put in last year and expected for this year. Our colleague Matt Conlan notes in BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, U.S. production growth since October has almost exclusively been from the Gulf of Mexico's new projects. Output in the Gulf continues to increase due to the lagged effect of final investment decisions made during 2012 - 2014, when WTI prices were consistently trading above $100/bbl. GOM production will peak in 2017 then decline in 2018 due to lack of new investments made since 2014. Indeed, as "increasing decline rates overwhelm a shrinking inventory of new projects, GOM production should peak sometime in 2017 and then start decreasing. The EIA's estimate for another 200,000 b/d increase in GOM production in 2017 seems overly-optimistic."5 Once this becomes apparent to the market, we believe backwardation will reassert itself and persist into 2018. The backwardation of the forward curve structure will affect U.S. shale production economics in 2018. However, our base case is for U.S. shale-oil production in the "Big Four" basins - Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken and Niobrara - to grow 700k b/d next year, given the current structure of the WTI forwards, which were taken higher along with the WTI price rally at the front of the curve. This triggered the revival of rig counts; however, we want to point out that different curve shapes at different price levels produce different expected rig-count responses.6 Chart 4Barring a Policy Shock Demand Will Remain Robust Global Demand Firing On All Cylinders Robust demand growth - ~ +1.50mm b/d in 2017 and 2018 in our modeling - provides the impetus for the continued draws in storage this year and next (Chart 4). We revised our demand estimates for 2015 - 16 in line with the IEA's just-revised assessment of global consumption published in its January 2017 Oil Market Report.7 The IEA brought 2016 oil demand growth up to 1.50mm b/d, in line with our earlier estimates, but significantly revised 2015 demand growth upward to 2.0mm b/d. The Agency expects higher prices to crimp demand this year, taking it to 1.30mm b/d; our estimate, however, is higher, largely on the back of the first global synchronized growth we've seen since the Global Financial Crisis, which will be supported by accommodative monetary conditions worldwide, all else equal.8 Investment Implications Our analysis suggests there will be no need to extend the OPEC - Russia production accord into 2H17. In addition, it reinforces our view markets will backwardate later this year and stay backwardated in 2018, provided we do not see a BAT-induced rally in the USD, or an overly aggressive Fed normalization trajectory. As we noted in previous research, a BAT would lift the value of the USD, which would lower demand ex U.S. and raise supply at the margin.9 We make the odds of a BAT becoming the law of the land in the U.S. this year 50:50, so this is a non-trivial risk. This would be unambiguously bearish for oil prices. While we do not expect oil to be included among the imported commodities subject to a BAT, we do, nonetheless, expect the imposition of a BAT to lift the USD by 10%. This, coupled with the 5% increase in the greenback we'd already penciled in due to the Fed's monetary-policy normalization, will lift the USD 15% if it goes through. Should this occur, we would be preparing for prices to again fall below $50/bbl and push back to the $40/bbl area, which would cause supply and capex to once again contract significantly. That said, we are reinstating our long front-to-back WTI recommendation (long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI), given our updated balances assessment. Our expectation for inventories to continue to draw after the OPEC - Russia production-cutting agreement expires in June supports this recommendation. In addition, if we do see a BAT in the U.S., we believe markets will take the deferred WTI curve significantly lower in expectation of reduced demand and higher marginal supplies that almost surely will ensue in 2018. While the Dec/17 contract also will trade lower, more damage to prices will occur in 2018 contracts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC Cuts Oil Output, But More Work Needed to Fulfill Deal," published by Bloomberg February 2, 2017. Iraq stands out among OPEC producers agreeing to cut, but apparently not following through as diligently as the rest of the Gulf Arab states; we are assuming production of 4.5mm b/d for 1H17, going to 4.6mm b/d in 2H17 for Iraq. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 JODI refers to the Joint Organisations Data Initiative, a supranational producer-consumer oil-market data provider headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4 "Backwardation" describes a forward price curve in which the price for a commodity for prompt delivery (e.g., tomorrow) exceeds the price of a commodity delivered in the future (e.g., next year). It is the opposite of a contango curve structure. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy "Gulf Of Mexico Oil Production Likely To Peak In 2017," dated January 11, 2017, available nrg.bcaresearch.com. 6 In next week's report, we will present scenario analysis of shale-oil production as a function of WTI forward curve shape - i.e., the implications of backwardation for shale rig counts. This will update our assessments of price sensitivities to interest rates and USD movements. 7 Please see the IEA's Oil Market Report of 19 January 2017. 8 We discuss this in last week's Commodity & Energy Strategy feature article entitled "Gold Will Perform...," dated February 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Taking A BAT To Commodities," dated January 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights Global competitiveness equalisation occurs: For Germany, at EUR/USD = 1.35 For the Euro area, at EUR/USD = 1.20 For Spain, at EUR/USD = 1.17 For France, at EUR/USD = 1.15 For Italy, at EUR/USD = 1.10 But today EUR/USD = 1.07. The main culprit for the over-competitive euro is the ECB. Feature President Trump is right about one thing. The ECB's own analysis - available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats - shows that the trade-weighted euro needs to appreciate by 10% to cancel the euro area's competitive advantage versus its major trading partners including the United States. To cancel Germany's competitive advantage, the ECB calculates that the euro needs to appreciate by 25% (Chart I-1). Chart I-1ECB Analysis Supports President Trump: ##br##The Euro Is Over-Competitive Even more controversially, the central bank's own analysis shows that the ECB itself is to blame for the euro area's significant competitive advantage. Prior to the ECB's extreme and unprecedented policy easing, the euro area's competitiveness was exactly in line with its trading partners (Chart I-2). The ECB says that it does not target the exchange rate, but it is fully aware that negative interest rates and trillions of euros of asset purchases carry major ramifications for the euro's value. Chart I-2The ECB Caused The Over-Competitive Euro The ECB's Ultra-Looseness Is Counterproductive The ECB could be forgiven for its ultra-looseness if the euro area were on the edge of a deflationary abyss. But as we showed in Fake News In Europe1 euro area inflation and inflation expectations are little different to those in other major economies when compared on an apples for apples basis. Chart I-3Emergency Monetary Policy##br## Not Needed Furthermore, the euro area is among the world's top-performing major economies through the past three years (well before ECB easing started), and the percentage of the working age population in employment is at an all-time high. These are hardly the hallmarks of an imminent deflationary threat which warrants emergency monetary policy (Chart I-3). Perhaps the ECB's ultra-looseness is trying to quell a flare-up of ever-present political risk. If so, the strategy is becoming counterproductive. As well as irking President Trump, the extreme policy is riling Germany's Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who has blamed Mario Draghi for "50 per cent" of the success of the populist right-wing Alternativ Für Deutschland. And by frustrating voters worried about the low interest rates on their hard-earned savings, the ECB is also playing right into the hands of Marine Le Pen's Front Nationale. Admittedly, the euro area's current economic 'mini-upswing' is likely approaching its end. But as we showed last week in Slowdown: How And When?,2 a deceleration is likely to be even more pronounced outside the euro area. Even the ECB acknowledges that "the risks surrounding the euro area growth outlook relate predominantly to global factors" rather than domestic factors. If the ECB is right, the extent of anticipated monetary tightening outside the euro area is overdone. If the ECB is wrong, then the extent of anticipated monetary tightening inside the euro area is underdone (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Either way, the investment conclusion is the same. Chart I-4Expected Divergence In Monetary Policy Drives##br## Relative Bond Market Performance... Chart I-5... And ##br##The Euro Stay underweight German bunds versus U.S. Treasuries. Stay long the euro, with our preferred crosses being euro/pound in the near term and euro/yuan in the long term. And given that euro/pound (inversely) drives relative stock market performance, stay underweight Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100. The Great Currency Manipulation Manipulation: (noun) - the controlling or influencing of a situation cleverly. The creation of the euro in 1999 was arguably the greatest currency manipulation of modern times. To be absolutely clear, this is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. In 1999, when European policymakers killed national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta and replaced them with the new-born euro, the action clearly fitted the dictionary definition of manipulation. Our preceding analysis about the euro area's competitive advantage today assumes that the euro started its life at the right value. The evidence suggests that this assumption is correct. In 1999, the euro area' external trade was in balance, and the bloc's real competitiveness versus its major trading partners was exactly in line with its long-term average. Likewise the evidence suggests that national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta converted to the euro at the right exchange rates. The euro area's constituent economies had much in common in 1999 and were broadly in balance with each other. Surprising as it now seems, in 1999 Germany and Italy scored identically on exports as a share of GDP (Chart I-6) and on total debt as a share of GDP (Chart I-7). And German wages had been rising in lockstep with productivity (Chart I-8). Chart I-6After The Euro, Germany's ##br##Exports Soared Chart I-7After The Euro,##br## Italy's Debt Soared Chart I-8After The Euro, German Wages##br## Lagged Productivity It was only in the decade after 1999 that the euro area developed its major internal imbalances. Germany depressed its wages relative to productivity and used the resulting ultra-competitiveness to build an export-driven business model. In the seven years before 1999, net exports had made zero contribution to Germany's economic growth (Chart I-9), but in the seven years after 1999, net exports accounted for all of Germany's economic growth (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Germany Pre Euro: Net Exports ##br##Contributed Nothing To Growth Chart I-10Germany Post Euro: Net Exports Contributed ##br##Everything To Growth Prior to the one-size-fits-all exchange rate, a rising deutschemark would have largely snuffed out the increased competitiveness from wage depression and thereby thwarted the export-driven business model. However, once locked in the euro, Germany's exchange rate could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off external demand. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain could suddenly rely on a debt-driven business model - especially given that their strong national cultures of homeownership provided the perfect collateral for borrowing. Prior to the one-size-fits-all interest rate, higher domestic interest rates would have thwarted this business model. But once locked in the monetary union, their interest rates could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off borrowing. By 2010, the imbalances had become monsters. Germany, through its wage depression, had become 20% over-competitive versus its major trading partners. Spain and Italy, through their reliance on debt-fuelled growth, had become 20% under-competitive. Understand that this is not a morality tale of good versus bad, as many commentators portray. The mirror-image imbalances were just the opposite sides of the same (euro) coin. Spain Is The Star-Performer Today, the good news is that the euro area's internal imbalances have narrowed sharply, as the under-competitive economies have taken draconian corrective measures. External competitiveness has also been boosted by a substantially weaker euro. The bad news is that Germany's over-competitiveness versus the world remains excessive. But as Wolfgang Schäuble correctly argues, it is extremely difficult for Germany to rebalance its global competitiveness when it is swimming against the tide of the ECB's extreme easing and resulting depression of the euro. The award for the most spectacular rebalancing goes to Spain. Eight years ago, Spain was 15% less competitive than France on the ECB's harmonised competitiveness indicator based on unit labour costs. Today, on the same measure Spain is 2% more competitive than France. This makes it very difficult to justify any yield premium on Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. The yield premium is a compensation for perceived redenomination risk. The expected annual loss of owning a Bono versus an OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. But if Spain is now as competitive as France, a new peseta ultimately should be as valuable as a new franc. The second item of the multiplication would be zero (Chart I-11). So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the yield premium should also be zero. Yet today, Spanish 10-year Bonos are still trading at a substantial 65 bps yield premium over French 10-year OATs (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Spain Is As Competitive ##br##As France... Chart I-12... Bonos Should Not Have A ##br##Yield Premium Over OATs Stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on January 26, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Published on February 2, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* A tactically short position in equities is warranted. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The U.S. Border Adjustment Tax is likely to pass; Yet the political pieces are not in place; Trump himself will be the decisive factor; Trade retaliation would detract from trade benefits of the tax; Stay long volatility; small caps versus large caps; and long USD versus EM currencies. Remain short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks, and German exporters versus consumer services. Feature Donald Trump is a trend-setter. After winning the U.S. election on a protectionist platform that played well to voters in the Midwest, Trump has established an anti-globalization brand of politics. His success has revealed the preferences of the American "median voter."1 Other U.S. politicians are taking notice. The "Border Adjustment Tax" (BAT) is part of this new political trend, though it did not originate with Trump. The House GOP leadership has presented it as a response to economic dislocation in the American heartland, which propelled Trump to the White House. Is it protectionism? Yes, and in this analysis we explain why. The rest of the world is highly unlikely to treat the BAT as a standard Value Added Tax (VAT). It will therefore spark trade retaliation unless Congress addresses outstanding issues. So far President Trump is on the fence, and his support is necessary for passage. We think he will ultimately go with the proposal. The prospect of turning the tables on the U.S.'s trade partners, while spurring domestic investment and capital spending, speaks to his core promises to his voters. Trump's support for the plan should be read as a headwind for markets in the short term due to the uncertainties of implementation and trade disputes. If he should oppose the plan, it would be bullish for U.S. stocks in the short term, since it would mean cutting the corporate tax without radically altering the global status quo. It would signal that he is more interested in economic growth and corporate profits than changing the world or balancing the U.S. budget. Why Reform The Corporate Tax System? American policymakers have long struggled with the country's corporate income tax system. Leaving aside party politics, there are three main complaints:2 Corporate tax revenues are weak: Revenues have disappointed as companies have shifted profits to tax havens and used deductions and loopholes to avoid paying the 35% statutory rate. This erosion of the tax base has contributed to budget deficits as well as public dissatisfaction with governing institutions (Chart 1). U.S. companies have lost competitiveness: American businesses are overtaxed relative to their developed-market peers, taking a toll on competitiveness both at home and abroad (Chart 2). The middle class is losing out: U.S. workers are not as well compensated as their developed-market peers and have lost their share of American wealth in recent decades (Chart 3). The corporate tax contributes to this because companies foist the tax onto workers. Chart 1Over-Taxation Is In##br## The Eye Of The Beholder Chart 2U.S. Competitiveness##br## Has Suffered Chart 3Labor Suffers From##br## High Corporate Tax Rates The Republican Party examined fundamental tax reform in 2005 but could not make progress on it - instead it settled for the Bush tax cuts, which focused primarily on cutting household tax rates.3 Now that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government again, its leaders are attempting broad tax reform anew. The GOP is primarily concerned with corporate competitiveness, but they also need to appease the middle class - the source of the populist angst that supported both Obama and Trump (the former being the Republicans' arch-nemesis, the latter a strange bedfellow). The GOP also wants to raise some revenue to make their desired tax rate cuts "revenue neutral," i.e. somewhat fiscally defensible, at least enough to pass the bill. Enter Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and their "Better Way" tax plan, which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system.4 The core idea is to pay for tax cuts by transforming the current corporate income tax system into a "destination-based cash-flow tax" (DBCFT) with border adjustability ("border adjustment tax" or BAT for short).5 We will get to the definition of that, but first, what is the ultimate point? The plan would purportedly drive corporate investment and economic growth by allowing companies to write off the expense of new investments immediately, the first year, rather than gradually through depreciation. (Depreciation schedules often mean that the tax write-off barely covers the cost of investment, thereby causing companies to err on the side of risk-aversion.) The plan would also remove the preferential treatment of corporate debt over equity, which is built into the current tax code through the deduction of interest - this change would discourage corporate indebtedness and encourage equity financing. Finally the plan would not allow U.S. companies to write off the expense of imported goods, as currently, and as such is essentially a tax on the U.S. trade deficit. Roughly, it could yield about $108 billion in revenue (assuming a 20% rate on the $538 billion deficit). The BAT is the chief tax uncertainty today for investors. That is because there are few constraints on the GOP passing some kind of corporate tax cut this year. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. There is every reason to think it will happen fast. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In other words, Trump and his party would need to have a train wreck to fail to pass something this year. That is not beyond belief! But the overriding question is whether the tax reform will be focused on cutting rates, or transforming the system. Currently, the market seems to think the BAT will go through. A basket of stocks based on potential winners and losers suggests that investors believe it will pass (Chart 4). Meanwhile, however, the share prices of high-tax companies (who should benefit the most if taxes are cut) have fallen back from the pop after Trump's election. This could signal the opposite expectation, or that that investors recognize that many high-tax sectors stand to lose from a tax on imports (Chart 5). There is considerable uncertainty in this measure. We think the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's BAT proposal. But the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show. We expect dollar volatility, which is relatively restrained at present, to rise as the BAT debate intensifies, given that the proposal is bullish for the greenback (Chart 6). Chart 4Exporters Think Border##br## Adjustment Tax Will Pass Chart 5High-Tax Companies##br## Fear Policy Disappointments Chart 6No Border Adjustment##br## Tax Effect On The Dollar Yet Bottom Line: The Trump administration and GOP would have to be unusually incompetent to fail to achieve tax reform this year. The question is whether it will be mere rate cuts or a radical reform to the tax system as a whole. This is critical to the U.S. and global economy - especially given that the passage of a BAT will intensify trade disputes with the U.S. Why Is A Border Adjustment Tax "Protectionist"? Diagram 1 provides a simple illustration of how the current U.S. corporate tax works compared to the proposed BAT. The current system is a "worldwide" corporate income tax. The U.S. government taxes American companies based on their global profits (global revenues minus global costs). No matter where they incur costs, they can write them off, and no matter where they make profits, they must pay tax on them, at least in principle. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The new system, by contrast, would be a "destination-based" tax in which the government taxes companies only on domestic profits (domestic revenues minus domestic costs). This means that revenues earned abroad from exports or sales in foreign jurisdictions would be free from tax. However - and here is the tricky part - it also means that costs incurred abroad, imports or purchases in foreign jurisdictions, would be ignored by the tax authority, i.e. they could not be written off like domestic costs. As the "rebate" in the Diagram shows, the BAT is effectively a tax on imports and subsidy to exports. This is not as egregiously protectionist as it sounds at first, because it is very similar to a Value-Added Tax (VAT), which is the dominant tax system across the world. The U.S. is a massive outlier for not having a VAT. But notice that the amount of the rebate to the exporting company in the diagram is higher (at $40) than the amount of tax that would be due if it paid a tax on its foreign profits, since ($200 - $100) x 20% = $20. The WTO may rule against the law if it believes major U.S. exporters will pay net negative taxes as a result of the rebate. Moreover, the BAT has certain differences from a VAT that ensure that the world will see it as a protectionist affront. The BAT is a combination of a VAT, which is a tax on consumption, and an income tax, which is the current system. However, the BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current system. Under VAT systems, this is not possible because wages are not consumption and therefore not deductible.6 If the GOP proposal becomes law without addressing this difference - that is, without denying corporates the wage deduction, or taxing them in some other way to compensate - it will likely prompt global trade retaliation. While the World Trade Organization may deem the BAT legal by interpreting it as a VAT, it will not do so if U.S. companies cannot show that they are not getting a leg up on their international rivals by retaining the wage deduction from the former corporate income tax code. Wages are obviously a very large part of a company's expenses. They make up about 68-72% of U.S. companies' costs (Chart 7), and have grown at about 2-4% each year for the export-oriented sector (Chart 8). If U.S. companies can write off the wage expense in their exported goods, then foreign countries will have to adjust, possibly by imposing duties to counteract the share of taxes avoided by that write-off. Chart 7Wages Make For A Large Tax Deduction Chart 8Exporters Face Strong Growth In Wages Bottom Line: The BAT is a hybrid of tax systems. It is likely that the WTO and U.S. trading partners will object to it as an import tax and export subsidy, particularly because of the wage deduction. The House GOP could adjust the proposal ahead of time or afterwards to avoid this conflict, but that has not happened yet. In addition, corporate lobbying against removing wage deductions would be severe. Will A BAT Get Passed Into Law? Currently, the House GOP leaders face a rising wave of criticism about the BAT proposal and have begun to signal greater flexibility in drafting the law so as to win over various stakeholders. A salient point to remember about U.S. tax legislation is that it is very rare in recent decades for a ruling party to bungle it. Only eight pieces of tax legislation have been vetoed by presidents since 1975, only two of which were serious bills, and in both cases the president vetoed the legislation pushed by an opposition-controlled Congress (Table 2). By the time a serious tax bill makes it to the president's desk, a veto is unlikely, especially if the president and Congress belong to the same party. Table 2Major Tax Legislation Is Set Up For Success Even more salient, only 23 pieces of tax legislation since 1975 have been struck down in either of the two houses. Of these, seven were attempts to amend the constitution (not likely to pass), nine were attempts to amend the internal revenue code for highly specific things (spirits, cigars, the holding of conventions on cruise ships). Only seven were major bills, and in only one of these cases did the Senate strike down the bill, which was a case of a Republican Senate defending a Republican president from an opposition Congress. In only one case did the ruling party in the House kill a serious tax bill proposed by one of its own members, but it is not comparable to the tax reform in question today.7 What this means is that the BAT is highly likely to be passed into law if the House remains loyal to its leader Paul Ryan, and to the Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, the two authors of the BAT proposal. However, Trump could derail Ryan's best laid plans. Trump seemed to throw a wrench in the gears when he cast doubt on border adjustment tax, saying that it was too complicated. However, the Trump administration has recently made comments favorable to the BAT. Peter Navarro, chief of the new National Trade Council, highlighted it as a way to bring manufacturing supply chains back into the U.S. (note the protectionist angle of the comment). Meanwhile Sean Spicer, Trump's spokesman, said it would be a good way to make Mexico pay for the infamous wall to be constructed on the border (again, note that the angle is protectionist and populist, not about balancing the budget).8 In each case, the Trump team has gone to pains to emphasize that the BAT is only one option among many. Yet the fact that they have repeatedly brought it up as a solution to their own populist promises is suggestive. We think Trump will ultimately hew to the Republican Party leadership on tax reform.9 Why? Time's a'wastin': Party control of all three branches is a fleeting boon and 2018 mid-term campaigning would make the BAT harder to pass because it could hike the prices of consumer goods. Republicans have a plan ready to go, the House ultimately controls the purse, and Trump wants to move fast on tax cuts and boosting the economy. Furthermore, Republicans remember how short-lived the Democrats' control of Congress was after 2008. Trump wants to be transformative, not merely transactional:10 Trump was elected in a populist revolution and has vowed to improve American manufacturing and trade. His protectionist and mercantilist vision is fundamentally aligned with the chief aims of the BAT: remove the "tax" on corporate investment to improve U.S. capital stock and productivity, and remove incentives to locate, operate, and stash profits offshore. There is at least some positive correlation between higher VAT rates and positive trade balances, and the law is simultaneously supposed to boost productivity (Charts 9 and 10). Chart 9Higher Investment Helps Productivity Chart 10Some (Not Much) Correlation Between Value-Added Tax Rates And Trade Surpluses Trump needs domestic and international "legitimacy": His protectionist platform will stand on firmer ground if he adopts policy that is at least debatable at the WTO, as opposed to imposing tariffs willy-nilly through bare executive power, which is eventually vulnerable to congressional and judicial oversight. Domestic courts have already shown an inclination to halt Trump's controversial executive orders.11 By contrast, they would almost certainly defer to Congress even on the most radical tax reforms. Trump needs a tradeoff for infrastructure spending: Unpopular presidents cannot set the legislative agenda.12 But Trump may be able to trade GOP-style corporate tax reform - which offsets tax cuts with new revenue provisions, such as the BAT - in return for infrastructure spending, which the GOP is reluctant to embrace. Trump is willing to lead a crusade against the WTO: This may be a necessary prerequisite for the passage of this bill, and Trump is heaven-sent to play the role. He would be to the WTO what George W. Bush was to the United Nations. It would be disastrous for the U.S.-built international liberal order, but it would give Trump the ability to pursue protectionism while rallying the public around the flag against America's "globalist" enemies. (Sovereignty over taxation is a cause that is hard to beat in the U.S.)13 BAT allows Trump to save face on the "Wall" with Mexico: As the White House spokesman hinted, Trump may use creative accounting to satisfy his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Moreover, if Trump comes out in support of the BAT, it will likely get passed: Chart 11Conservatives Agree With Trump Precedent: President John F. Kennedy's and Jimmy Carter's efforts at tax reform failed because Congress was not supportive, which is not a problem today; whereas Ronald Reagan's personal support for the 1986 tax reform - despite his reservations about the attempt to transform the system and broaden the base - proved critical in helping the bill move through Congress.14 Political science: The political context is a better determinant of presidential success than individual talents, and rising political polarization in the U.S. has created an environment in which "majority presidents," those whose party has a majority in Congress, are even more likely to be successful, while "minority presidents" are more likely to fail on key initiatives. The relevant factors of political context are the party's grip on Congress, the extent of polarization, and, somewhat less significantly, whether the president is in his "honeymoon period" and enjoys public support.15 Of these factors, Trump is only weak on public support, though not among conservatives (Chart 11), who could vote their representatives out of office if they defy Trump on tax reform. The Senate could still cause a serious hang-up. But if Trump and the House GOP stand behind the legislation then Senate Republicans would have to be suicidal to oppose it.16 What about the corporate lobbies that oppose the BAT? Certainly it is highly controversial at home. The tax could hurt import-heavy U.S. businesses and punish citizens with a high propensity to consume - i.e. the poor and elderly, both constituents that make up an important part of Trump's base. But that suggests that there will be carve-outs or phased implementation for key imports like food, fuel, and clothing. Such compromises will be messy, and will mitigate any dollar appreciation and reduce the tax revenues to be gained, but would probably enable the bill to get passed. The opposition of retailers like Wal-Mart and Target is overrated in terms of their power as a lobby. Importers form a slightly larger lobby than exporters, which makes sense given that the U.S. is a net importing economy, but neither of them comprises a large share of total lobbying (Chart 12). The sectors that suffer the most from the import tax also tend to pay higher effective tax rates and thus stand to benefit from the rate cuts (Chart 13). The opposition of the Koch brothers is also overrated, given their unhelpful attitude toward Trump's candidacy for president! Chart 12'Import Lobby' Not A Giant Lobby Chart 13Cuts In Tax Rates Mitigate A New Import Tax Somewhat Bottom Line: The BAT is a radical plan to spur corporate investment and production in the United States, and that goal matches Trump's vision. Trump will be hard pressed to find a more effective, structural way of achieving his goals. And the two-year window with assured GOP control of government will close faster than one might think. Risks To The View A major risk to the BAT is that Trump will fear the repercussions on his political base of higher consumer prices, as hinted above. Consumer pain is a necessary consequence of his mercantilist vision of rebalancing the U.S. from consumption to investment and bringing down the U.S. trade deficit, so Trump will have to decide whether he means what he says. Moreover, if the dollar rises sharply as a result of the BAT, as expected, it would cause pain for the economy and S&P 500 companies, which source 44% of earnings outside the U.S. According to BCA's Global Investment Strategy, the impact of a much stronger dollar on U.S. assets denominated in foreign currencies could amount to a loss worth of 13% of U.S. GDP! (Not to mention Trump's personal wealth from overseas.) Given the huge uncertainties of a totally new tax system, and potential disruption to the economy, it would be perfectly understandable if Trump refused to hitch his fate as president to this wonkish grand experiment. Further, it is not as if there is no alternative to the BAT. Since Republicans will be humiliated if they fail to deliver on tax cuts, Trump's opposition to the BAT would force the House GOP to go back to good ol' fashioned tax cuts without significant revenue raising measures, and specific add-ons to deal with concerns like corporate inversions. Trump would still likely get the repatriation of overseas earnings, a political win, and the economy would experience an increase in investment from tax rate cuts without the uncertain consequences of deeper change. Ronald Reagan's administration offers a precedent for this sequencing, since he began his term with simple tax cuts in 1981 and only later attempted the dramatic tax overhaul of 1986. There is also a risk that the business lobby against the BAT proves stronger than expected and gains traction in the media and popular opinion as a result of the feared consequences on consumer prices. Tax reform is never going to be easy and will always hang in a precarious balance. These are serious risks, but we think Trump and the GOP will move now rather than make any assumptions about their ability to win subsequent elections and enact massive tax reform. The fact that the GOP controls all three branches of government, the BAT plan is well in the making, and Trump is looking to reshape the American economy in ways that align with the BAT, make the odds of passage higher than 50%. Unfortunately, this also means the world should brace for a sharp spike in trade disputes. Bottom Line: There are plenty of reasons to think the BAT plan could collapse of its own weight. The path of least resistance is certainly not the BAT. But we think the preponderance of power in GOP hands in Washington favors radical change, even if it ends up being a policy mistake. Investment Implications: Trade War The WTO is supposed to presume innocence with a country's laws, and it might also approve the BAT on the basis that proponents argue: the U.S. imposing the BAT is not much different from a VAT country increasing its VAT rate while simultaneously slashing the payroll tax (as France has done under President Hollande's administration). This view is misguided. The WTO will rule on the statute and international trade treaties, not the special pleading of the advocates. It may or may not accept that the BAT is equivalent to a VAT; it may or may not object to the wage deduction as a holdover from the "direct" tax on income. The GOP has not yet introduced a draft law, but given the express intention - in the Ryan plan, not even to mention Trump - to put "America first" with a "pro-America approach for global competitiveness," it seems likely that a clash of interests is in the making. In other words, American proponents of the tax are not even hiding its overt protectionist intentions. The WTO will probably discover a subsidy for U.S. exporters and a violation of the principle of trade neutrality with respect to imports. WTO litigation will take years. When the European Union sued the U.S. over its use of Foreign Sales Corporations, a comparable dispute, the proceedings began in 1999 and the WTO ruled against the U.S. in 2002. Ultimately, the U.S. Congress amended the law to avoid retaliation in 2004.17 Trump and the GOP would be less likely to amend their pet project in the current environment, especially if the litigant is the EU at the WTO! Trump, as mentioned, would be inclined to take the fight to the WTO - he has even threatened to withdraw the United States from it. His support group feeds on conflict with supra-national bodies and he may see foreign retaliation as a convenient reason to impose tariffs of his own. The trade environment would deteriorate in the meantime. In 2002, it was assumed that the U.S. and EU could work out an agreement without punitive measures, but that assumption does not hold today. And it would not only be the EU leveling complaints. In short, the U.S. would face foreign retaliation, during the proceedings and likely as a consequence of the WTO ruling. The Trump administration would attempt to mitigate the blowback through a series of bilateral deals, and perhaps the U.S. law would ultimately be modified, but the entire saga would have a negative impact on global trade. Financial markets had many factors to contend with during this period (like the dot-com bubble), and they will similarly respond to large currents in the coming years aside from any BAT. Nevertheless, the tax would reinforce our themes of global multipolarity, mercantilism, and protectionism - and thus reinforce several of our existing trades: We continue to favor small caps over large caps. Small caps are insulated from global trade, will benefit most from the cut in tax rates, and will suffer least from any appreciation of the dollar. Long volatility - Long VIX 20-25 call spread for expiration in March; Long USD versus short EM currencies; Short China-exposed S&P stocks; Short German exporters versus long consumer services. If Trump comes out in opposition to the BAT, he would send a bullish signal for markets in the short term. It would mean, first, that the U.S. will have corporate tax cuts without the broader uncertainties of the BAT; and second, that Trump is actually a pragmatist who eschews radical change if he thinks it will cause too much trouble for U.S. consumers or economic growth. However, it would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would avoid a trade conflict, given Trump's executive powers.18 Of course, the BAT's failure - which is not our baseline - would also be worse for the deficit and debt, as the GOP tax cuts would have no offsetting revenue increases but would rely purely on creative accounting, "dynamic scoring," to appear fiscally acceptable. This legislation would also likely fail to simplify the tax code as much as the BAT would. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Alan J. Auerbach, "A Modern Corporate Tax," Center for American Progress, dated December 2010, available at www.americanprogress.org. 3 Please see President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, "Final Report," dated November 1, 2005, available at govinfo.library.unt.edu. 4 Please see "A Better Way: Our Vision For A Confident America: Tax," dated June 24, 2016, available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 5 Our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy have recently provided a very helpful Q&A on the border adjustment tax (BAT), and we would refer readers to that report for a detailed discussion. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, "Back To 1913?: The Ryan Blueprint And Its Problems," Tax Notes 153: 11 (2016), 1367-47, reprinted by University of Michigan, available at www.repository.law.umich.edu. 7 Amo Houghton, a liberal-leaning Republican from New York, proposed the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002, a bill to streamline IRS administration. It failed in the Republican Congress under President Bush. 8 Please see Shawn Donnan, "Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation," Financial Times, January 31, 2017, available at www.ft.com, and Bob Bryan, "Trump press secretary says the administration is considering a 20% border tax on Mexican imports to help pay for the wall," Business Insider, January 26, 2017, available at www.businessinsider.com. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn has also indicated that the BAT is an option but not yet decided upon, see CNBC, "Squawk on the Street," February 3, 2017, available at www.cnbc.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already issued a temporary injunction against President Trump's executive orders on immigration. Please see "State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump," available at www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 12 Please see John Lovett, Shaun Bevan, and Frank R. Baumgartner, "Popular Presidents Can Affect Congressional Attention, For A Little While," Policy Studies Journal 43: 1 (2015), 22-44, available at www.unc.edu. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, and "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 15 Jeffrey E. Cohen, Jon R. Bond, and Richard Fleisher, "Placing Presidential-Congressional Relations In Context: A Comparison Of Barack Obama And His Predecessors," Polity 45:1 (2013), 105-126. 16 The Senate Financial Services Committee's support will be critical. Chairman Orrin Hatch has criticized but not yet declared against the BAT. Even if he does, it would not necessarily kill the deal. One of his predecessors, Senator Bob Packwood, initially opposed the Tax Reform Act in 1986 but was ultimately persuaded to support it. If Hatch and the Finance Committee support the initiative, it will pass the Senate. First, the tax overhaul can be accomplished by "reconciliation," a congressional trick that will enable the GOP to avoid a Senate filibuster and pass the tax reform with a simple majority. Second, the Republicans today have almost exactly the proportion of seats in the Senate as the average in previous examples of successful tax reform (see Table 1). So there would have to be a higher share of Republican defectors than in the past to overturn the bill. This is possible but unlikely if Trump and the House GOP are behind the bill. 17 Please see Congressional Research Service, "A History of the Extraterritorial Income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Export Tax-Benefit Controversy," dated September 22, 2006, available at digital.library.unt.edu. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

We took profits on our underweight S&P hotel index position and upgraded to neutral in November, because a number of companies reduced 2017 guidance and revenue per room (REVPAR) expectations at the same time that value had improved. Since then, hotel stocks have outperformed significantly, as the improvement in consumer and business sentiment is expected to boost lodging spending. That is necessary to counter the surge in wage inflation, as measured by the acceleration in the lodging industry employment cost index (bottom panel). Perhaps the most appealing development of late has been the downturn in lodging industry construction outlays. If sustained, that will reverse a long-term increase in capacity. The latter is critical to fostering more robust pricing power gains in line with past cyclical upswings. The bottom line is that the outlook for hotel profits has improved, but staying patient for a more attractive entry point is recommended given that the share price ratio is extremely overbought in the short run. Stay neutral, but put this group on upgrade alert. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, WYN.

While bank stocks are quick to react positively to any indication that the regulatory burden may eventually be diminished, beneath the surface, there are mounting signs of profit headwinds. The latest Fed Senior Bank Loan Officer Survey revealed that banks are tightening lending standards on most loan categories. Worrisomely, demand for commercial, consumer, mortgage and C&I loans is also waning. In fact, C&I loan growth is now contracting on a 3-month rate of change basis. A cooling in bank balance sheet expansion may expose a heavier cost structure than desired in the coming quarters, given that bank employment has been on the upswing. Absent any renewed steepening in the yield curve, the surprise could be that bank stocks underperform in the coming months after overshooting since the election. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.

Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Overzealousness no longer exists, and a revival in market volatility and intensification in policy uncertainty have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. More recently, the yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month and may be signaling the start of another move up in gold shares. Importantly, sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower, reversing last summer's buying frenzy. Speculative positions have also been unwound. Against a positive structural backdrop for gold, we recommend reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details.