Economy

Highlights Chinese fiscal stimulus, both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment, has slowed significantly since late last year. This raises a red flag on the sustainability of the cyclical upturn. The Chinese economy should remain buoyant in the near term, despite fiscal retrenchment. Policy initiatives should be closely monitored. Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." Stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. There are early signs that deflation is re-emerging in Hong Kong. Feature The Chinese economy has maintained strong momentum since the beginning of the year. Some sectors are showing remarkable strength, an extraordinary development considering that January is historically a lackluster month for industrial activity due to seasonality factors. The recent strength is all the more noteworthy as policymakers have apparently rolled back fiscal support significantly since late last year, and have more recently also tightened on the monetary front.1 The divergence between strengthening growth momentum and waning policy support raises hopes that the economy has finally found its footing with self-sustainable dynamics, but at the same time raises the risk that growth may relapse anew without policy tailwinds - especially if struck by an exogenous shock. For now we maintain our benign view on China's cyclical growth outlook, but the risk is tilted to the downside, and policy initiatives should be closely monitored going forward. Meanwhile, we remain positive on Chinese equities on a cyclical basis. This week we are also upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight." Strengthening Growth Versus Waning Fiscal Support Despite seasonal noise in the macro data in the first two months of the year, most macro numbers coming out of China of late have surprised significantly to the upside. Producer prices have continued to accelerate, heavy-machine sales have been booming, and even exports have rebounded sharply (Chart 1). The regained strength in the economy is partly attributable to early last year's low base, which has supercharged year-over-year growth rates. However, there is little doubt at this stage that China's growth recovery since early last year has developed into a mini boom. Beneath the robust growth numbers, there are some disconcerting undercurrents on the policy front (Chart 2). Fiscal spending growth has decelerated sharply since early 2016, and actually contracted towards year end. More importantly, capital spending on infrastructure construction, which can be viewed as an indicator for broader policy-driven spending in the economy, also slowed sharply in the last quarter. Fixed asset investment in transportation networks and utility concerns have also abruptly slowed. Investment in railway construction contracted by almost 30% in the final months of last year from a year earlier. All of this underscores a synchronized reduction in the public sector's involvement in the economy of late. Chart 1Growth Recovery... Chart 2... Meets Waning Fiscal Stimulus It is not immediately clear why the government has significantly scaled back fiscal support. Combined with the latest interest rate adjustments by the People's Bank of China, it is likely that the authorities have become content with the economy's performance to a degree that any direct policy pump-priming in their view is no longer necessary or justified. If China's ongoing cyclical growth improvement was due to the authorities' reflationary efforts, then the abrupt change in policy course certainly raises a red flag on how long the recovery may last. Can The Growth Recovery Continue Without Fiscal Support? Chart 3Monetary Conditions Matter More Than Fiscal We expect the Chinese economy to remain buoyant in the next two quarters, even without major acceleration in fiscal spending, for the following reasons: First, China's growth recovery since last year has been driven primarily by easing monetary conditions through a weakening exchange rate and falling real interest rates, rather than strong fiscal boost. Chart 3 shows that industrial sector growth deterioration worsened dramatically in 2014, which in hindsight was due to a combination of aggressive fiscal retrenchment and tighter monetary conditions index (MCI). Even though fiscal expenditures began to accelerate strongly starting in early 2015, the economy only began to improve a year later when the MCI started to ease. In fact, the industrial sector continued to improve throughout 2016 along with a rising MCI when fiscal expenditures decelerated. In other words, the industrial sector's performance is much more tightly correlated with the country's monetary conditions than the cyclical swings in fiscal spending. On one hand, the RMB exchange rate matters fundamentally for the manufacturing sector, which is heavily exposed to overseas markets. On the other hand, lower real interest rates, either through easing deflation or falling nominal rates, has been a primary driver of corporate profitability and overall business conditions, given the country's debt-centric financial intermediation system (Chart 4). As PPI is still rising rapidly and the trade-weighted RMB has once again rolled over, monetary conditions will likely continue to ease, which will further boost the industrial sector despite the fiscal cuts. Second, the slowdown in infrastructure spending will likely be compensated by accelerating investment in other sectors, manufacturing and mining in particular. Easing monetary conditions and ensuing growth improvement have significantly boosted corporate profitability, which should in turn boost manufacturing capital spending (Chart 5). It is likely that the multi-year slowdown in manufacturing sector capital spending has run its course and will accelerate going forward, albeit gradually.2 Investment in the mining sector is still contracting sharply. However, there has also been a dramatic improvement in profits among mining related industries, particularly coal and base metals (Chart 5, bottom panel). If historical correlations hold, the dramatic contraction in mining sector investment has likely already become very advanced, if not already bottomed. At minimum, it is highly unlikely that mining-related capex will continue to contract at an accelerating pace. Chart 4Interest Rates Versus Corporate Profits Chart 5Profits Versus Capital Spending A potential revival in manufacturing and mining capex will reverse a major growth headwind the Chinese economy has faced in recent years, which will continue to buoy growth despite slowing infrastructure construction. Manufacturing and mining account for over 33% of China's total fixed asset investment, higher than the 25% share of infrastructure alone (Chart 6). Indeed, there are signs that the corporate sector's intentions to expand capital investment may already be improving. In recent months medium- to long-term new loans to the corporate sector have accelerated strongly, which could be a sign that the corporate sector is beefing up on investment capital (Chart 7). Chart 6Manufacturing And Mining Capex ##br##Versus Infrastructure Construction Chart 7Longer Term Loans##br## Have Accelerated Sharply Finally, we maintain the view that overall inventory levels in the economy are unsustainably low, and improving growth and easing deflation should push producers to re-stock (Chart 8). This should also ease any near-term pressure on production, even if new orders are hit by slowing public sector demand. In other words, the economy has a built-in buffer for a period of weaker demand which could allow policymakers to re-orient demand-side policies in light of the new growth situation. Chart 8The Case For Inventory Restocking In short, we expect that waning fiscal support in the economy will not derail the cyclical recovery. Macro numbers may look toppy in the coming months, as the favorable base effect from last year's low levels wears out, but business activity should remain buoyant at least in the coming two quarters. Nonetheless, in a global environment that is still facing enormous challenges and mounting uncertainties, domestic policy tightening obviously raises downside risks. The annual People's Congress in early March should offer some important clues on the Chinese government's growth priorities and policy directions, and should be closely monitored. Tactically Upgrade H Shares In terms of Chinese stocks, our attempt to time a market correction in H shares ahead of the U.S. presidential elections in October did not bear fruit as expected.3 This week we are upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight". Even though H shares did correct, they found support at key technical levels and have broken out of late, underscoring a strong technical pattern (Chart 9). We are still concerned that some global markets, especially U.S. stocks, appear frothy and are vulnerable to some sort of shakeout, but the market appears to be in a melt-up phase in the near term. The risk of being left out in a rising market is higher than otherwise. More importantly, Chinese H shares are not nearly as frothy, if not outright cheap, which should further limit downside risks. The Trump administration has notably toned down the anti-China rhetoric, and the near term risk of escalating trade tension between the U.S. and China has abated.4 This should also soothe investors' concerns on Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." A shares will likely remain largely trendless. Meanwhile, stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. Hong Kong: Is Deflation Coming Back? Hong Kong's GDP numbers to be released next week are likely to show the economy accelerated in the final quarter of the year, according to our model (Chart 10). However, the improvement was likely almost entirely driven by exports rather than domestic factors. In fact, retail sales contracted by 3% in December from a year ago. More importantly, with the exception of essential items such as food, alcohol and tobacco, the growth rates of all other major consumer goods are in deeply negative territory. Durable goods, an important barometer for consumer confidence and spending power, dropped by a whopping 20% in value, or 15.8% in real terms from a year ago, underscoring very weak domestic demand. Therefore, Hong Kong's growth outlook will remain heavily dependent on external demand. Chart 9H Shares: A Technical Breakout Chart 10Hong Kong's Growth Recovery Weak domestic demand also weighs heavy on inflation. Hong Kong's headline inflation is falling rapidly, primarily driven by declining rental prices, and odds are high that inflation may dip below zero in the coming months. This means that deflation may re-emerge for the first time since 2005. These developing deflationary pressures underscore the frothy housing market, and also suggest the Hong Kong dollar may have become expensive again. The currency board system prevents nominal exchange rate adjustments, and therefore any adjustment has to be through changes in domestic prices. There is little systemic risk in Hong Kong's financial system, but the re-emergence of deflationary pressures further weakens domestic demand, augments growth difficulties and bodes poorly for asset prices, especially real estate. We will follow up on these issues in the coming weeks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "On Chinese Tightening," dated February 9, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Watch," dated January 19, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Bonds are universally unloved. The economic 'mini-upswing' is extended. 6-month bank credit impulses have rolled over. Europe is entering a period of high-impact political events. Equities are universally loved. If bond prices bounce back, Bank equities are losers and Real Estate equities are winners. Feature From time to time it is worth stepping out of the herd and asking: is the herd heading in the right direction? Given the seemingly universal dislike of high-quality government bonds, this week's report goes through five reasons why bonds could make a surprising comeback in the coming months.1 Chart of the WeekBrexit And Trump Distorted An Otherwise Typical Mini-Cycle Upswing 1. Bonds Are Universally Unloved The extent of herding in bonds is extreme on both a 65-day and 130-day basis (Chart I-2). The herd is a good metaphor for financial markets given the capacity for investor sentiment to move en masse. However, excessive herding is dangerous, because it destroys market liquidity. Chart I-2The Extent Of Herding In Bonds Is Extreme Liquidity - defined as the ability to buy or sell an investment in large volume without moving its price - requires healthy disagreement. After all, at today's price, if you sell a bond and I buy it from you, we are disagreeing about the attractiveness of the price. If many investors disagree on the attractiveness of the price, then there will be plenty of liquidity. The main reason for healthy disagreement and plentiful liquidity is that the market is usually split between short-term momentum traders and long-term value investors. If the price fluctuates downwards, the momentum trader interprets this as a strong sell-signal but the value investor sees it as an equally strong buying-opportunity. Hence, the two types of investor can trade with each other in large volume without moving the price (much). However, if the value investor flips to become a momentum trader and sells rather than buys, the price must fall until it attracts a bid from a deep value investor. If the deep value investor then also flips to become a momentum trader, the price must fall further until it attracts a bid from an even deeper value investor. And so on... As everybody in turn flips to the same view, the herd and the trend will get stronger and stronger. The tipping point comes when there is nobody left to flip and to join the herd. If a value investor then suddenly reverts to type and puts in a buy order, he will find that there are no sellers left. Liquidity has evaporated, and to replenish it might require a substantial reversal in the price. On both our 130-day and 65-day herding indicators, bonds appear vulnerable to such a reversal in the coming weeks. 2. The Economic 'Mini-Upswing' Is Extended Chart 1-3Major Economies Exhibit ##br##Very Clear 'Mini-Cycles' A typical business cycle lasts multiple years. But within this longer cycle, major economies exhibit very clear 'mini-cycles' whose upswings and downswings last 6-12 months (Chart I-3). As we demonstrated in Slowdown: How And When? 2 these mini-cycles result from the perpetual interplay between changes in bond yields, accelerations/decelerations in credit growth, and accelerations/decelerations in economic growth. The inception of the current mini-upswing coincided with last February's G20 meeting in Shanghai. At the start of 2016, global growth appeared to be stalling and financial markets were fragile. In response, a so-called 'Shanghai Accord' facilitated a synchronized stimulus in the major economies - either directly, or in the case of the U.S., a watering down of monetary tightening expectations. By spring last year, bond yields were forming a typical mini-cycle bottom. But in June, the Brexit shock sent yields sharply, but briefly, lower. Conversely, the Trump shock-victory in November accelerated the upswing in yields that was already well underway (Chart of the Week). Absent these two political shocks, 2016 produced a typical mini-upswing whose duration is now approaching 12 months - making it long in the tooth. Mini-upswings do not die of old age. But it would be highly unusual for the economy's credit-sensitive sectors not to feel a strong headwind now from the sharp upswing in bond yields. 3. 6-Month Bank Credit Impulses Have Rolled Over 6-month credit impulses have indeed rolled over in the major economies (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5), exactly as would be expected after a sustained upswing in bond yields. Chart I-46-Month Credit Impulses Have ##br##Rolled Over In Major Economies... Chart I-5... And ##br##Globally Now you could argue that the upswing in bond yields is simply a response to improved expectations for growth. The problem with that argument comes from the inter-temporal and geographical distribution of that potential growth pickup. U.S. fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending is an uncertain tailwind to be felt in 2018, or end 2017 at the earliest. Furthermore, this stimulus is unlikely to benefit Europe or other economies outside the U.S. Yet the recent rise in bond yields and weakening of credit impulses has occurred everywhere. Compared to Trump's intangible stimulus, the choke on credit-sensitive sectors is a certain headwind whose impact will be felt sooner and more universally. 4. Europe Is Entering A Period Of High-Impact Political Events The next few months will also see a sequence of potentially high-impact political events in Europe. The Netherlands and France hold elections in which disruptive populist politicians are likely to perform well, though probably not well enough to gain power. Meanwhile, Greece appears to be reneging on the terms and conditions of its latest bailout - whose next tranche of funds it needs to make a large debt repayment in July. Into this sensitive mix, add the start of the formal and potentially acrimonious divorce proceedings between the U.K. and the EU27, due to start by the end of March. To be clear, the probability of a shock outcome in any of these individual events is low. But the probability of a shock from at least one of these multiple events is not so low. If the probability of an individual shock is, let's say, 20% then the probability that the event goes smoothly is clearly 80%. Therefore, the probability that all four events go smoothly would be 0.8 to the power of 4, equal to 41%.3 Which means that the probability of at least one shock would be a significant 59%. Perhaps the probability of an individual shock in any of these four events is less than 20%. However, there are also other more nebulous sources of risk, such as the possibility of early elections in Italy, and a disruptive outcome. To reiterate, an individual risk might be low or very low. But the chance of at least one shock in the upcoming sequence of events must be close to evens. And this is the chance that high-quality government bonds will receive significant haven demand at some point in the coming months. 5. Equities Are Universally Loved High-quality government bonds are universally unloved, but mainstream equities have the opposite problem. They are universally loved. The extent of herding in equities is extreme on a 65-day basis (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Extent Of Herding In Equities Is Extreme This perfect symmetry of herding behaviour suggests to us that if investors suddenly fall out of love with equities - even briefly - then unloved bonds would be the very likely beneficiaries. Pulling all of the five arguments above together, we conclude that the odds of a tactical retracement in high-quality government bond yields in the next 3-6 months are more than evens. And we would position accordingly. In this eventuality, stock market investors should note that the sector that might be most vulnerable is Bank equities (Chart I-7). Conversely, the sector that might be one of the biggest beneficiaries is Real Estate equities (Chart I-8). Chart I-7If Bond Prices Bounce Back, ##br##Bank Equities Are Losers... Chart I-8... And Real Estate ##br##Equities Are Winners Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Our analysis throughout uses the JP Morgan Global Government Bond Index as the best representation of the direction of high-quality government bonds, including those in Europe. 2 Published on February 2, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 3 Strictly speaking, this assumes that all four events are independent - that is, the outcome of one does not influence the outcome of another. Fractal Trading Model There are no new trades this week. 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

Special Report

Highlights Duration: Growth, inflation & investor risk-seeking behavior remain bond-bearish in both the U.S. & the Euro Area. Market technicals, both in terms of oversold momentum and heavy short positioning, are the biggest headwind to higher yields in the near-term. USTs vs. Bunds: U.S. Treasury yields will remain under upward pressure from a hawkish Fed with the U.S. economy operating at full employment. The opposite is true in Europe, at least until Euro Area inflation is much higher. Stay overweight core Europe versus the U.S. in global hedged bond portfolios Feature Chart of the WeekCan The Bond Selloff Continue? Last week brought the first serious test of the bond bear phase that has been in place since last July. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield dipped as low as 2.33% after a benign January U.S. Payrolls report that substantially reduced the odds of a March Fed rate hike. German Bund yields also dipped as renewed worries about the upcoming French election triggered a flight to quality out of French and Peripheral sovereign debt. Even the chartists got in on the act, talking of an imminent breakdown below the "head & shoulders neckline" on the 10-year U.S. Treasury that would herald a 25bp decline in yields. Adding to the growing sense of nervousness among investors is a fear that the "Trumpflation" trade could soon run out of gas, with a correction of both elevated equity prices and bond yields likely in the absence of concrete economic news from the White House. Yet all it took was for Trump to simply mention that a "phenomenal" announcement on his tax plan was coming in the next few weeks to restart the Trump trades, pushing equity indices to new highs and driving up bond yields. Given all the conflicting forces at play in developed bond markets - accelerating growth, rising inflation, fiscal and political uncertainties, bearish bond investor positioning - we believe it is important to stay grounded by focusing only on the most relevant factors while trying to sift out the signal from the noise. This week, we are introducing a new "Duration Checklist" for both U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds, highlighting the key economic and market indicators that we are watching to assess whether we should maintain our current below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. From this checklist, we can confirm that the bond-bearish backdrop remains intact, with more indicators pointing to higher yields in the U.S. relative to core Europe. Describing The Elements Of Our Checklist The individual components of bond yields that we typically monitor - term premia, inflation expectations and shifts in the market-implied path of policy rates - have all contributed to the rise in U.S. and European bond yields since last July (Chart of the Week). Some of the factors that have driven yields higher are global in nature, like faster economic growth and rising energy prices, while others are more country-specific, like rising wage inflation in the U.S. To account for those different factors, we need to include a variety of indicators in our new GFIS Duration Checklist. The goal of list is to answer the specific question: "what should we watch to maintain a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. and core Europe?" The items in the Checklist are shown in Table 1, broken down into the following groupings: Table 1Stay Bearish On Treasuries & Bunds Accelerating Global Growth: Here, we are looking at indicators that are pointing to a quickening pace of global economic growth that would put upward pressure on all developed market bond yields. Specifically, we are looking to see if: a) the annual growth in the global leading economic indicator (LEI) is accelerating; b) our diffusion index for the global LEI is above 50 (suggesting a majority of countries with an expanding LEI) and rising; c) the global ZEW economic sentiment index is increasing; d) the global data surprise index is moving higher; and e) our measure of the global credit impulse (the 6-month change in credit growth among the major economies, one of BCA's favorite leading economic signals) is expanding. These global indicators are all shown in Chart 2. The global LEI growth rate, the global ZEW index and global data surprises are all moving higher, consistent with upward pressure on bond yields, and thus warrant a "check" in our GFIS Duration Checklist. The LEI diffusion index is well above 50, but has hooked down slightly in the past few months, as has the global credit impulse. These moves are relatively modest, and it is not yet certain whether they represent a change in trend in these series. For now, we are giving these indicators a "check", but with a question mark attached. If we see additional declines in the diffusion index and the global credit impulse in the next few months, we would interpret that as a sign that the cyclical global upturn is in danger of losing momentum, thus reducing the upward pressure on bond yields. Accelerating Domestic Growth: These are economic data that are specific to each country that would be consistent with higher yields; a) manufacturing purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) that are above 50 and rising; b) expanding consumer confidence; c) rising business confidence; d) faster growth in corporate profits. The relevant data for the U.S. are shown in Chart 3, which shows that all elements are increasing in a fashion that is bearish for U.S. Treasuries. The popular perception is that the recent surge in business confidence (both for corporate CEOs and small business owners) is simply a "Trump effect" from the new president's pro-business economic platform. However, the acceleration in corporate profit growth, which our own models are suggesting will continue in the coming quarters, is a sign that there is a more fundamental reason for firms to feel more optimistic. Chart 2Global Growth Still Pointing To Higher Yields Chart 3U.S. Domestic Upturn Is Solid We give all the U.S. domestic growth indicators a "check" pointing to a need to stay below-benchmark U.S. duration. The specific Euro Area growth data is shown in Chart 4. Similar to the U.S., all the indicators are moving higher in a bond-bearish direction, warranting a "check" on the Euro Area Duration Checklist. The political tensions stemming from the busy election calendar in Europe this year represent a potential negative shock to confidence. As we discussed in our Special Report published last week, however, we do not foresee a populist election shock in France akin to Brexit or Trump that would derail the Euro Area economic expansion.1 Rising Domestic Inflation Pressures: These are data that are specific to each country that would be consistent with faster inflation and higher yields: a) the annual growth in the oil price, in local currency terms, is accelerating; b) wage inflation is rising; c) the unemployment gap (the difference between the unemployment rate and the full employment NAIRU rate) is closed or nearly closed; The U.S. inflation data is shown in Chart 5, with all the indicators warranting a bond-bearish "check" in our U.S. Duration Checklist. The rising trend in oil prices continues to put upward pressure on headline U.S. inflation, even with the strong U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, the unemployment gap is now closed and U.S. wage inflation is grinding higher. This should be consistent with additional modest gains in core inflation that will put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of U.S. Treasury yields (bottom panel). Chart 4Euro Area Domestic Upturn Is Solid Chart 5U.S. Inflation Trends Still Bearish For USTs It is a different story in the Euro Area, as can be seen in Chart 6. While the rapid acceleration in the Euro-denominated price of oil is starting to feed through into faster headline inflation, there still exists a positive unemployment gap that is helping keep wage growth, and core inflation, muted. A continuation of the recent economic upturn will likely put more downward pressure on Euro Area unemployment, but, for now, only the oil price acceleration justifies a "check" in the Euro Area Duration Checklist. Chart 6Euro Area Inflation Is A Mixed Bag Central Bank Policy Stance: Here, we are not including any charts, but are only stating whether the central bank has a bias to tighten monetary policy. That is certainly the case in the U.S., where the Fed has already delivered a 25bp hike in December and continues to signal that up to three more hikes will occur in 2017 if the FOMC growth forecasts are realized. So we put a "check" in this box on the U.S. side of the checklist. The European Central Bank (ECB) continues to maintain an unusually accommodative monetary stance, using a combination of asset purchases, negative policy rates and dovish forward guidance. We continue to see a potential shift away from this super-easy policy bias in the latter half of the year - in response to the upturn in economic growth and acceleration of Euro Area inflation towards the ECB's 2% target - as the biggest risk for both Euro Area bonds, in particular, and global bonds, in general. For now, however, the ECB is signaling no imminent shift to a more hawkish stance, so we are placing an "x" in the central bank portion of the Euro Area checklist. Risk-Seeking Behavior In Financial Markets: Here, we are checking to see if pro-growth, pro-risk asset classes are outperforming and whether market volatilities are rising. Risk asset outperformance and stable vol suggests that investors are less interested in risk-free government bonds: a) the domestic equity index is rising but is not yet 10% above the 200-day moving average (a level that has coincided with post-crisis equity market and bond yield peaks); b) domestic corporate bond spreads are either flat or falling rapidly; c) domestic equity market volatility is low and falling rapidly. The U.S. indicators are shown in Chart 7, while the Euro Area data is shown in Chart 8. The story is the same in both regions, with equity markets in a bullish trend but not yet at a fully-stretched extreme, credit spreads (both for Investment Grade and High-Yield) tight, and equity market volatility at multi-year lows. We view these indicators as signs that investors are less interested in owning U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds than owning equities and corporate debt. This will help bond yields drift higher on the margin as economic growth and inflation rise in the coming months. Thus, we place a "check" on all three elements in both the U.S. and Euro Area Duration Checklists. Chart 7Risk-Seeking Behavior In The U.S. Chart 8Risk-Seeking Behavior In Europe Contrarians may look at those same charts and say that this is more of a sign that investors are too optimistic and are now exposed to any negative growth shock, potentially representing a trigger for a selloff of risk assets and a move into government debt. We prefer to view the bullish performance of growth-sensitive assets as a sign of underlying investor risk appetite. Domestic Bond Market Technicals: Here, we are simply looking at measures of price momentum and market positioning in government bonds, to assess if there is room for additional yield increases as investors reduce exposure: a) the domestic 10-year bond yield is not stretched to the upside versus the 200-day moving average; b) the domestic Treasury index total return momentum (26-week rate of change) is not stretched to the downside; c) bond investor positioning is not already short. The 10-year U.S. Treasury technicals are shown in Chart 9, while the German Bund technicals are shown in Chart 10. The story is quite simple here - the rapid run-up in global bond yields late last year has led to stretched, oversold conditions on both sides of the Atlantic. Sentiment remains bearish in U.S. Treasuries, with massive net shorts in bond futures, suggesting that an overhang of positions remains a major headwind to higher yields. While we do not have positioning data for Euro Area bond investors, the momentum charts for German Bunds look very similar to the U.S. Treasury charts. Clearly, we must place an "x" in all these boxes on both Duration Checklists. Chart 9Stretched Technicals In U.S. Treasuries... Chart 10...And In German Bunds So What Are The Checklists Telling Us? Adding it all up, and the vast majority of the indicators in both checklists are pointing to continued upward pressure on bond yields, justifying a below-benchmark duration stance. The lack of core inflation pressure in the Euro Area, however, suggests that there is less upward pressure on German Bund yields relative to U.S. Treasuries, thus we continue to recommend an overweight stance on Bunds versus Treasuries in global hedged bond portfolios. Oversold conditions suggest that yields will have a tough time rising quickly from here while the market continues to consolidate the late 2016 bond selloff. However, a major bond market reversal is unlikely given the solid upturn in global growth. Bottom Line: Growth, inflation & investor risk-seeking behavior remain bond-bearish in both the U.S. & the Euro Area. Market technicals, both in terms of oversold momentum and heavy short positioning, are the biggest headwind to higher yields in the near-term. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance in the near term, favoring German Bunds over U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Our View On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Chart I-1No Recovery In Domestic Demand Feature Today we are publishing charts on cyclical economic conditions within developing economies. The aim of this report is to aid investors in gauging the business cycle profiles of these individual emerging economies. Global trade and manufacturing have recovered, driven by an acceleration in U.S. and euro area demand. Chinese imports have also recovered, supporting global trade amelioration. Although there has been improvement in EM manufacturing PMIs (diffusion indexes), "hard" EM economic data have not recovered (Chart I-1). This is especially true for EM domestic demand measures such as consumer spending and real gross fixed capital formation. Given the still-lingering credit excesses in many EM countries, credit growth is likely to decelerate further, leaving little chance of domestic demand recovering. Bottom Line: Continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets versus their DM peers. China Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7 Chart I-2C2 Chart I-3C3 Chart I-4C4 Chart I-5C5 Chart I-6C6 Chart I-7C7 Korea Chart I-8, Chart I-9, Chart I-10, Chart I-11 Chart I-8C8 Chart I-9C9 Chart I-10C10 Chart I-11C11 Taiwan Chart I-12, Chart I-13 Chart I-12C12 Chart I-13C13 India Chart I-14, Chart I-15, Chart I-16, Chart I-17 Chart I-14C14 Chart I-15C15 Chart I-16C16 Chart I-17C17 Indonesia Chart I-18, Chart I-19 Chart I-18C18 Chart I-19C19 Malaysia Chart I-20, Chart I-21 Chart I-20C20 Chart I-21C21 Thailand Chart I-22, Chart I-23, Chart I-24 Chart I-22C22Chart I-24C24 Chart I-23C23 Philippines Chart I-25, Chart I-26 Chart I-25C25 Chart I-26C26 Brazil Chart I-27, Chart I-28, Chart I-29, Chart I-30, Chart I-31, Chart I-32 Chart I-27C27 Chart I-28C28 Chart I-29C29 Chart I-30C30 Chart I-31C31 Chart I-32C32 Mexico Chart I-33, Chart I-34, Chart I-35, Chart I-36, Chart I-37 Chart I-33C33 Chart I-34C34 Chart I-35C35 Chart I-36C36 Chart I-37C37 Colombia Chart I-38, Chart I-39, Chart I-40, Chart I-41 Chart I-38C38 Chart I-39C39 Chart I-40C40 Chart I-41C41 Peru Chart I-42, Chart I-43, Chart I-44 Chart I-42C42Chart I-43C43 Chart I-44C44 Chile Chart I-45, Chart I-46, Chart I-47, Chart I-48 Chart I-45C45 Chart I-46C46Chart I-47C47Chart I-48C48 Argentina Chart I-49, Chart I-50, Chart I-51, Chart I-52, Chart I-53 Chart I-49C49 Chart I-50C50 Chart I-51C51 Chart I-52C52 Chart I-53C53 Russia Chart I-54, Chart I-55 Chart I-54C54 Chart I-55C55 Turkey Chart I-56, Chart I-57, Chart I-58, Chart I-59 Chart I-56C56 Chart I-57C57 Chart I-58C58 Chart I-59C59 South Africa Chart I-60, Chart I-61, Chart I-62, Chart I-63 Chart I-60C60 Chart I-61C61 Chart I-62C62 Chart I-63C63 Central Europe Chart I-64, Chart I-65 Chart I-64C64 Chart I-65C65 Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Rate Volatility: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Treasury Yields: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. MBS: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Feature Low interest rate volatility has been a constant feature of the investing landscape during the past few years. In fact, you need to go back to the 1970s to find another period when interest rate volatility was consistently at or below its current level (Chart 1). Not surprisingly, the implied volatility priced into Treasury options is also as low as it has been during the past 30 years, with the exception of the period just prior to the financial crisis in 2007 (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Volatility: Lowest Since The 70s Chart 2Implied And Realized Yield Volatility Move Together This begs the question of whether the current low-vol environment can be sustained, or whether overly complacent investors are in for a shock. At the very least, we believe that rate volatility has already passed its cyclical trough and will start to move up this year. Investors should prepare themselves for higher volatility. In this week's report we examine the key macro drivers of interest rate volatility and discuss the implications of rising vol for both Treasury yields, and crucially, mortgage-backed securities. Macro Uncertainty & Rate Volatility Chart 3Macro Drivers Of Rate Volatility In a Special Report published in 2014,1 we posited that the long-term trends in volatility across all asset classes are largely driven by common macroeconomic factors. Specifically, investor uncertainty regarding the outlook for economic growth and monetary policy. A 2004 paper by Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi2 provides some theoretical justification for this view, as the authors observed that investors tend to overreact to new information when macro uncertainty is high, and underreact when uncertainty is low. To test the linkage between interest rate volatility and macro uncertainty we consider three measures of uncertainty. The first two measures, shown alongside the MOVE index of implied Treasury volatility in Chart 3, are measures of GDP growth and T-bill rate forecast dispersion. We measure dispersion - the disagreement among forecasters - by looking at individual forecasts of GDP growth and T-bill rates and calculating the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. The series shown in Chart 3 are equal-weighted averages of the forecast dispersion calculated for five different time horizons, ranging from the current quarter to four quarters ahead. As can be seen in the top two panels of Chart 3, implied interest rate volatility is higher when the disagreement among forecasters is greater, consistent with our thesis. The third measure of uncertainty we consider is the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index tracks uncertainty about the macro environment by counting the number of mentions of certain key words in major global newspapers. Elevated readings from this index have also coincided with high rate volatility in the past (Chart 3, bottom panel). GDP Growth Forecast Dispersion Chart 4Forecast Dispersion & Corporate Lending Disagreement among GDP growth forecasts reached an all-time low in the fourth quarter of 2016, but has since recovered to slightly more typical levels. Historically, we have found that C&I lending standards and corporate sector balance sheet health correlate most closely with GDP growth forecast dispersion (Chart 4) and both measures suggest that forecast dispersion is biased upward. T-Bill Rate Forecast Dispersion T-bill rate forecast dispersion was abnormally low between 2011 and 2014 for two reasons. The first reason is quite simply the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. A short rate bounded at zero necessarily trimmed the distribution of possible T-bill rate forecasts, since forecasters logically assumed that further interest rate cuts were not possible. This impact will gradually dissipate the further the fed funds rate moves off zero. Chart 5Fed Says March Meeting Is Live The second reason for extremely low T-bill rate forecast dispersion was the Fed's forward guidance. During this timeframe the Fed was actively trying to convince the public that interest rates would remain low. The most obvious example being the "Evans Rule", where the Fed promised not to lift interest rates at least until the unemployment rate had fallen below a specific threshold. This activist forward guidance limited the range of conceivable T-bill rate forecasts and crushed interest rate volatility. Nowadays, the Fed is engaged in a different sort of forward guidance, trying to convince markets that every FOMC meeting is live and that rate hikes could occur at any moment. Essentially, the Fed is trying to inject volatility into the rates market. Just a few weeks ago, when asked about the low probability markets are assigning to a March rate hike (Chart 5), San Francisco Fed President John Williams replied flatly: "I don't agree. All our meetings are live." Global Economic Policy Uncertainty We have written a lot about the policy uncertainty index in recent reports,4 focusing specifically on how it has diverged from its historical relationships with many asset prices. At the very least, we expect that sustained elevated policy uncertainty will place upward pressure on asset price volatility at the margin. Bottom Line: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Rate Volatility & Treasury Yields Long-dated nominal Treasury yields can be decomposed in a few different ways. In recent reports we have focused on the decomposition of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield into its real and inflation components. By identifying different macro drivers for each component we concluded that nominal Treasury yields will increase this year, driven by a rising inflation component and relatively stable real yields.5 Alternatively, we can think of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield as consisting of an expectations component equal to the market's expected path of short rates over the next ten years, and a term premium that reflects all of the other market imbalances and uncertainties associated with taking duration risk. This second approach is complicated by the fact that it requires a model of ex-ante interest rate expectations and every commonly used model is fraught with its own unique difficulties.6 Setting that aside, if we use the Kim & Wright (2005)7 estimate of the 10-year term premium we observe an expectations component that generally tracks the fed funds rate and a term premium component that is correlated with implied Treasury volatility (Chart 6), although the latter correlation is less than perfect. This decomposition also suggests that nominal Treasury yields should rise. The Fed is much more likely to hike rates than cut them and we have concluded that rate volatility is likely to trend higher from current depressed levels. However, the relationship between rate volatility and the term premium is complicated. The main reason for the complicated relationship between interest rate volatility and the term premium is the fact that elevated interest rate volatility also tends to be correlated with high equity volatility (Chart 7). So while higher rate volatility puts upward pressure on the term premium, the associated increase in equity volatility tends to raise investor risk aversion and increase the perceived value of bonds as a hedge against equity positions. This mitigates some (or often all) of the impact of rising rate volatility on the term premium. Chart 6Which Way For The ##br##Term Premium? Chart 7MOVE & VIX Have Opposing##br## Impacts On Bond Yields Bottom Line: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. Rate Volatility & MBS The relationship between rate volatility and MBS is much more straightforward than for Treasury yields. We observe a tight correlation between nominal MBS spreads and the MOVE implied volatility index (Chart 8). Chart 8 suggests that, even in the near-term, MBS spreads are too low for current levels of rate vol. The relationship between MBS spreads and rate volatility is easily explained. The defining characteristic of a negatively convex asset, such as MBS, is that its duration is positively correlated with the level of interest rates (Chart 9). This correlation leads to increased losses when yields rise and lower gains when yields fall. It's not surprising that negatively convex assets perform best in low volatility environments. Chart 8MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol Chart 9MBS Duration Moves With Yields We maintain an underweight allocation to MBS given that spreads are already low and that the volatility environment is poised to become less favorable. Further, if the Fed continues along its planned normalization path it is likely to cease the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio at some point in 2018. There are two reasons why this poses a risk for MBS. The first reason is that the unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio is likely to place upward pressure on implied volatility. While private investors often hedge their MBS positions by purchasing volatility, the Fed has no incentive to do so. It follows that by removing a large stock of MBS from private hands the Fed has also removed a large source of demand for volatility. When this supply is re-introduced into the market, demand for volatility is likely to increase. The second reason relates more directly to the supply and demand balance for MBS. In years when net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been negative, excess MBS returns have tended to be positive (Chart 10). Further, while negative net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been the norm since Fed asset purchases began in 2009 (Chart 11), this state of affairs will change once the Fed starts to unwind its MBS portfolio. Chart 10Annual MBS Excess Returns ##br## Vs. Net Supply Since 1989 Chart 11Net Issuance Will Turn##br## Positive In 2018 During the past three years the Fed has been buying between $20bn and $40bn MBS per month, just to keep its balance sheet stable. Net new MBS issuance will not be strong enough to overcome this hurdle in 2017, but net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) will swing quickly into positive territory in 2018 if the Fed decides to let its MBS portfolio run down. Bottom Line: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Volatility, Uncertainty And Government Bond Yields", dated May 13, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 "Inflation and earnings uncertainty and volatility forecasts", Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi, Manuscript, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago (2004). 3 Please see www.policyuncertainty.com for further details. 4 Please see Theme # 4 in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Volatility - The Unwelcome Guest That Will Not Leave", dated June 16, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Don H. Kim and Jonathan H. Wright, "An Arbitrage-Free Term Structure Model and the Recent Behavior of Long-Term Yields and Distant-Horizon Forward Rates", FEDS 2005-33. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2005/index.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

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 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.

Special Report

Highlights Brazilian growth will recover modestly in 2017, but it will be insufficient to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio. With interest rates still at double digits, public debt dynamics will become unsustainable as the ratio reaches or surpasses 85-90% of GDP over the next couple of years. The central bank has been financing the government by buying local currency bonds. Going forward, the path of least resistance, and most likely scenario, is direct or indirect public debt monetization by the central bank of Brazil. This will allow the nation to avoid fiscal stress/crisis but the price for it will be large exchange rate depreciation. In the end, investors will lose capital in Brazilian financial markets in U.S. dollar terms. Feature Brazil's financial markets have rallied sharply over the past 12 months, even as the economy has continued to disappoint. Growth has fallen short of even our downbeat expectations, yet the tremendous rally in its financial markets had sent our bearish strategy wide of the mark. In the past year, we have argued that even if the Brazilian economy recovers, it is likely headed towards a public debt trap because the recovery will be muted and the starting point of fiscal accounts/government debt is already quite poor. So, has Brazil achieved escape velocity - i.e., has growth gained enough momentum to thwart concerns about public debt sustainability? Escape Velocity Chart I-1Despite A Strengthening Global Economy, ##br##Brazilian Growth Is Relapsing It is tempting to conclude that the rally in Brazilian markets has been so powerful that the country has broken away from its five-year bear market, and hence that public debt sustainability is not an issue at all. In other words, financial markets seem confident that Brazil has achieved escape velocity. We do not think so. Notably, in recent months Brazil's economy has surprised to the downside, despite the ongoing improvement in global growth: Brazil's manufacturing PMI overall index has rolled over decisively, despite broad-based strength in the global business cycle (Chart I-1). More importantly, export prices in general, and iron ore and soybean prices in particular, have rallied a lot in the past year. Hence, the external sector has been a positive force for the economy, yet the latter has failed to revive. Having appreciated dramatically, the currency is no longer cheap. This is confirmed within Brazil's trade dynamics since export volumes are slipping relative to import volumes. As fiscal spending growth has until now been decent, the epicenter of the retrenchment has clearly been household consumption and business investment (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Brazilian Households Are ##br##Still Feeling Massive Pain... Chart I-3...As Is The ##br##Business Sector Household debt-service costs remain elevated at 22% of disposable income (Chart I-4). This, and ongoing job losses, are keeping a lid on consumer spending. Manufacturing production is still collapsing, and capacity utilization is at a 20-year low (Chart I-3, bottom panel). This is not a sign of a competitive exchange rate or vibrant manufacturing sector. Due to the economic contraction, Brazil's primary and overall fiscal deficits have reached 2.5% and 8.9% of GDP (Chart I-5), respectively, despite the authorities' attempts to secure considerable one-off revenues. Chart I-4Brazil: Elevated Household Indebtedness ##br##Will Prevent A Consumption Rebound Chart I-5Brazil's Fiscal Accounts Remarkably, the level of Brazil's real GDP has already contracted by 7.6% from its peak in 2014, producing the worst depression in more than 116 years (Chart I-6). Bottom Line: Not only has Brazil failed to achieve escape velocity, but also its growth dynamics have underwhelmed even the most pessimistic of forecasts. As a result, public debt dynamics have become unsustainable. Fiscal And Credit Impulses In 2017 Going forward the outlook for Brazil's economy will hinge on credit and fiscal impulses: If government spending rises by 6.3% in 2017, which is equivalent to the 2016 IPCA inflation rate as mandated by the fiscal spending cap (known as PEC 55), the federal fiscal spending impulse in 2017 will be 79 billion BRL, or 1.23% of GDP (calculated using our 2017 nominal GDP estimate) (Chart I-7, top panel). Chart I-6Brazil's Worst Recession In 116 Years Chart I-7Fiscal And Credit Impulses The impact of fiscal policy on growth is defined by government spending and taxes. Odds are that taxes need to be hiked to achieve the 2017 budget targets. Unless growth recovers strongly, doubtful in our view, there are non-trivial odds of impending tax hikes. The latter will counteract the positive fiscal impulse from government expenditures. The credit impulse is calculated as an annual change in credit growth, or the second derivative of the outstanding stock of credit. If we assume private and public banks' credit growth will be 0% and -5%, respectively, in 2017 overall loan growth will contract by 2.5%, and the credit impulse will be 0.54% of GDP (Chart I-7, middle panel). Even though interest rates are declining, real (inflation-adjusted) rates remain high at 5.4%, and banks' balance sheets are impaired by mushrooming NPLs following the credit boom years. This will preclude a revival in loan growth in the banking system. Aggregating the fiscal spending and credit impulses together, there will be about a 2% boost to nominal GDP growth in 2017 (Chart I-7, bottom panel). However, as it is likely that taxes will rise, the overall combined effect on the economy will be less than that. Bottom Line: Odds are that the aggregate fiscal and credit impulse will be only mildly positive in 2017 - assuming no tax hikes. This portends only moderate nominal GDP growth in 2017. Government Debt Simulation Revisited The Brazilian economy will probably recover and our baseline view assumes real GDP growth will be modestly positive for 2017. However, the recovery will not be vigorous enough to halt the exponential rise in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Table I-1 presents a scenario analysis for Brazil's public debt. Table I-1Brazil: Public Debt Sustainability Scenarios 2016-2019 We considered three scenarios: base case, optimistic and pessimistic. For each scenario, we have made assumptions for nominal GDP growth, nominal government revenue growth, nominal government expenditure growth (based on the fiscal spending cap), and on the average (or blended) interest rate on all local currency public debt. Chart I-8Brazil's Is Headed Towards ##br##A Public Debt Crisis In our base case scenario, the public debt-to-GDP ratio reaches 84% in 2018 and 91% in 2019 (Chart I-8). With double-digit interest rates, the 91% public debt load spirals out of control. In short, even in our base case scenario, which assumes a return to modest growth in 2017 and a decent recovery in economic activity in 2018 and 2019, Brazil is unlikely to avoid a debt trap. For the base case, we use the following assumptions For nominal GDP growth in 2017 we use the most recent Brazilian Central Bank Survey year-end forecast of real GDP growth of 0.5% plus our estimate of 5% inflation to arrive at 5.5%. In 2018, we assume real GDP growth of 2.5% plus 4.5% inflation to arrive at 7%. And in 2019 we also assume growth of 7%. For nominal government revenue growth, we use 5% in 2017 and 8% for both 2018 and 2019, as we assume government revenue reasonably tracks nominal GDP growth. A caveat: the actual 2016 federal government revenue growth number of 4.3% was heavily boosted by non-recurring revenues such as privatization revenue, repayment by the national development bank (BNDES) of 100 billion BRL, tax amnesty/repatriation programs, and so on. In brief, the government used all means at its disposal to boost its revenue via one-off items. As these are non-recurring and impossible to predict, we did not attempt to account for them. Yet, in future, these non-recurring sources of fiscal revenue will be harder to come by. To be consistent, we do not incorporate one-off expenditures, such as financial support for local governments, or recapitalization of public banks and state-owned companies. In a nutshell, we assume potential one-off public sector revenues will offset one-off expenditures. With the dire state of the economy, and likely need for bailouts and financial assistance from the federal government, this is a reasonable assumption. Besides, with most states and local governments near bankruptcy, staving off insolvency remains a much more urgent matter that will likely drain central government coffers in the near term. As to nominal government expenditures, since these are capped by the previous year's inflation rate due to the fiscal spending cap (or PEC 55), we use 6.3% growth in 2017 (i.e. 2016 IPCA inflation), and 5% in both 2018 and 2019, respectively. Investors, however, should keep in mind that the spending cap only applies to primary expenditures. Critically, it does not include interest on public debt, spending on education and health in 2017, and nonrecurring expenditures. If anything, federal government spending will likely exceed the 2017 cap as the government may spend more on healthcare and education to offset overall fiscal austerity. Table I-2Composition Of Brazilian Federal Debt For the average, or blended, interest rate on public debt, we used calculations by Dr. Jose Carlos Faria, Chief Brazil Economist at Deutsche Bank.1 We use Dr. Faria's assumptions for local currency average interest rate on public debt in 2017, 2018 and 2019, for our pessimistic scenario. The impact of lower policy interest rates (i.e. the central bank's SELIC rate) on the public debt service is a drawn out process because not all debt is rolled/re-priced over every year. Table I-2 illustrates the breakdown of Brazil's public debt by type. Therefore, the impact of declining interest rates on public debt dynamics will be slow. Bottom Line: With interest rates still in the double digits, Brazil's public debt dynamics will become unsustainable if the ratio reaches or surpasses 85-90% of GDP. The odds are substantial that this limit will be breached in the next few years. The best cure for debt sustainability is growth. So far, however, Brazil has failed to achieve growth strong enough to stabilize its public debt trajectory. A Word On Social Security Reform It is widely accepted that pension (social security) reform is desperately needed to help keep Brazil's public debt on a sustainable path. It does appear that reforms will be passed this year, as they have good momentum in Congress. That said, it will take many years for the positives of pension reforms to kick in and help the fiscal accounts, and in turn improve Brazil's public debt profile. According to the IMF,2 it will take roughly until 2020-2025 to see any decrease in social security expenses as a percentage of GDP, even if the reforms involve an increase in the retirement age, a benefits freeze, and a removal or change of the indexation of pensions to the minimum wage (and/or a change to the minimum wage formula). Bottom Line: The benefits of social security reform will only come into effect after 2020-30 or so, if passed in full. Therefore, they will not prevent Brazil's public debt-to-GDP ratio from surpassing the 85-90% mark in 2019. A Way Out: Debt Monetization? Chart I-9Brazil's Central Bank Has Been ##br##Expanding Its Local Currency Assets Being strangled by economic contraction, high debt/fiscal deficits, and a lack of political capital to embark on painful fiscal austerity, the path of least resistance for any country in general and Brazil in particular is debt monetization. That would lead to a considerable exchange rate depreciation. There are already hints that the central bank has been funding the government since 2014. In particular: The Brazilian central bank's domestic currency assets have expanded dramatically - by 640 BRL billion, or 10% of GDP - since January 2015 (Chart I-9). Most of this balance sheet expansion - 460 BRL billion or 7% GDP has been due to the rise in the central bank's holdings of federal government securities (Chart I-10). On the liability side of the central bank's balance sheet, a considerable rise has occurred in Banco Central do Brasil repos with commercial banks and deposits received from financial institutions. The amount of outstanding repos and these deposits has risen by 220 BRL billion since January 2015 (Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Central Bank Has Been ##br##Accumulating A Lot Of Public Debt... Chart I-11....But Withdrawing Liquidity Via ##br##Repos & Deposits Received Essentially, the central bank has purchased 460 BRL billion of government securities since January 2015 and, hence, injected a lot of liquidity into the banking system. Then, Banco Central do Brasil simultaneously withdrew liquidity via repo agreements and deposits received from financial institutions. This has basically sterilized half of the central bank's government bond purchases, i.e. the operation withdrew half of the liquidity expansion that was first made. Without the central bank intervention to buy 460 BRL billion of government securities in the past two years, the 626 BRL billion and 557 BRL billion overall fiscal deficits in 2015 and 2016, respectively, would not have been financed and local bond yields would have risen. Chart I-12The BRL Is Expensive Again Looking ahead, as the fiscal accounts continue bleeding, public debt burden will rise to around 85% of GDP and the banking system - wounded by non-performing loans - will struggle to expand its balance sheet further. In turn, the central bank might be tempted to continue monetizing the government's debt without, however, sterilizing its operations. In such a scenario, the currency will depreciate meaningfully. Markedly, Brazil's real effective exchange rate has risen above its historical mean and is somewhat expensive (Chart I-12). Brazil needs lower interest rates, more abundant banking system liquidity and a cheaper currency to embark on a sustainable recovery. The latter is required to avoid the fiscal debt trap. The exchange rate depreciation is an important relieve valve. Given that only 4% of government debt is denominated in foreign currency, a deprecation of the Brazilian real is the least painful solution. Bottom Line: Going forward, the only way for Brazil to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio is to boost nominal GDP growth. This can be achieved by reducing interest rates aggressively, injecting large amounts of liquidity into the wounded banking system and devaluing the currency. Unless financial markets in Brazil sell off, there is a non-trivial probability that the authorities will embark on outright or covered public debt monetization. This would allow the country to avoid fiscal stress/crisis. Yet, the price will be large exchange rate depreciation. Chart I-13Stay Underweight Brazil ##br##Versus The EM Equity Benchmark Investment Implications We have been wrong on Brazilian markets in the past 12 months, but we do not see a reason to alter our view. The currency will plunge due to the ongoing debt monetization, and foreigners will not make money in Brazilian financial markets in U.S. dollar terms. We reiterate our short positions in the BRL versus the U.S. dollar, ARS and MXN. Stay long CDS and underweight Brazilian credit within EM sovereign and corporate credit portfolios. Continue underweighting this bourse within an EM equity portfolio (Chart I-13). Interest rate cuts will continue, but with the BRL set to depreciate considerably versus the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months - as we expect - buying local bonds for the U.S. dollar based investors is not the best strategy. Santiago E. Gomez, Associate Vice President santiago@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 These figures come from the appendix on page 9 of the Deutsche Bank report titled, "Brazil at a Debt Crossroad - Again", dated January 23, 2017. 2 Please refer to the following IMF report on Brazil, available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16349.pdf Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights In this report, we outline our tactical, cyclical and long term views on French government bonds, linked to France's political situation, cyclical dynamics, and structural outlook. Tactical View: Marine Le Pen does not stand a realistic chance of winning France's presidency. As policy uncertainty recedes, the government bond yield differential between France and Germany will narrow. Go long French OATs versus German Bunds. Cyclical View: French GDP growth should surprise to the upside, while inflation will at least match the consensus expectation in 2017. Both of those trends will force French bond yields higher. To express that view, move to a below-benchmark duration stance within the French component of global hedged bond portfolios. Secular View: France has been, and will probably continue to be, difficult to reform. While a pro-reform government is our expectation from the upcoming election, boosting French productivity growth will be an uphill climb. Feature Chart 1Fade The France Spread Widening After the stunning political victories in the U.K. and U.S. last year, there has been considerable speculation as to which country will fall next to the "populist wave." With a major political party aiming to take the country out of the Euro Area, France has naturally popped up on investors' radar screens. While it is easy to draw a parallel from Brexit to Trump to a possible "Frexit", the political and economic realities in France are very different from those in the U.K. and U.S. The upcoming presidential election will not provide a similar surprise, but could impact the economy's long trajectory. Meanwhile, this economy should beat expectations in the next twelve months. In this Special Report, we lay out our views on France from a political, cyclical and structural perspective and introduce two French bond trade ideas to benefit in the short and medium term. Tactical View: No Political Shocker Ahead In the short term (3-6 months), the domestic political landscape will dictate a large part of France's bond market price action leading up to the two-round French presidential election in April and May. Lately, political uncertainty surrounding the election has had a clear negative impact on French government bond yields (Chart 1). The spread between the benchmark 10-year French OAT and German Bund has widened 46bps off of the 2016 lows and is now close to levels seen during the Global Financial Crisis in 2008-9. The spread is still well below the wides seen during the European debt crisis in 2011-12, when markets were pricing in a serious Eurozone break-up risk. The current more moderate level seems reasonable to us, as a significantly wider spread to compensate for the political risk of a potential "Frexit" is not required, given the long odds of a Trump/Brexit-like upset victory. Last week, our colleagues at the BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy services published a joint Special Report updating their view on the election, and concluded that Le Pen's odds of victory now stand at 15%.1 Either Francois Fillon (who is currently embroiled in a corruption scandal) or Emanuel Macron will win the French presidency, both of whom are running on structural reform platforms that should be market friendly. Moreover, Marine Le Pen has only a long-shot possibility to win the French presidential election, for several reasons:2 Assuming Le Pen becomes one of the final two candidates in the run-off election after the first round of voting in April, her probability of winning is low, as she continues to trail her centrist opponents by a massive 20% in the polls. That lead would have to fall to 3-5%, within the margin of error of the polling data, before investors would have to worry seriously about a Le Pen victory. Le Pen's personal approval rating peaked in 2012 (Chart 2). It fell despite the European refugee crisis, multiple terrorist attacks in France, and sluggish economic growth over the past two years, all of which should have helped boost her popularity. The problem for Le Pen is that 70% of the French support the euro (bottom panel), and she is running on an explicit campaign promise to try and pull France out of the euro if she wins the presidency. Leaving the euro area would mean a redenomination cost for Baby Boomer retirees, higher interest rates, higher inflation, and a likely economic recession. Judging by the high level of support for the euro, we suspect that the French population understands these risks. Given BCA's relatively sanguine view of the true political risks of the French election, the recent spread widening represents a tactical trade opportunity to go the other way and position for French outperformance. A Le Pen defeat will cause French policy uncertainty to recede and French bond yields will converge back to German levels. Vanishing uncertainty and lower bond yields will further fuel the current economic recovery, as explained in the next section. Bottom Line: Marine Le Pen does not stand a realistic chance of winning France's presidency. As policy uncertainty recedes, the government bond yield differential between France and Germany will narrow. Go long French OATs versus German Bunds on a tactical basis (a trade we are adding to our Overlay Trades list on Page 20). Cyclical View: An Outperforming Economy Over the medium-term (6 to 12 months), the cyclical dynamics of French growth and inflation, as well as potential shifts in Euro Area monetary policy, will drive the evolution of French bond yields. On this basis, there is room for French yields to rise in absolute terms. Current pricing in the French forward curve has the 10-year government bond yield reaching 1.40% by the end of 2017, up 26bps from the current level. That yield target will be easily exceeded based on the budding upturns in French economic growth and inflation. A low growth hurdle to overcome The Bloomberg survey of economists currently pencils in a French GDP growth forecast of 1.3% in 2017, almost unchanged from 1.2% in 2016. That figure should be surpassed, in our view. The current situation component of the French ZEW economic sentiment survey has spiked recently but still sits far from previous peaks (Chart 3). As this unfinished economic cycle progresses, growth will drift inevitably higher. Chart 2Le Pen Is Not So Well-Liked Chart 3An Un-finished Cycle More specifically, the business sector could positively surprise in 2017. Business sentiment and industrial production already started to hook upward toward the end of 2016, and the December surge in the French Manufacturing PMI signals that the economy is accelerating. Even the previously lagging French service sector PMI has now caught up to the Euro Area average (Chart 4). This upturn looks very well supported. Firms' order books have been replenished, and corporations are now in a position to hike prices, indicating that pricing power has returned (Chart 5). This is a crucial development, it will allow for further increases in corporate profit margins, and, in turn, give them some leeway to lift wages, hire more workers and/or invest anew. Chart 4A Solid Economic Upturn Chart 5Improving Business Sector Outlook Moreover, business cycle dynamics should then boost consumption. An improving labor market has already translated into confidence-building momentum among households. Consumers' disposable income growth has risen steadily, while households' intentions to make important purchases have reached levels not seen since before the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 6). Also, labor slack is diminishing in France, with the number of job seekers falling for the first time in a decade (bottom panel). If French households remain upbeat, the broader economy should do well. Historically, the INSEE survey of households' assessment of the future economic situation has been closely linked to GDP growth. Advancing that series by three months clearly shows that France's growth is set to accelerate. Using a simple regression, growth could reach a 1.7% year-over-year pace in the first half of 2017 (Chart 7). Chart 6Better Fundamentals For French Consumers Chart 7GDP Will Beat Expectations One note of caution on this optimistic French economic outlook comes from capital spending. The elevated political uncertainties from the upcoming election, as well as the potential U.K.-E.U. Brexit negotiations, have left French firms less inclined to expand business through increased investments. However, robust activity in the housing market should support overall gross fixed capital formation, as housing permits sprang to life in 2016 (Chart 8). To ensure that this economic expansion gains momentum, ample credit growth will be paramount. This could be a potential headwind, as France's non-financial private sector credit has reached high levels, especially compared to its European peers (Chart 9). These excesses could act as a speed limit on the overall economy, at some point. Chart 8Housing To Support Overall Capital Formation Chart 9Private Non-Financial Leverage: High However, in the current cycle, this doesn't seem to be the case. Both money and loan growth are accelerating after several years of weakness (Chart 10, top panel). The ECB's Bank Lending Survey, which shows slowly increasing demand for credit (middle panel) and no tightening of lending standards (bottom panel) will help fuel this trend.3 The central bank's loose overall monetary stance will keep this positive credit impulse alive over the course of the year, while also helping exports by keeping the Euro weak. Finally, on the fiscal side, the IMF projects France's cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance to go from -0.6% of potential GDP in 2016 to -0.7% in 2017, representing a fiscal thrust of +0.1% (Chart 11). This modest number will obviously not supercharge the current cycle, but does represent a big change from the years of austerity since the last recession. Chart 10A Positive Credit Impulse Chart 11No More Austerity Building inflationary pressure The Bloomberg consensus forecast calls for French consumer price inflation to reach 1.2% in 2017, a modest advance from the current rate of 0.7%. That level should be reached, and likely surpassed, as most inflation measures have already entered an expansionary phase (Chart 12). That trend should persist in 2017 for several reasons: First, French unemployment will soon fall below the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU), which typically results in a rise in French underlying CPI inflation soon afterward (Chart 13). Chart 12Inflation Moving Higher Chart 13France Is Close To Full Employment Second, current French inflation appears about half a percentage point too low relative to the unemployment rate, based on the Phillips curve relationship since 2000 (Chart 14). Chart 14Inflation Should Be Higher Third, our French CPI diffusion index is well off the cyclical lows and points towards higher underlying inflation in the months ahead (Chart 15).4 In sum, French inflation will follow, and likely exceed, the current consensus expectation of 1.2%. This is important to appreciate, as inflation was a more important driver of higher nominal bond yields, relative to the real yield component, last year (Chart 15, bottom two panels). There is more to come in 2017. How to position for this view? In terms of valuation, French government bonds still appear quite expensive. Our bond valuation indicator shows that yields remain well below fair value, even after the recent backup (Chart 16). Combine this with our optimistic view on French growth and inflation, and investors should move to reduce duration within the French component of hedged global bond portfolios. Today, we open a new position in our model fixed income portfolio: reducing the exposure in the longest duration (+10 years) bucket in France, and placing the proceeds in the 1-3 year France bucket. This combination will lower our overall French duration exposure by one full year. If yields finish the year higher than currently priced on the forward curve, as we expect, this position will contribute positively to the excess return versus our benchmark. Bottom Line: French GDP growth should surprise to the upside, while inflation will at least match the consensus expectation in 2017. Both of those trends will force French bond yields higher this year. To express that view, move to a below-benchmark duration stance within the French component of global hedged bond portfolios. Chart 15Rising Inflation Will Push Yields Even Higher Chart 16French Bonds: Still Expensive Secular View: A Structural Ceiling On French Yields In the very long run (5 to 10 years), structural considerations are needed to forecast bond yields. Ten years ago, the French forward yield curve was implicitly forecasting that the 10-year French bond yield would be close to 4% today. Currently standing at 1.13%, the market missed the mark by 287bps! The forwards are now priced for the 10-year bond yield to reach 2.84% in ten years, possibly making the same mistake of over-estimating future bond yields. To gauge a fair value of the 10-year bond yield, using nominal potential GDP growth has proved to be useful in the past. From 2004 to 2014, and before the deflationary shock experienced since, France's 10-year bond yield was indeed trading very close to growth in French nominal potential GDP (Chart 17, shaded portion). Chart 17Low Potential Growth Is A Long-Term Cap On French Yields As inflation will most likely return to more "normal" levels in the next few years, the relationship between the two should be reestablished soon. If so, the current 2.84% level on the 10-year French government bond yield, 10-years forward should translate to a nominal potential growth rate of around 2.8% in ten years' time (Chart 17). This outcome would represent an 80bp increase in the rate of trend French nominal potential growth from current levels, which could be difficult to achieve, in our view. Lots of work to do... Most likely, France's nominal potential growth will only slowly grind lower. Faster potential growth could be achieved either through increasing demographic growth or improving productivity. Unfortunately, neither outcome appears imminent. Since the French working age population is already expanding at a very slow pace, and is projected to decelerate in the years ahead, productivity increases are the only candidate to improve potential growth. On that front, a lot needs to be done; many structural weaknesses in the French economy have to be addressed. For years, France has been plagued by weak productivity, which has constrained growth. Compared to its European peers, inefficient use of available capital has led to a loss of competitiveness through higher unit labor costs. Clearly, France needs to improve workers' skills to lift total factor productivity growth (Chart 18). This will become increasingly difficult as France now faces - more than ever - difficulty attracting and retaining talent due to the recent turmoil that has hit the country such as the terrible rise in terrorist attacks. At the source, the poor productivity performance in France is grounded in the overly protective employment system. Like other European countries, high employment costs have led to misallocation of capital, potentially affecting the optimal capital labor input mix and total factor productivity.5 Indeed, friction in the labor market is often cited as the source of the problem. We tend to agree. French workers work too few hours, even fewer than in the Peripheral European economies. As the divide between the unemployment rate of persons under and over 25 years old gets larger, resolving the growing generational disparities has become paramount. Plus, upward mobility opportunities are scant - not everyone gets an equal chance to rise in status in French society (Chart 19). Chart 18Productivity Unlikely To Lift Potential Growth Chart 19Friction In The Labor Market Recent reforms have the potential to fix some problems. The Pacte de Responsabilité et Solidarité (PRS) and the Crédit d'impôt compétitivité emploi (CICE) should help reduce unit labor costs through a reduced labor tax wedge.6 The Macron Law could raise real GDP growth by 0.3 percent per year through 2020, according to the OECD. However, the effectiveness might be fleeting in some other cases. For example, studies by the IMF suggest that the El Khomri Law - aimed at making the labor market more flexible - might have little impact on overall French unemployment, potentially reducing it by only 0.14 percentage points.7 Meanwhile, France's enormous public sector continues to crowd out the private sector. At 54% of GDP, government expenditures are simply too big, forcing the government to tax profits at a whopping 63% rate. This leaves little space for national savings - which now sit at a lowly 21.4% of GDP - to increase (Chart 20). Additionally, France ranks 115th out 136 countries in the Global Competitiveness Report in terms of the burden of government regulation, which further constrains productivity-enhancing investments.8 In sum, boosting potential GDP growth will remain an uphill battle. Everyone agrees that reforms are necessary. But will they happen? ...and France still has a tough crowd to win over It is not impossible that the next president will have a serious structural reform agenda. For example, the most reformist presidential contender, Francois Fillon, has made these proposals in his campaign platform: Abandon the national limit on weekly hours worked and leave that decision to individual companies; Decrease corporate taxation; Allow companies to fire employees when undergoing structural/managerial changes; Extend the retirement age; Cut public spending; Reduce the size of the state by cutting government employees. From a structural perspective, these measures would surely be promising for the future, and would lift French potential GDP growth over time. However, in the populist world we live in, we are skeptical that the electorate will give him an unambiguous mandate of this sort. That kind of mandate usually comes after a crisis, not before. More pain might be needed. Chart 20France's Government: Crowding Out The Private Sector Chart 21"Silent Majority" Wants Reform Moreover, reforming France has always proved very challenging. As such, will Mr. Fillon (or Mr. Macron) really be able to comply with his campaign promises, if elected? Winning a majority at the parliamentary election would be a necessary precondition. Although every President has been given a parliamentary majority since 2002, the elections have not happened yet. Confronting the unions on these measures will prove difficult for the next French president. The latest labor market reform push unveiled last year was met with massive resistance. Surely, deregulation that makes it easier to fire workers will inevitably dissatisfy insiders that benefit from high barriers to entry for new employees. This obstacle will be difficult to remove. In any case, it has always been puzzling why things have to be this way in France. According to economists Yann Algan and Pierre Cahuc, one possible response might lie in the French tendency to distrust their fellow citizen. Their theory, introduced more than ten years ago, posits the following: ...the French people's lack of trust gets in the way of their ability to cooperate, which brings the State to regulate work relations in minute detail. By emptying social dialogue of its content, these interventions prevent the adoption of favorable reforms to improve the function of the job market. Distrust even induces a fear of competition, leading to the set-up of regulatory barriers-to-entry, that create rent-seeking which favors corruption and mutual distrust. The French social model fosters a truly vicious circle. Corporatism and state intervention undermine the mechanisms of solidarity, destroy social dialogue and reinforce mutual distrust - that which in turn feeds categorical demands and the constant call for regulation, and thereby favors the expansion of corporatism and state intervention.9 Of course, their angle on things could sound somewhat extreme. But it might also explain why the issues discussed ten or twenty years ago concerning France's predicament remain mostly the same today. There might be something else besides pure rational thinking at play behind the French citizenry's propensity to stiff-arm reforms. Nonetheless, if these authors are correct, true changes will continue to be hard to come by in France. Meaning this invisible hand of distrust will continue to lead potential GDP growth lower, and, as history dictates, will represent a ceiling on how high long-term French bond yields can ever rise. That said, maybe our view could prove to be too backward looking. The new report co-written by our Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy teams takes a more optimistic view on the chances of French economic reform. They argue that France's recent economic underperformance will motivate its citizens to demand real action from their politicians, as occurred in Australia during the mid-1980s and 1990s and Germany in the 2000s - episodes of real structural reform occurring without any dramatic crisis to prompt them. A desire to compete with Germany economically, combined with government spending excesses and protest fatigue, could be leading France to elect a pro-reform government. As the French polling data shows, there is a "silent majority" in France that would favor supply side reforms (Chart 21). Plus, even those that traditionally favor the status quo, like "blue collar" and "left leaning" employees, are opposing reforms by extremely narrow margins. Undoubtedly, our colleagues raise very good points. As such, we will be watchful to see if reforms gain a greater chance of meaningfully transforming France in the next few years. The onus will be on the reformers to change the system. Bottom Line: France has been, and will probably continue to be, difficult to reform. While a pro-reform government is our expectation from the upcoming election, boosting French productivity growth will be an uphill climb. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution", dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?", dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/pdf/blssurvey_201701.pdf?6c44eff3bac4b858969b9cb71bd4a8fa 4 The diffusion index is the percentage of sectors within the French Consumer Price Index that are growing faster than their 24-month moving average. This indicator leads underlying inflation by 10 months. 5 For further details on this idea, please see "Employment Protection Legislation, Capital Investment and Access to Credit: Evidence from Italy", available at https://ideas.repec.org/p/sef/csefwp/337.html 6 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=44080.0 7 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=44081. 8 http://www3.weforum.org/docs GCR2016-2017/05FullReport TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf 9 http://voxeu.org/article/france-price-suspicion and more on these authors theory on the impact of trust on economic development can be found here: http://econ.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/file/yann%20algan/HB_FinalVersion1.pdf The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns