Economy

Special Report

Highlights Trump is adding stimulus and potential rigidities to the U.S. economy as the labor market slack vanishes. This evocates the 1970s and stagflation. This risk could resonate among investors as there are enough similarities with the late 1960s / early 1970s. But as well, crucial differences greatly reduce the likelihood of such a scenario. Ultimately, the Fed holds the key. If the Fed stays behind the curve for too long, inflation will emerge. Our bet is that the Fed will not fall behind the curve significantly. On a cyclical basis, the dollar will remain strong and the yen will underperform massively. Feature On November 11 we argued that the first round effect of a Trump victory would be to boost an already improving U.S. economy, giving the Fed more reason to increase interest rates faster than was priced in by markets.1 However, we did conclude our economic assessment of Trump by highlighting the potential for a dangerous outcome: "In the long-run, the Trump growth dividend is likely to require a payback, but this discussion is for another day." What will be the nature of this payback? Goosing up the economy as the U.S. approaches full employment evokes the inflationary policies of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Back then, the Vietnam War caused the Federal government deficit to increase while economic slack was limited. Stagflation ensued. While this parallel is appealing, it is also too simplistic. Trump's policies will be inflationary, but, key structural factors will prevent the fiery inflationary inferno that engulfed the 1970s. Policymakers will need to be careful, however, because while stagflation and the 1970s are only distant risks today, a Pandora's box is being opened. The Similarities The first similarity between the late 1960s / early 1970s is that Trump promises to inject stimulus exactly as the economy hits full employment. When President Johnson increased the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. output gap was already closed. The result of this fiscal stimulus was to create excess demand. This excess demand not only put upward pressure on wages and prices, but also caused the U.S. current account deficit to balloon. Trump wants to cut taxes by US$6.2 trillion, as expected by the Tax Policy Institute. Before November 8, the labor market had already tightened and wage growth was already accelerating (Chart 1). Stimulating in this context could unleash potent inflationary forces. The second similarity to Vietnam-era stagflation is that Trump's fiscal stimulus will materialize as monetary policy remains easy. By 1969, U.S. real short rates were already hovering near 0%, and were negative for three years between 1974 and 1977 (Chart 2). Today, we are also experiencing deeply negative real rates. However, back then these easy monetary conditions were being felt at the tail end of a multi-decade boom. Today, they reflect the aftermath of a financial crisis that has greatly increased the demand for precautionary savings and depressed the private sector's appetite for credit. Chart 1Tightening Labor Market Chart 2Similarity: Low Real Rates The third parallel comes from the liquidity on bank balance sheets. Today, as was the case in the late 1960s and early 1970s, banks are flush with liquid assets (Chart 3). Thus, banks have the fuel to aggressively lend and create money. Outside of banking crises, the willingness of banks to lend is often closely correlated with the demand for loans.2 Both respond to the same economic shocks, whether positive or negative. After the 1970 recession, the Fed eased aggressively, and business investment rebounded quickly. Today, Trump's fiscal reflation could revive animal spirits in a similar fashion. In both instances, banks have the wherewithal to support growing capex and loan demand. Another troubling resemblance is the illiquid state of household balance sheets. Today, household liquidity represents as small a share of disposable income as it did in 1970 (Chart 4). In fact, compared to total liabilities, household liquidity remains in the lower end of the historical distribution. Why does this matter? Chart 3Similarity: Bank Liquidity Chart 4Similarity: Household Illiquidity Under this set of circumstances, households will have a higher political tolerance for inflation. Except for the rich, the average household has little to lose from inflation, especially if the rise in prices emanates from an over-stimulated labor market. Inflation does decrease the real value of household liquid assets, but it does the same thing to their much larger debt burdens. The large increase over the past 30 years in U.S. income inequality only reinforces these dynamics (Chart 5). Chart 5Growing Inequalities The last parallel is the potential for a return to pre-Reagan economic rigidities. Trump has talked about imposing tariffs on global exporters in order "to make America great again." He also mentioned limiting immigration in the U.S. Neither of these promises are clear, and like the fiscal stimulus, they could be greatly dialed back compared to the campaign-trail promises. What would be the impact of such a move away from globalization? Our Global Investment Strategy service argues that the growth impact would be limited. Academic models show that since 1990, only 5% of the increase in global GDP growth can be attributed to deeper trade linkages.3 However, the integration of China in the global supply chain and the expansion of the American labor force through immigration has depressed wages for less skilled U.S. workers. Yet, the emergence of new markets outside of the G10 has boosted profits for U.S. multinationals. This has accentuated income inequality. Meanwhile, the marginal propensity to save of rich households is around 60%, while that of the middle class and the poor sits much closer to zero. Thus, the change in the U.S. income distribution has depressed U.S. consumption by 3% since 1980 (Chart 6). This has created a strong deflationary impact on in the economy. Chart 6Unequal Income Depresses Consumption Therefore, if Trump does implement a protectionist and anti-immigration agenda, it would likely put upward pressure on prices by causing both a small inward shift in U.S. aggregate supply as well as from the increase in demand resulting from higher middle class wages (and therefore consumption). Bottom Line: Today, like in the late 1960s / early 1970s, five conditions are present to lift inflation: Trump is set to stimulate the economy as it is hitting full employment; Monetary policy is extremely accommodative; Banks have plenty of liquidity to fuel any resurgence in excess demand; household balance sheet make them politically friendly to inflationary dynamics; And by moving away from globalization and immigration, Trump may add further fuel to any inflationary developments The Differences While there are troubling parallels between Trump and the 1970s, key differences could prove to be just as important if not even more so than the similarities. The first difference between now and then is the structure of the labor market. Unionization rates have collapsed from 30% of employees in 1960 to 11% today. The accompanying fall in the weight of wages and salaries in national income demonstrates the decline in the power of labor (Chart 7). Without this power, it is much more difficult for household income to grow as fast as it did in the 1960s and 1970s. In conjunction, cost-of-living-adjustment clauses have vanished from U.S. labor contracts (Chart 8). Hence, the key mechanism that fed the vicious inflationary circle between wages and prices is now extinct. Chart 7Difference: Labor Has Lost Its Power Chart 8With No Bargaining Power, Concessions To Labor Ceased... Second, the broad capacity utilization picture could not be more different than in the 1970s. In 1970, the U.S was at the tail end of a decade of strong cyclical spending, which was powered by consumer durable-goods purchases, not by capex and capacity growth (Chart 9). In fact, the stock of fixed assets as a percent of GDP is much higher today than it was back then, pointing to excess capacity in the system, at least relative to the 1970s (Chart 10). Chart 9Difference: Cyclical Spending Chart 10Difference: Capital Stock Corroborating this image, capacity utilization remains quite low by historical standards. Interestingly, this series continues to hold good explanatory power for inflation (Chart 11). While a Trump stimulus would cause this measure to perk up, and for deflationary risk to vanish, we are nowhere near levels associated with a major inflation outbreak. Chart 11Difference: Capacity Utilization Even when we look at capacity in the labor market, the picture is once again markedly different. Today, unemployment is only beginning to flirt with its equilibrium after nearly nine years of deep labor market slack. In contrast, by the late 1960s, the unemployment gap had been negative for seven years. It barely moved into positive territory during the 1970 recession and only surged higher after 1974 (Chart 12). This was a very inflationary labor market. Mirroring the U.S., global capacity utilization is depressed and the rest of the world remains a deflationary anchor (Chart 13). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, non-U.S. inflation was just as high as U.S. inflation, as global capacity was tight and global money growth was strong. Today, heavy capex in EM means that despite a sharp slowdown in DM investment after 2000, global capex has remained at 25% or so of global GDP - a very high level compared to history - for 7 out of the last 10 years. Chart 12Difference: Labor Market Chart 13Global Capacity Utilization Is Low Third, in the 1960s and 1970s, animal spirits were running wild. Despite growing government deficits and rising borrowing costs, the crowding out of the private sector never materialized (Chart 14). This was a testament to the optimistic belief of the era, a belief fed by the resilience of the economy since 1950, as well as by the implicit support created by decades of Keynesian policies. Today, fiscal stimulus and rising consumer spending could resurrect animal spirits. However, this would be a nascent phenomenon, not a multi-decade one, implying a very different set of expectations for investors, consumers, and business than in the late 1960s / early 70s. Fourth, the monetary picture is very different. Today, both the money multiplier and money velocity are extremely depressed, a sign that monetary constipation still defines our age. In the 1960s and 1970s, money velocity and the money multiplier were both elevated or experiencing sharp upturns (Chart 15). This is why low real rates of that era did translate into accelerated economic activity and inflation, unlike the uninspiring effects of low rates or QE programs today. Chart 14Raging Animal Spirits Chart 15Difference: Monetary Backdrop Finally and most crucially, the rising inflation of the late 1960s only mutated into genuine stagflation after the economy was hit by a massive supply shock: the 1973 oil embargo. In the wake of the Yom Kippur War, OPEC tripled the price of oil - the commodity powering the modern economic machine. Global capacity utilization was already tight, but this shock created a massive inward shift in global aggregate supply, ratcheting aggregate price levels higher while hurting aggregate output (Chart 16). But the true coup de grace only emerged when fiscal and monetary authorities massively eased policy in response to this shock: The U.S. federal deficit skyrocketed from 2.3% of GDP in 1974 to 8% in 1975 and short rates fell from 8.9% in 1974 to 4.9% in 1976. This boosted aggregate demand back to its original level, but with sharply more elevated price levels (Chart 16). Chart 16Mechanics Of A Supply Shock Today, we have seen oil prices collapse by 56% since 2014 in response to a positive supply shock, and global capacity utilization is low. Thus, while fiscal stimulus could push aggregate price levels upward as it lifts aggregate demand, the effect on inflation should prove much more muted than when such policies are implemented in the face of a supply shock. Bottom Line: Important similarities exist between the potential effect of Trump's suggested policies and the economic environment of the late 1960s / early 1970s. However, five structural and cyclical differences suggest that Trump is not bound to recreate stagflation: The de-unionization of the labor force has removed its pricing power, capacity utilization is now infinitely more benign than back then, animal spirits are only recovering today while they were running wild in the late 1960s / early 1970s, the monetary environment backdrop is also much less inflationary, and finally, we are not experiencing the kind of supply shock and mistaken policy response that hit the world in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo. Question Marks Key to the outlook is the Fed itself. Trump's policies will put upward pressure on prices. However, the Fed continues to avoid committing to a tighter policy path beyond this December. The Fed has good reasons to do so: Trump has offered the world no clarity regarding his actual plans while in office. With little labor market slack, any stimulus is inflationary; how inflationary will be a function of the details. So should be the Fed's response. For inflation to truly emerge in the system, the Fed will need to keep policy easy even as Trump's plans become clearer. In the 1970s, a too-easy Fed spurred excess demand that lifted inflation and inflation expectations. Moreover, if the Fed had not cut rates as aggressively as it did in 1974 - a policy that boosted demand but that did nothing to compensate for the shortfall in aggregate supply - the inflationary shock from the oil embargo should have proven much more transitory. The Fed's recent talk of a "high-pressure" economy evokes a repeat of the 1970s mistake. However, there is no guarantee that this error will be repeated. For one, the references to a "high-pressure" economy predated the Trump victory. Second, fiscal stimulus is what the Fed has wanted for a long time. Trump is giving the FOMC the cover they have needed to do what they have tried to do since 2014: increase rates. Finally, inflation expectations are beginning to move upward. This is what the Fed needs to push interest rates higher. Moreover, this is happening as long-term inflation expectations begin decoupling from oil prices (Chart 17). This is important as it suggests that the economy is gaining traction and that markets are starting to anticipate a lift off from the zero lower bound. Thus, while we think a lagging Fed is a risk, it is not currently our base-case scenario. The second question mark is the dollar. One of the key factors that prompted the dis-anchoring of inflation and inflation expectations in the early 1970s was the suspension of the dollar's convertibility to gold in August 1971. This unleashed a period of weakness for the greenback that culminated in a 30% devaluation by 1980 (Chart 18). Moreover, a weak dollar fueled the commodity bull market. Chart 17The Fed Must Enjoy This Chart 18The Dollar Added To Inflation Today, the dollar is strong and expensive, creating a deflationary anchor in the U.S. economy. Our expectations that the Fed will not fall behind the curve once the nature of the Trump stimulus becomes clearer would re-inforce this trend. However, a failure by the Fed to tighten monetary policy appropriately, leaving the U.S. central bank behind the curve, would have a negative impact on the dollar. Not only would it put downward pressure on real rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world, but it would also depress the PPP fair value of the dollar by increasing domestic inflation. Bottom Line: The two key swing factors are the Fed's policy response and the dollar. In the late 1960s / early 1970s, the Fed kept policy too easy. Not only did this greatly fan the underlying inflationary dynamics that were already present in the economy, but it also created a very negative environment for the dollar, prompting the end of the dollar peg in August 1971. This further lifted inflation in the economy. The Endgame And Investment Conclusion Given all these conflicting forces, how will this experiment end? Pure stagflation with late 1970s-style inflation is out of the picture. However, inflation of 4% to 5% is very possible, but it could take time to show up in the data. In the 1960s, it took U.S. inflation until mid-1968 to hit 4%. By that time, the output gap had been positive for around 5 years, hitting 6% of GDP in 1966 (Chart 19). Unemployment had been below its equilibrium rate since 1963, and by 1968 was 2.5% below NAIRU. Chart 19No Slack In The 1960s This suggests that unless the Fed falls significantly behind the curve, even 4% inflation may take a long time to emerge this cycle. However, inflationary risks will grow considerably after the next recession. We do not know when this recession will happen, but we know what the result will be: more policy easing. It took until the 1970 recession and the associated policy boost to genuinely dis-anchor inflation expectations in the U.S. Today, an easing in policy and an associated fall in the dollar are likely to be the key criteria to generate real inflation risk in the U.S. As for currency implications, the lack of an inflationary outburst along with a responsible Fed will continue to support the dollar and hurt precious metals. In terms of exchange rates, USD/JPY should perform particularly well. The Japanese economy is near full employment and the Abe administration also is talking about additional stimulus. Yet, while the Fed will not stay behind the curve for long, the BoJ is explicitly aiming at staying behind the curve. This is a recipe for a higher dollar/yen on a 12-18 months basis. The euro is likely to continue to weaken as there remains more slack in the euro area than the U.S. However, this slack is diminishing and the ECB would respond to its disappearance, which implies that EUR/USD has less downside than the yen on a 12-18 months basis. Commodities are unlikely to repeat their amazing performance seen in the 1970s. Thus, commodity currencies should continue to suffer from dollar strength. The pound will be dominated by its own set of dynamics. While the probability of a soft Brexit has been growing ever since the High Court's ruling was issued, the appeal decision still needs to be made. Moreover, headline risk remains very elevated. Thus while valuation argues in favor of GBP, buying GBP today is a high-risk gamble. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Reaganomics 2.0?", dated November 11, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 William F. Bassett, Mary Beth Chosak, John C. Driscoll, and Egon Zakrajsek, "Changes In Bank Lending Standards And The Macroeconomy," Journal of Monetary Economics 62 (2014): pp. 23-40. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization", dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Trump's foreign policy proposals will exacerbate geopolitical risks. Sino-American relations are the chief risk - they will determine global stability. A Russian reset will benefit Europe, especially outside the Russian periphery. Trump will retain the gist of the Iran nuclear deal. Turkey and North Korea are wildcards. Feature Chart 1Market Rally Redoubled After Trump's Win Financial markets rallied sharply after the election of Donald Trump and the resulting prospect of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and greater fiscal thrust (Chart 1). But is the euphoria justified in light of Trump's unorthodox views on U.S. foreign policy and trade? Is Trump's "normalization" amid the transition to the White House a reliable indicator that the geopolitical status quo will largely be preserved? We believe Trump's election marks a substantial increase in geopolitical risk that is being understated by markets.1 This is not because of his personality, though that is not particularly reassuring, but rather because of his policy proposals. If acted on, Trump's geopolitical agenda would exacerbate global trends that are already underway: Waning U.S. Dominance: American power, relative to other nations, has been declining in recent years as a result of the emergence of new economic and military powers like China and India (Chart 2). If Trump allows himself to be sucked into another conflict despite his campaign promises - say, by overturning the nuclear deal with Iran - he could embroil the U.S. at a time when it is relatively weak. Multipolarity: America's relative decline has emboldened various other nations to pursue their interests independently, increasing global friction and creating a world with multiple "poles" of influence.2 If Trump keeps his word on reducing foreign commitments he will speed along this historically dangerous process. Lesser powers like Russia and Turkey will try to fill vacuums created by the U.S. with their own ambitions, with competition for spheres of influence potentially sparking conflict. Multipolarity has already increased the incidence of global conflicts (Chart 3). De-Globalization: The greatest risk of the incoming administration is protectionism. Trump ran on an overtly protectionist platform. Democratic-leaning economic patriots in the American "Rust Belt" handed him the victory (Chart 4), and he will enact policies to maintain these pivotal supporters in 2018 and 2020 elections. This will hasten the decline of trade globalization, which we signaled was peaking back in 2014.3 It does not help that multipolarity and collapse of globalization have tended to go hand in hand in the past. And historically speaking, big reversals in global trade do not end well (Chart 5). Chart 2U.S. Power Eroding In A Relative Sense Chart 3Multipolarity Increases Conflict Frequency Chart 5Declines In Global Trade Preceded World Wars In what follows we assess what we think are likely to be the most important geopolitical effects of Trump's "America First" policies. We see Russia and Europe as the chief beneficiaries, and China and Iran as the chief risks. A tougher stance on China, in particular, will feed broader strategic distrust; the combination of internal and external pressures on China will ensure that the latter will not be as flexible as in the past. For the past five years, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has stressed that the deterioration in Sino-American cooperation is the greatest geopolitical risk for investors - and the world. Trump's election will accelerate this process. Trump And Eurasia Trump's election is clearly a boon for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. The purpose of Putin's assertiveness has been to defend the Russian sphere of influence (namely Ukraine and Belarus in Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia) from outside powers: the U.S. and NATO seemed eager to "move in for the kill" after Russia emerged from the ashes. Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public with "rally around the flag" operations. We view Ukraine and Syria through this analytical prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.4 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal with Russia if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the "democracy promotion" activities that Putin considers to be directly aimed at the Kremlin. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.5 That is because the U.S. lacks constraints. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia (Chart 6) and does not stand directly in the way of any retaliation, as Europe does. That is why we think Trump and Putin will manage to reset relations. The U.S. can step back and allow Russia to control its sphere of influence. Trump's team may be comfortable with the concept, unlike the Obama administration, whose Vice-President Joe Biden famously pronounced that America "will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence." We could even see the U.S. pledging not to expand NATO from this point onwards, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from avowed NATO allies Poland and Czech Republic merely one year after Russian troops invaded Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs. Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in a structural decline as a great power and is attempting to hold on to a very large sphere of influence whose denizens are not entirely willing participants.6 Because Moscow often must use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it renews tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, we would expect the cycle to continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure under Trump. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through the end of 2017, a rapprochement with Washington could ultimately thaw relations by the end of next year. Europe stands to benefit, being able to resume business as usual with Russia and face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East, like in Syria. The recent decline in refugee flows will be made permanent with Russia's cooperation. The losers will be states in the Russian periphery that will feel less secure about American, EU and NATO backing, particularly Ukraine, but also Turkey. Countries like Belarus, which enjoyed playing Moscow against the West in the past, will lose the ability to do so. Once the U.S. abandons plans to prop up pro-West regimes in the Russian sphere of influence, Europeans will drop their designs to do the same as well. Trump And The Middle East Trump's "America First" foreign policy promises to be Obama's "geopolitical deleveraging" on steroids. He is opposed to American adventurism and laser-focused on counter-terrorism and U.S. domestic security. He also wants to deregulate the U.S. energy sector aggressively to encourage even greater energy independence (Chart 7). The chief difference from Obama - and a major risk to global stability - is Iran, where Trump could overturn the Obama administration's 2015 nuclear deal, potentially setting the two countries back onto the path of confrontation. Nevertheless, this deal never depended on Obama's preferences but was rooted in a strategic logic that still holds:7 Iraqi stability: The U.S. needed to withdraw troops from Iraq without creating a power vacuum that would open up a regional war or vast terrorist safe haven. With the advent of the Islamic State, this plan clearly failed. However, Iran did provide a Shia-led central government that has maintained security for investments and oil outflows (Chart 8). Iranian defenses: Bombing Iran is extremely difficult logistically, and the U.S. did not want to force the country into a corner where asymmetric warfare, like cutting off shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, seemed necessary. Despite growing American oil production, the U.S. will always care about the transit of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, as this impacts global oil prices.8 China's emergence: Strategic threats grew rapidly in Asia while the U.S. was preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. China has emerged as a more technologically advanced and assertive global power that threatens to establish hegemony in the region. The deal with Iran was therefore a crucial piece of President Obama's "Pivot to Asia" strategy. Chart 7U.S. Becoming More Energy Independent Chart 8U.S. Policy Boosts Iraqi And Iranian Oil None of the above will change with Obama's moving on. Nor will the other powers that participated in sanctioning Iran (Germany, France, the U.K., Russia, and China) be convinced to re-impose sanctions now, just as they gain access to Iranian resources and markets. It is also not clear why Trump would seek confrontation with Iran in light of his desire to improve relations with Russia and concentrate U.S. firepower on ISIS - both objectives make Iran the ideal and obvious partner. Trump will therefore begrudgingly agree to the détente with Iran, perhaps after tweaking some aspects of the deal to save face. Meanwhile, it will serve the hawks in both countries if they can go back to calling each other "Satan." Iran itself is comfortable with the current situation, so it does not have an incentive to reverse the deal. It controls almost half of Iraq (and specifically the portion of Iraq that produces oil), its ally Hezbollah is safe in Lebanon, its ally Bashar Assad will win in Syria (more so with Trump in charge!), and its allies in Yemen (Houthi rebels) are a status quo power secure in a mountain fortress in the north of the country. It is hard to see where Trump would dislodge Iranian influence if he sought to do so. The U.S. is a powerful country that could put a lot of resources into rolling back Iranian influence, but the logic for such a move simply does not exist. Trump will also maintain Obama's aloof policy toward Saudi Arabia, which keeps it constrained (Chart 9).9 The country is in some ways the stereotype of the "ungrateful ally" that Trump wants to downgrade. For instance, Trump supported the law allowing victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the kingdom (a law that Obama tried unsuccessfully to veto). He has blamed the Saudis for the rise of ISIS and the failure to take care of Syrian refugees. His primary focus is on preventing terrorists from striking the U.S., and to that end he wants to cooperate with Russia and stabilize the region's regimes. This entails the relative neglect of Sunni groups under Shia rule in Syria and Iraq. Indeed, the few issues where the Saudis will welcome Trump - opposition to the Iran nuclear deal, support for Egypt's military ruler Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and opposition to aggressive democracy promotion - are so far rhetorical, not concrete, commitments. Chart 9Saudi Arabia Sees The U.S. Stepping Back Will Trump get sucked into the region to intervene against ISIS? We do not think so. A bigger risk is Turkey.10 President Recep Erdogan may think that Trump will either be too complacent about Turkish interests in Syria, or that Trump is in fact a "kindred nationalist spirit" who will not prevent Turkey from pursuing its own sphere of influence in Syria and northern Iraq. Trump's foreign policy of "offshore balancing" would call for the U.S. to prevent Turkey from resurrecting any kind of regional empire, especially if it risks a war with Russia and Iran or comes at the cost of regional influence for American allies like the Kurds.11 Turkey will also be starkly at odds on Syria and ISIS. This means Turkey and the U.S. could see already tense relations get substantially worse in 2017. We would not be surprised to see President Trump threaten Erdogan with expulsion from NATO within his first term. Bottom Line: The biggest risk to our view is that Trump rejects the consensus of the intelligence and defense establishment and pushes Iran too far, leading to conflict. We do not think this will happen, but his rhetoric on the nuclear deal has been consistently negative and he seems likely to favor "Middle East hands" for top cabinet positions. He could involve the country in new Middle East entanglements if he does not show discipline in adhering to his non-interventionist preferences - particularly if he overreacts to an attack. Nonetheless, we believe that America's policy of geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East will continue. Trump may have a mandate to be tough on terrorism from his voters, but he definitely does not have a free hand to commit military resources to the region. Trump And Asia Trump criticized China furiously during the campaign, declaring that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office and threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports. However, there is a familiar pattern of China bashing in U.S. presidential elections that leads to no sharp changes in policy.12 Will Trump be different? Some would argue that relations may actually improve, given how bad they already are. First, Trump's chief concern is to fire up the U.S. economy's animal spirits, and that would support China's ailing economy as long as he does not couple his tax cuts and fiscal stimulus with aggressive protectionist measures (Chart 10). Proponents of this view would point out that Trump's tougher measures may be called off when he realizes that the Chinese current account surplus has fallen sharply in recent years (Chart 11), and that the PBoC is propping up the RMB, not suppressing it. Similarly, Trump's China-bashing trade advisor, the former steel executive Dan DiMicco, may not get much traction given that the U.S. has largely shifted to Brazilian steel imports (Chart 12). In short, the U.S. could take a somewhat tougher stance on specific trade spats without provoking a vicious spiral of discriminatory actions. The fact that the U.S. is more exposed than ever to trade with emerging markets only reinforces the idea that it does not want to spark a real trade war (Chart 13). Chart 10A Trump Boom, Sans Protectionism, Would Lift Chinese Growth Chart 11China's Economy Rebalancing Chart 12China Already Lost The Chart 13A Reason To Eschew Protectionism Second, the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" and attempts to undermine China's economic influence in the region through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have aggravated China with little substantive gain. By contrast, Trump may emphasize American business access to China over Chinese citizens' freedoms - which could reduce the risk of conflict. He may not go beyond symbolic protectionist moves, like the currency manipulation charge, and meanwhile canceling the never-ratified TPP would be a net gain for China.13 In essence, Trump, despite his populist rhetoric, could prove both pragmatic and willing to inherit the traditional Republican stance of business-oriented positive engagement with China. This is a compelling argument and we take it seriously. But it is not our baseline case. Rather, we think Trump will eventually take concrete populist steps that will mark a departure from U.S. policy in recent memory. As mentioned, it was protectionist blue-collar voters in the Midwest who gave Trump the White House, and he will need to retain their loyalty in coming elections. Moreover, the secular flatlining of American wages and the growth of income inequality have moved the median U.S. voter to the left of the economic spectrum, as we have argued.14 Neo-liberal economic policy has fewer powerful proponents than in the recent past. Thus, in the long run, we expect the grand renegotiation with China to fall short of market hopes, and Sino-American tensions to resume their upward trajectory.15 Why are we so pessimistic? Three main reasons: The "Thucydides Trap": Sino-U.S. tensions are fundamentally driven not by trade disputes but by the U.S.'s fear of China's growing capability and ambition.16 Great conflicts in history have often occurred when a new economic and military power emerged and tried to alter the regional political arrangements set up by the dominant power. This was as true in late nineteenth-century Europe, with the rise of Germany vis-à-vis the U.K. and France (Chart 14), as it was in ancient Greece. The rise of Japan in the first half of the twentieth century had a similar effect in Asia (Chart 15). Trump could, of course, endorse Xi's idea of a "new type of great power relations," which is supposed to avoid this problem. But nobody knows what that would look like, and greater trade openness is the only conceivable foundation for it. Chart 15AThe Disruptive Rise Of Germany Chart 15BThe Disruptive Rise Of Japan China's economic imbalances: A caustic dose of trade remedies from the Trump administration will compound internal economic pressures in China resulting from rampant credit expansion, misallocation of capital, excessive money printing, and capital outflows (Chart 16).17 The combination of internal and external pressures is potentially fatal and China's leaders will fight it. Otherwise, they risk either the fate of the Soviets or of the Asian strongman regimes that succumbed to democracy after embracing capitalism fully. Instead, China will avoid rushing its structural reforms (it is, after all, currently closing its capital account), and protect its consumer market, which it hopes to be the growth engine going forward. This is not a strong basis for the "better deal" that Trump will demand. President Trump will want China to open up further to U.S. manufacturing, tech, and service exports. Economics and the security dilemma: China and the U.S. will not be able to prevent economic tensions from spilling over into broader strategic tensions. Compare the spike in trade tensions with Japan in the 1980s, when Japanese exports to the U.S. peaked and the U.S. strong-armed Japan into appreciating its currency (Chart 17). The U.S. had nurtured Japan and South Korea out of their post-war devastation by running large trade deficits and enabling them to focus on manufacturing exports while minimizing spending on defense. China joined this system in the 1980s and has largely resembled the formal U.S. allies (Chart 18). Given that China has largely followed Japan's path, it was inevitable that the U.S. would eventually lose patience and become more competitive with China. China has seized a greater share of the U.S. market than Japan had done at that time, and its exports are even more important to the U.S. as a share of GDP (Chart 19). Comparing the exchange rates then and now, the Trump administration will be able to argue that China's currency is overdue for appreciation (Chart 20). However, in the 1980s, the U.S. and Japan faced no risk of military conflict - their strategic hierarchy was entirely settled in 1945. The U.S. and China have no such understanding. There is no way of assuring China that U.S. economic pressure is not about strategic dominance. In fact, it is about that. So while China may be cajoled into promising faster reforms - given that its trade surplus with the U.S. is the only thing that stands between it and current account deficits (Chart 21) - nevertheless it will tend to dilute and postpone these reforms for the sake of its own security, putting Trump's resolve to the test. Chart 16Flashing Red Light On China's Economy Chart 17The U.S. Forced Structural Changes On Japan Chart 18Asia Sells, America Rules Chart 19The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 20China Drags Its Feet On RMB Appreciation Chart 21A Reason For China To Kowtow Trump's victory may also heighten Beijing's fears that it is being surrounded by the U.S. and its partners. That is because Trump will make the following developments more likely: Better Russian relations: From a bird's eye view, Trump's thaw with Putin could mark an inversion of Nixon's thaw with Mao. China is the only power today that can stand a comparison with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The U.S. at least needs to make sure the Sino-Russian relationship does not become too warm (Chart 22).18 Russo-Japanese peace treaty: The two sides are already working on a treaty, never signed after World War II. Aside from their historic territorial dispute, the U.S. has been the main impediment by demanding Japan help penalize Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Yet negotiations have advanced regardless, and Japanese air force scrambles against Russia have fallen while those against China have continued to spike (Chart 23). The best chance for a deal since the 1950s is now, with Abe and Putin both solidly in power until 2018. This would reduce Russian dependency on China for energy markets and capital investment, and free up Japan's security establishment to focus on China and North Korea. American allies are not defecting: The United States armed forces are deeply embedded in the Asia Pacific region and setbacks to the "pivot" policy should not be mistaken for setbacks to U.S. power in the absolute.19 U.S. allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and (soon) South Korea are in the headlines for seeking to warm up ties with China, but there is no hard evidence that they will turn away from the U.S. security umbrella. Rather, the pivot reassured them of U.S. commitment, giving them the flexibility to focus on boosting their economies, which means sending emissaries to Beijing. The problem is that Beijing knows this and will therefore still suspect that a "containment" strategy is underfoot over time. Better Indian relations: The Bush administration made considerable progress in improving ties with India. Trump also seems India-friendly, which would be supported by better ties with Russia and Iran. India could therefore become a greater obstacle to China's influence in South and Southeast Asia. Chart 22Energy A Solid Foundation For Sino-Russian Ties Chart 23Japan's Strategic Predicament From the above, we can draw three main conclusions: The U.S. role in the Pacific will determine global geopolitical stability under the Trump administration. The primary question is whether China is willing and able to accede to enough of Trump's demands to ensure that the U.S. and China have at least "one more fling," a further extension to the post-1979 trade relationship. It is possible that China is simply unable to do so and in the face of any concrete sanctions by Trump, will batten down the hatches, rally people around the flag, and shore up the state-led economy. There may be a tactical U.S.-China "improvement" over the next year - relative to the worst fears of trade war under Trump - but it will not be durable. The year 2017 will be the year of Trump's "honeymoon," while Xi Jinping will be focused on internal politics ahead of the Communist Party's crucial National Party Congress in the fall.20 Thus, after Trump gives China a "shot across the bow," like charging it with currency manipulation, the two sides will likely settle down at the negotiating table and send positive signals to the world about their time-tried ability to manage tensions. Financial markets will see through Trump's initially symbolic actions and begin to behave as if nothing has changed in U.S.-China relations. However, this calm will be deceiving, since economic and security tensions will eventually rise to the surface again, likely in a more disruptive way than ever before. China's periphery will be decisive, especially the Korean peninsula. The Koreas could become the locus of East Asia tensions for two reasons. First, North Korea's nuclear weaponization has reached a level that is truly alarming to the U.S. and Japan.21 New sanctions, if enforced, have real teeth because they target commodity exports (Chart 24). The problem is that China is unlikely to enforce them and South Korean politics are likely to turn more China-friendly and more pacific toward the North with the impending change of ruling parties. This will leave the U.S. and Japan with legitimate security grievances but less of an ability to change the outcome through non-military means. That is an arrangement ripe for confrontation. Separately, China's worsening relations with Taiwan, Vietnam's resistance to China's power-grab in the South China Sea, and conflicts between India and Pakistan will be key barometers of regional stability vis-à-vis China. Chart 24Will China Cut Imports From Here? The risk to this view, again, is that a Middle East crisis could distract the Trump administration. This would mark an excellent opportunity for China to build on its growing regional sway, and it would delay our baseline view that the Asia Pacific is now the chief source of geopolitical risk in the world. Investment Conclusions There is no geopolitical risk premium associated with Sino-American tensions. Our clients, colleagues, and friends in the industry are at a loss when we ask how one should hedge tensions in the region. This is a major risk for investors as the market will have to price emerging tensions quickly. Broadly speaking, Sino-American tensions will reinforce the ongoing de-globalization. If the top two global economies are at geopolitical loggerheads, they are more likely to see their geopolitical tensions spill over to the economic sphere. Unwinding globalization implies that inflation will make a comeback, as the reduction in flows of goods, services, capital, and people gradually increases supply constraints. This is primarily bad for bonds, which have enjoyed a bull market for the past three decades that we see reversing.22 At the same time, these trends suggest that investors should favor consumer-oriented sectors and countries relative to their export-reliant counterparts, and small-to-medium sized businesses over externally-exposed multinationals. BCA Geopolitical Strategy's long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 trade is up 7.4% since inceptionon November 9. Finally, these trends, combined with the associated geopolitical risks of various powers struggling for elbow room, warrant a continuation of the Geopolitical Strategy theme of favoring Developed Markets over Emerging Markets, which has made a 45.5% return since inception in November 2012. The centrality of China risk only reinforces this view. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see our initial discussion of Trump's foreign policy, "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, and, more recently, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "In Focus - Cold War Redux?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "It's A Long Way Down From The 'Wall Of Worry,'" dated March 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "End Of An Era For Oil And The Middle East," dated April 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Saudi Arabia's Choice: Modernity Or Bust," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Turkey: Strategy After The Attempted Coup," dated July 18, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see John J. Meirsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior U.S. Grand Strategy," Foreign Affairs, July/August 2016, available at www.foreignaffairs.com. 12 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 13 One of his foreign policy advisors, former CIA head James Woolsey, has floated the idea that the U.S. could turn positive about Chinese initiatives like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the One Belt One Road program to link Eurasian economies. Please see Woolsey, "Under Donald Trump, the US will accept China's rise - as long as it doesn't challenge the status quo," South China Morning Post, dated November 10, 2016, available at www.scmp.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Joint Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 17 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Despite the static headline GDP figures, most of our indicators suggest Chinese growth momentum has improved since the second quarter, particularly in the industrial sector. A dollar overshoot, domestic housing policy tightening and potential policy mistakes by the Chinese authorities need to be monitored for potential growth disappointments. The rally in commodity prices reflects improving Chinese demand, but it has ignored the surging dollar. Chinese H shares are a safer play on Chinese reflation and growth improvement. Feature Our recent conversations with clients suggest that global investors' concerns over China have slightly abated, as various economic numbers have shown improvement. Nonetheless, investors remain highly sceptical about China's macro situation, raising questions ranging from "traditional" distrust of China's economic data to the latest worries of a "trade war" with the U.S. under President Donald Trump. We dedicate this week's report to addressing some common issues that we have been discussing with clients of late. What Is The Actual GDP Growth In China? In Recent Quarters, It Seems To Be Holding In A "Too-Good-To-Be-True" Tight Range? Chinese real GDP growth has been 6.7% for the past three consecutive quarters, right in the middle of the government's official target of 6.5-7%. This seemingly incredible stability has stoked long-held suspicions among investors about the reliability of Chinese economic data. While we do not claim to have the ultimate insider story on official Chinese statistics, and it is certainly possible that the macro numbers are "smoothed out" to hide otherwise greater volatility in economic reality, it is also possible that stable headline numbers overshadow bigger underlying fluctuations among different sectors (Chart 1). Chart 1Greater Volatility Underneath ##br##Stable GDP For example, while real GDP growth has stayed at 6.7% since Q1 this year, there has been some fluctuations in both the industrial and service sectors. Within the service sector, the financial industry has had a major downturn, with nominal growth falling from 10.9% in Q1 to 8.2% in the last quarter, partly due to last year's base effect of the stock market boom-bust. The real estate sector, on the other hand, has been on the mend, with growth strengthening from 14% in Q1 to 16.3%. Regardless, the exact GDP growth figures rarely matter from an investor's perspective. What is more important is the growth trajectory and policy implications. On this front, most of our indicators suggest growth momentum has improved since the second quarter of the year, particularly in the industrial sector. A strong recovery in manufacturing-sensitive indicators such as railway freight, heavy machine sales and electricity consumption (Chart 2). Continued acceleration in profit growth, in both the overall industrial sector and among listed firms.1 Further improvement in pricing power and producer prices. Producer price deflation that lasted for over four years ended in September, compared with 5.3% deflation in January. Looking forward, we expect the economy to continue to improve, even though some of the high-flying variables may begin to moderate. On the policy front, the authorities will likely enter a wait-and-see mode, especially on interest rates. Our model signals that the central bank's interest rate cuts have likely come to an end, unless the economy relapses again (Chart 3). This is also reflected in the pickup in interest rates in the bond market. We will further explore China's growth outlook, policy orientation and investment implications for the New Year in the first week of 2017. Chart 2Broad Improvement In##br## Industrial Indicators Chart 3No More Rate Cuts, ##br##For Now There Appears To Be Growing Acceptance In The Market That China Will Not Suffer A Hard Landing. What Are You Monitoring To Gauge The Growth Risk? We have not been in the "hard landing" camp, and have been anticipating a "rocky bottoming" process in Chinese growth for the year.2 Despite enormous financial volatility in January associated with the domestic stock market and the RMB, growth has largely played out as we anticipated. We expect the economy to remain resilient, but are watching some pressure points that could lead to disappointments. The first is the RMB, which has been depreciating notably against the dollar in recent weeks, as the dollar uptrend has resumed with vigour. In our view, a strong dollar is one of the key risks, as it not only generates downward pressure on the CNY/USD cross rate, on which the market tends to focus closely, but also halts the "stealth" depreciation of the RMB in trade-weighted terms, which reduces the reflationary benefits of a weaker exchange rate on the Chinese economy (Chart 4). In other words, a weak CNY/USD and a strong trade-weighted RMB is a poor combination for both financial markets and the macro economy.3 So far, the CNY/USD decline appears orderly, and we doubt the greenback will massively overshoot against all major currencies within a short period without causing growth difficulties in the U.S. However, the situation should be closely monitored and continuously assessed. The second is housing policy tightening, which the authorities have re-imposed since October to check rapid gains in home prices. So far, the tightening measures have not led to a significant slowdown in home sales in major cities: Daily home sales in the major cities that we track have broken out to new record highs (Chart 5). However, new housing supply has already been very weak, which together with robust sales could lead to even lower housing inventory and a further spike in home prices. We maintain guarded optimism on China's housing construction, as we discussed in detail in our previous report.4 The risk is that unyielding home price gains will force the Chinese authorities to up the ante on tightening, which could lead to a sudden deterioration in housing activity. In this vein, price moderation should be good news from policymakers' perspectives, as well as for the overall economy. Chart 4The RMB: Weak Or Strong? Chart 5Monitor Housing Activity Finally, as we have argued repeatedly, China's growth difficulties in recent years have had a lot to do with the excessively tight policy environment post the global financial crisis - a policy mistake that compounded deflationary pressures in the economy, which had already been suffering from weak external demand. Despite budding improvement in the economy, China's overall macro environment remains highly challenging, and policy mistakes that undermine aggregate demand will prove extremely costly. In this vein, any broader attempt to tighten policies, hasten administrative enforcement to de-lever or prematurely withdraw fiscal support on infrastructure construction will prove counterproductive. A more recent risk is how China deals with the potential protectionist threat from the U.S. under President Donald Trump.5 Our view is that China should avoid escalating trade tensions with tic-for-tac retaliations that could further complicate the growth outlook. As far as the markets are concerned, Chinese equities appear to have begun to price in a lower "China risk premium." Forward P/E ratios for both A shares and H shares have been rising since early this year, likely a reflection of investors' easing anxiety on China's macro conditions (Chart 6). Nonetheless, Chinese stocks' forward P/E ratios remain well below other major markets and the global average, and the risk premium in Chinese equities is still substantially higher than historical norms. Beyond near-term volatility, we expect the risk premium in Chinese stocks to continue to revert to the mean, leading to multiples expansion and further price gains. At minimum, Chinese equities should outpace global and EM benchmarks. There Has Been A Massive Rally In Some Industrial Commodity Prices In China. Is This Driven By Speculative Frenzy? How Much Does The Commodities Rally Reflect Chinese Demand? Industrial commodity prices have rebounded sharply in both the Chinese domestic spot markets and various derivatives exchanges. For some products, prices have gone parabolic, and there is little doubt that these extreme moves cannot be fully explained by fundamental factors (Chart 7). Nonetheless, it is also well known that commodities in general are subject to volatile price fluctuations, as they are extremely sensitive to marginal shifts in the supply-demand balance due to very low price elasticity among both producers and end users. Therefore, it is impossible, and rather meaningless, to precisely detangle speculative forces and fundamental factors. Chart 6Risk Premium Will Continue ##br##To Mean Revert Chart 7No Clear Evidence Of Commodity ##br## Speculative Frenzy That said, from a macro perspective, a few observations are in order: There does not appear to be a particularly high level of over-trading and speculative activity involved this time around compared with historical norms. Futures transactions this year have been hovering at close to record low levels, despite sharp prices gains in numerous products. Even if prices decline sharply, the impact on the financial system should be negligible because of very low investor participation. Broad-based improvement in numerous industry-sensitive indicators shown in Chart 2 on page 2 suggest the gains in commodity prices are at least partially attributable to improving demand rather than purely driven by speculative frenzy. In fact, improving Chinese demand is also reflected in a firmer global shipping rate. The Baltic Dry Index has almost quadrupled since its February lows, which hardly has anything to do with Chinese retail speculators (Chart 8, top panel). Massive price gains in some commodities such as steel and coal have been partially driven by the Chinese authorities' attempts early this year to "de-capacity" the two sectors, with aggressive efforts to cut idle capacity and reduce domestic production. The self-imposed restrictions together with improving demand have led to sharp price gains and a significant rebound in imports of related products (Chart 8, bottom panel). This confirms our view that the overcapacity issue in the Chinese industrial sector has been overestimated.6 Moreover, regulators' control on domestic supply has been relaxed, which will likely lead to rising domestic production in due course - this bodes well for Chinese domestic business activity, but poorly for the prices of related products. Historically, commodity prices have been positively correlated with China's growth trajectory, and negatively correlated with the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 9). Currently, the commodities rally clearly reflects regained strength in Chinese industrial activity, but has ignored the recent strength of the greenback, leading to a glaring divergence that has been very rare in recent history. Chart 8More Signs Of ##br## Improving Demand Chart 9Macro Drivers And Commodity Prices: ##br##Mind The Gap It remains to be seen how such a divergence will eventually converge. Our hunch is that the dollar will likely continue to rally in the near term, which means commodity prices could converge to the downside. Our commodities team has upgraded base metals from underweight earlier this year on China's reflation efforts, and is currently neutral on the asset class. What is more certain, however, is that China's reflation efforts and growth improvement should also lift Chinese H shares, but the price gains of H shares so far have been much more muted. Earlier this year we recommended going long Chinese H shares against the CRB index, which so far has been flat. We are still comfortable holding this position. The bottom line is that we do not advocate chasing the current rally in base metals. Chinese H shares are a safer play on Chinese reflation and growth improvement. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty", dated November 10, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "2016: A Choppy Bottoming", dated January 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010", dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?", dated November 24, 2016; and "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture", dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Myth Of Chinese Overcapacity", dated October 6, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Investors continue to overstate the constraints the Trump administration faces; Tax reform will happen, likely much sooner than the markets appreciate; Infrastructure spending will be modest, but will also face no constraints; Trump's de-globalization agenda - on both immigration and trade - faces few, if any, constraints; Book gains on long S&P 500 / short gold, long Japanese equities, long USD/JPY, and close long European versus global equities for a small loss. Maintain a long SMEs / short MNCs strategic outlook as a play on de-globalization. Feature "It used to be cars were made in Flint, and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint." - President-Elect Donald J. Trump, Flint, Michigan, September 14, 2016 Regular readers of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy know that our methodology emphasizes policymakers' constraints over their preferences. We abide by the simple maxim that preferences are optional and subject to constraints, while constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. President-elect Donald J. Trump is not unique. In the long term, his preferences will be cajoled and imprisoned by his constraints. However, investors may be overstating the impact of constraints in the short term. This is because Trump is a transformational - rather than merely transactional - leader whose election is a product of the yearning for significant change by the U.S. electorate.1 The key difference between the two leadership styles is that transformational leaders seek change by influencing and motivating their followers to break with convention. They make an appeal on normative and ideological grounds. Meanwhile, transactional leaders seek to maintain the status quo by satisfying their followers' basic needs. The latter use sticks and carrots, the former inspire. In the long term, even transformational leaders like Trump will be whipsawed by their material and constitutional constraints into the narrow tunnel of available options. But as we discuss in this Special Report, President-elect Trump will have a lot more room to maneuver than investors may think. That will be good for some assets, bad for others. Trump's Blue-Collar Base To understand the priorities of the Trump administration - as well his lack of political constraints - investors need to respect Trump's shock victory on November 8. Trump won the election because he was able to extend his "White Hype" strategy to the Midwest states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and came close to winning Minnesota) (Map 1).2 Map 1Electoral College Vote, Nov. 29, 2016 To extend the Republican voting base into these traditionally "blue" states, Trump appealed to white blue-collar workers, many of whom voted for President Obama in 2012. Though he squeaked by with narrow vote-margins, he was not expected to be competitive in these states at all: Hillary Clinton did not visit Wisconsin once during her campaign (Chart 1). Trade was a chief concern of these disenchanted "Rust Belt" voters. Exit polls show that they agreed with Trump's message that globalization and neoliberal trade policies have sapped the U.S. of jobs, wages, and job security (Chart 2). Chart 1Hillary Failed To##br## Ride Obama's Coattails Chart 2Trump's Winning Constituency##br## Angry About Trade Infrastructure, and government spending more broadly, were also major concerns - Trump's election was effectively an "anti-austerity" vote. Throughout the campaign Trump showed himself to be indifferent to budget deficits and debt, at least relative to the GOP leadership of the past six years. Instead he shattered GOP orthodoxy by promising to avoid any cuts to entitlement spending and contravened the party's fiscal hawks by promising to spend $1 trillion (later $550 billion) on infrastructure, e.g. the "bad drinking water" problem referred to in the quote at the start of this report. By contrast, Trump paid less attention to tax reform. Yes, he promised to slash taxes, even after reducing the scope of his extravagant September 2015 tax cut proposal. But no, this was not the focus of his campaign and did not get him elected. Instead, it is an area of common ground between himself and the GOP, and it has been the party's main pursuit in recent years. No one knows what Trump is going to do when he takes office. His statements are famously all over the place and he often positions himself at the opposite sides of a policy issue at the same time, prompting us to label him America's first "Quantum Politician."3 His cabinet is only beginning to take shape. Therefore, his main agenda and priorities - traditionally outlined in the upcoming Inaugural Address on January 20 - remain inchoate at best. Nevertheless, trade protections and better infrastructure were core demands of Trump's blue-collar electoral coalition and we expect him to follow through with actions, not least because he needs these states for upcoming elections in 2018 and 2020. Bottom Line: Trump's personal policy preferences are shrouded in mystery. However, investors should assume that he will take the preferences of the Midwest blue-collar voters seriously. They delivered him the presidency. Tax Reform The main reason for the market's exuberance since the election - aside from a "relief rally" given that the sky has not fallen4 - has been the prospect of substantial tax cuts. With Republicans holding all levels of government - and Democrats unable to filibuster tax reform in the Senate due to the "reconciliation procedure"5 - investors are rightly optimistic that the U.S. will finally see significant reforms. We review the plan, investigate its constraints, and assess the impact below. The Plan Trump is asking for much bigger tax cuts than the Republican Party's major alternative, House Speaker Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" plan.6 Trump would slash the corporate tax rate to 15% for all businesses, with flow-through businesses (80% of all U.S. businesses) eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under the individual income tax rate (as currently).7 The GOP, by contrast, would set the corporate rate at 20% and the flow-through business rate at 25%. Trump and the GOP agree that the individual income tax should be reduced from seven to three brackets, with the marginal rates at 12%, 25%, and 33%. This would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.8 Where Trump and the GOP differ is on how to handle deductions, the flow-through businesses, child tax credits, and other issues - with Trump generally more inclined toward government largesse. Another element of tax reform is the proposed repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings. An estimated $2.6-$3 trillion is stashed "abroad" (often only in a legal sense), which enables companies to defer paying the corporate tax rate due upon repatriation. Trump is following in the footsteps of President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in attempting to collect these taxes - with the Republicans also broadly on board.9 Overall, Trump's plan would cut taxes and tax revenues much more aggressively than the GOP plan. Trump would see $1.3 trillion more in personal tax cuts and $1.7 trillion more in corporate taxes than the GOP plan over the coming decade (Chart 3). The country's debt-GDP ratio would grow by 25%, well above the GOP's 10-12% increase (Chart 4). Chart 3Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Tax Cuts Chart 4Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Debt The Constraints We see no significant political or constitutional constraints facing the GOP and Trump. If we had to pick, we would assume that the ultimate deal will look a lot more like the GOP plan. The two sides will be able to hammer out a compromise for the following reasons: Given the reconciliation rules in the Senate, the Democrats cannot filibuster tax-cutting legislation. Both the Reagan and Bush administrations passed tax cuts in their first year in office - Reagan signed them into law in August, Bush in June. Trump, like Bush, has the advantage of GOP control of both houses of Congress. He and his party would have to fumble the ball very badly to fail on comprehensive tax reform in 2017. Republicans have been demanding tax reform since 2010 and have several "off-the-shelf" plans to draw from, including Ryan's plan. Staffers know the issues. Trump has also already reduced his original ambitions to meet them halfway. Since Trump's campaign did not focus on tax reform, he can afford to let the GOP take the lead on it - he will still get credit for the resulting deal and will expect GOP support on infrastructure, immigration, and trade in turn. The first constraint that does exist is complexity. Comprehensive tax reform has not occurred since 1986, under Reagan, because it is fiendishly tricky. This means the timing could be delayed - perhaps as late as the third quarter of 2017, despite the eagerness of both Congress and the White House for reform. The second constraint is one of priorities. Trump and the GOP have a busy agenda for the first half of 2017, with taxes, Obamacare, and Trump's infrastructure plan. Rumors suggest that Congress will use its first reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare. But since they do not know what will replace the current law yet, it would make more sense to reverse the order and do tax reform first. This will be easier, again, because tax reform has been a major issue for Republicans for a decade. Third is the problem of permanence. Assuming the Republicans use reconciliation to pass their tax reform, they will not be allowed to increase the federal budget deficit beyond the ten-year time frame of the budget resolution. They will have to include a "sunset" clause on the tax cuts, as occurred with the Bush tax cuts in 2001, leaving them vulnerable to expiration under the next administration.10 The Impact What will a sweeping tax reform plan mean? Headline U.S. corporate taxes are higher than every other country in the OECD, so the U.S. corporate sector will ostensibly gain competitiveness (Chart 5). This factor, combined with repatriation and threats of protectionism against outsourcing multi-national corporates (MNCs), should lift corporate investment in the U.S. Chart 5U.S. Companies Will Get Competitive Reducing loopholes would broaden the corporate tax base, the key value of the reform from the perspective of revenues and the country's economic structure. Multinational corporations already pay a lower effective tax rate than the official 35% corporate rate, so the impact will depend on their current effective rate as well as the new rate. Trump's plan would only increase effective taxes for firms in the utilities sector, while the GOP plan could increase effective taxes for firms in finance, electronics, transportation, and leasing. In both cases, companies in construction, retail, agriculture, refining, and non-durable manufacturing stand to benefit the most (Chart 6). Chart 6Tax Cuts Benefit Some Sectors More Than Others A key question is how flow-through businesses are treated: whether they get Trump's 15% or the GOP's 25%. In the latter case they would see a tax hike (from an average rate of 19%) and thereafter be punished relative to more capital-heavy "C" corporations. Trump is a "populist" insofar as his plan would support flow-through businesses. Bottom Line: The quickest and biggest impact of Trump's fiscal policies on GDP growth will come from his tax cuts. With the Republicans long preparing for tax reform, and fully controlling Congress, tax reform is all but a done deal - and probably by Q3 2017 at latest. The outstanding question is whether Trump's infrastructure spending will be included in tax reform and thus compound the positive fiscal impact in 2017, or be pushed off into 2018. Fiscal Spending Trump's proposed $550 billion in new infrastructure investment is as nebulous as many of his other promises. However, as outlined above, we believe that Trump's victory partly depended on this issue and investors should not ignore Trump's commitment to it. Constraints are overstated. The Plan Trump's first clear infrastructure proposal came from two of his special advisers, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro.11 They propose government tax credits for private entities who invest in infrastructure projects. They argue that $1 trillion in new infrastructure investment - the same number cited on Trump's campaign website as the country's estimated needs over the next decade - would require $167 billion in equity investment, which could then be leveraged. To raise these sums, they propose the government offer a tax credit equal to 82% of the equity amount. They contend that the plan would be deficit-neutral because payments for the government tax credit would be matched with tax revenues from the labor involved in construction and the corporate profits flowing from the projects, charged at Trump's 15% corporate rate. The other component of the Ross-Navarro plan consists in combining infrastructure financing with the tax repatriation plan - a common proposal in Washington. Companies that are repatriating their earnings at the lower 10% rate could thus invest in infrastructure projects and use the 82% tax credit on that investment to cover the cost of their repatriation taxes. If the Trump administration sticks with this proposal, it will require the GOP to include the infrastructure plan in the tax reform bill. Or, given the bipartisan support for both a new repatriation tax and building infrastructure, Trump could turn to the Democrats for a separate bill covering these two policies. However, the specifics of the Ross-Navarro plan can be chucked out the window at will. They were designed to win the election, not to bind the administration's hands. Already, Trump has reversed his stance on the possibility of a state-run infrastructure bank (one of Clinton's proposals) as a way of financing new projects. What matters is that Trump and his top advisors are enthralled by the idea of a populist or "big government"-style conservatism that takes advantage of historically low interest rates - the post-financial crisis "Keynesian" moment - to stimulate the economy and improve U.S. productivity in the long run.12 Trump's emphasis on this issue in his November 8 victory speech says it all. Thus Trump's infrastructure ambitions are likely to be prioritized and will certainly not be abandoned. Unless Trump drastically alters his handling of the issue on January 20 - which we consider highly unlikely - it should be considered a top priority. The Constraints What are the constraints? President Obama's stimulus plan passed in February 2009, immediately after taking office, but that was in the midst of a financial crisis. Now conditions are different. Infrastructure is popular, but the timing with the economic cycle is not perfect, and the fiscal hawks in the GOP will try to water down Trump's proposals. Our clients are particularly concerned that the Tea Party-linked Republicans in Congress will be a major political hurdle. We disagree. On the issue of funding, what is important for legislative passage is not whether the plan ends up being "deficit neutral" as promised, but whether it can be marketed as such. Key Republicans like Kevin Brady, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, have already admitted that some of the revenues from repatriated earnings will go toward infrastructure. Public-private partnerships will give Republicans a way of presenting the project as deficit-friendly. And it is true that interest rates are low for borrowers (at least for now), including state and local authorities - which account for the clear majority of infrastructure spending in the U.S. Political constraints are few. Public support for infrastructure is a no-brainer, opinion polls show that the public wants better infrastructure (Chart 7). It is also one of the least polarizing issues of all the issues in a recent Pew survey (Chart 8). Chart 7The 'Right' Kind Of ##br##Government Spending: Infrastructure Chart 8Infrastructure Is Not##br## A Partisan Issue Moreover, there is no reason to believe that modern Republican presidents are particularly fiscally austere - Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes were not (Chart 9). And Republican voters are not so fearful of big government when their party is at the helm as when they are in opposition (Chart 10). Election results show that voters consistently approve of about 70% of local transportation funding initiatives, which means they vote in favor of higher taxes to receive better infrastructure (Chart 11). Chart 9Fact: Republicans Run Bigger Budget Deficits Chart 10No Ruling Party Fears Big Government What about the Tea Party? It is true that fiscal conservatives in the GOP are skeptical of Trump's infrastructure ambitions. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus make up about 60 combined votes. However, Trump's combination of Eisenhower big-spending Republicanism and populism won the election and has therefore written austerity's obituary. Furthermore, voters identifying with the Tea Party voted for Trump in the Republican primaries, according to exit polls (Chart 12). Hesitancy to support Trump on ideological grounds even caused the former Chairman of the Tea Party Caucus, Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), to lose his primary election to a more Trump-friendly challenger. Given that all members of the House of Representatives must run for re-election in 2018 - with campaigning starting in merely 18 months - they will dare not oppose Trump for fear of being Huelskamped themselves. Chart 11The 'Right' Kind Of Tax Hike: Paying For Roads Chart 12Trump Won The Tea Party Vote The political winds against austerity were shifting even before Trump. In January 2015, the GOP-controlled Congress approved of "dynamic scoring," an accounting method that considers the holistic impact of budget measures - spending and/or tax cuts - on revenue and thus deficits.13 The GOP has also recently come close to readmitting "earmarks," legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks were done away with in 2011, but they have crept back in different guises (Chart 13). Republican members of Congress can hear the gravy train and are scrambling to ensure they get on board. They want to be able to ride the new wave of spending all the way back to re-election in their home districts. Chart 13Pork-Barrel Prohibition Is Ending Finally, if Congress takes up an infrastructure-repatriation tax bill separately from the more partisan tax cuts, Trump may be able to offset any holdout fiscal hawks with support from Democrats. In late 2015, Democrats and Republicans voted together on the first highway funding bill in ten years, with large margins in both houses, easily overwhelming dissent from the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus. Vulnerable Democrats in the now "Trump Blue" states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will be particularly interested in crossing the aisle on any infrastructure spending legislation. The Impact What will be the size and impact of Trump's infrastructure spending? Currently his transition team says he will oversee $550 billion in new investments, albeit offering no details or timeframe. This would be 72% of Obama's 2009 five-year stimulus at a time when there is little or no output or unemployment gap. In other words, the plan is pro-cyclical stimulus that will likely end up generating "too much" growth at a time when inflation expectations are already rising and the output gap is closing. The downside could be a rate-hike induced recession in 12-18 months. In terms of its impact on debt levels, infrastructure spending is less of a concern. The federal share of that $550 billion - i.e. the size of the tax credit for private participants - is going to be much smaller. During the campaign Trump implied $1 trillion in new investments over ten years, but the federal tax credit would have been a "deficit neutral" $137 billion. Applying the same ratio, back of envelope, Trump now aims for a $75 billion tax credit for the $550 billion worth of projects. But there will also likely be other components to the plan, such as federal support for state and local debt-financed infrastructure. Thus the headline size of Trump's infrastructure plan is far bigger than the federal commitment. Still, investors should appreciate that despite its modest size, the plan marks a break from the austerity-focused past. Bottom Line: Trump's election signals an anti-austerity turn in U.S. politics from which the fiscal hawks in the GOP cannot hide. Trump will ultimately receive congressional support on infrastructure spending, possibly bipartisan, and this "Return of G" will mark an important inflection point in U.S. economic policy.14 Immigration Globalization is, broadly defined, the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. Trump began his campaign in June 2015 with a blistering speech opposing illegal immigration. His anti-immigrant rhetoric ratcheted up from that point, but while the media focused on the alleged xenophobia of his comments, Trump's message was consistently focused on the economic downside of an "open borders" policy. Since the election, Trump's rhetoric on immigration has dramatically softened. The Plan There are two components of Trump's immigration plan as far as we can tell: deportation and border enforcement. On the first, Trump's primary goal is to terminate Obama's "two illegal executive amnesties," i.e. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).15 This means he opposes two programs that are already frozen. In addition, he has pledged to deport 2-3 million undocumented immigrants, emphasizing criminals and drug offenders. This is comparable to Obama's 2.5 million deportations from 2009-15, the highest clip on record. We expect Trump to accelerate the pace of deportations, but it is by no means clear that he will do so, or do so dramatically. There is as yet no clear plan to deal with high-skilled immigrants, especially those arriving on H-1B non-immigrant visas authorizing temporary employment. Trump has made conflicting statements regarding the H-1B program, saying he wanted to keep attracting highly skilled workers to the U.S. but also criticizing the program specifically during a debate. Trump's pick for the attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, is a big opponent of the program. There is considerable evidence that the H-1B program hurts the wages of domestic workers, particularly in the tech sector.16 As for Trump's notorious "border wall," it is shaping up to be a change in degree, not kind. The Clinton administration's "deterrence through prevention" policy, beginning in 1994, and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, have led to extensive fencing and wall construction along the border over the past two decades. Trump will seek to fill gaps, reinforce border barriers, and probably erect better fences near population centers as more visible signs of his achievements. But he will not be building a Great Wall of Trump. The Constraints There are no major constitutional constraints on any of the proposals, since Trump is reversing the Obama administration's illegal non-enforcement of existing immigration law.17 The chief constraint Trump faces when it comes to increasing the pace of deportations and building enhanced walling and fencing is the cost. The threat to make Mexico provide all the funds is going to be watered down in negotiations.18 Trump could increase the Department of Homeland Security's budget, which slowed from 12% annual growth under Bush to 2.7% under Obama. Presumably congressional opposition would not be too virulent given the purpose. But spending on immigration enforcement already outpaces that of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined. A bigger constraint is whether, after the border is "normalized," Trump will follow through on his promise to make a "determination" on what to do with the non-criminal illegal immigrants. This language implies that he is ultimately amenable to comprehensive immigration reform and even a path to citizenship - a proposal that has already passed the Senate in an earlier form. To pass such a comprehensive reform bill, however, Trump will need to work with the Democrats in the Senate as they can and will filibuster any immigration reform bill that does not have a path towards some form of amnesty for the immigrants in the country. What of the timing? Deportations can begin promptly upon taking office - the agencies are already capable. Increasing border enforcement and structures will likely go into his first fiscal 2018 budget request - we expect the GOP Congress to be receptive. As for broader immigration reform, these will be the slowest to materialize, if ever. Previous GOP immigration reform laws passed after the midterm elections in 1986 and 1990, so 2018 may be a useful marker. The Impact On the margin, less immigration into the U.S. should raise domestic wages, particularly for the two sectors where low-skilled immigrants are most likely to be employed: agriculture and construction. Bottom Line: Trump's immigration policy is hardly revolutionary, despite his campaign focus on the issue. He has few constraints to his announced policies, but they are likely to be unimpressive in scope. There are three potential risks to our sanguine view. First, Trump decides to deport all the 11 million illegal migrants in the country, causing considerable political and social unrest. Second, he actually means what he says about Mexico paying for the wall. Third, he tries to end the H-B1 high-skilled temporary workers program. Reforming the overall immigration process - including a possible pathway to citizenship - is constrained by Democrats' control of the Senate and will therefore likely proceed on a longer timeframe (perhaps even after 2020). Trade Trump's trade protectionism is the main risk to markets and global risk assets. His victory represents a true break with the past seventy years of ever-greater globalization (Chart 14). We have expected the trend of de-globalization since, at least, 2014. However, we are surprised how quickly the issue became the electoral issue. Chart 14Globalization Peaked Before Trump Investors now have to re-price numerous assets for the de-globalization premium. The Plan Trump has threatened to name China a currency manipulator on day one in office, impose a 45% across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods, and a 35% tariff on Mexican goods. He has committed to canceling the U.S.'s biggest trade initiative in the twenty-first century, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and he has threatened to renegotiate NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO, leaving U.S. tariffs with nothing but Smoot-Hawley to keep them tethered to earth. Thus Trump's victory threatens to become not only the chief symptom of "peak globalization"19 but also a great aggravator of it and cause of further de-globalization going forward (Chart 15). Chart 15De-Globalization To Continue There are signs that Trump may act on his rhetoric and enact a radical change in U.S. trade policy. Two of his top advisers, Dan DiMicco and Robert Lighthizer, are outspoken economic nationalists and "China bashers." DiMicco has dedicated his life to fighting Chinese mercantilism and believes that the U.S. and China are "already in a trade war; we [the U.S.] just haven't shown up yet."20 Yet there are also signs that Trump intends only to drive a hard bargain, not start a trade war. For instance, he says his first action will be to rip up the TPP, but this deal has not been ratified and was internationally controversial because it excluded China (as well as U.S. allies Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines). Moreover, while Trump says he will deem China a currency manipulator on day one in office, this is largely a symbolic act that entails no automatic, concrete punitive measures.21 Therefore Trump could take these two actions alone, or other symbolic ones, to prove that he is an economic patriot, and then settle down to "renegotiate" key trade relationships along the lines of the status quo. It is too soon to draw conclusions, but we do not think things will turn out as peachy as the best-case scenario. This is in large part due to the fact that the U.S. president has tremendous leeway on trade. The Constraints The U.S. president has few constraints when it comes to trade policy, for the following reasons:22 Delegated powers from Congress: Congress is the constitutional power that governs trade with foreign states. However, Congress passes laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies. Even when Congress approves a trade deal like NAFTA, it is the president who is empowered to lower tariffs - and therefore the president can issue a new proclamation raising them. The past century has produced a series of laws that give Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Table 1).23 A president's legal advisors are only too happy to use their imaginations. Nixon invoked the Korean War, which ended in 1952, as a justification for a 10% surcharge tariff on all dutiable goods in 1971, simply because the Korean state of emergency had never officially ended! Table 1Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Executive power over foreign policy: The executive branch is the constitutional power that governs foreign relations. Since international economics are inseparable from foreign relations and national security, the president has prerogative over matters even remotely touching trade. Both Congress and the judicial branch will tend to defer to a president in exercising these powers as well - at least until a gross subversion of national interest occurs. And even then, it is not clear how the constitutional struggle would play out - the courts always bow to the executive on matters of national security. Wars do not have to be declared for wartime trade powers, so all the U.S.'s various military operations across the world provide fodder for Trump to invoke the Trading With The Enemy Act, giving him power to regulate all forms of trade and seize foreign assets. Time is on the executive's side: Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court move to oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliation from abroad. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress.24 As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. The Impact Trump is deeply committed to a tougher trade stance, has few constraints, and his protectionism deeply resonated with key swing voters. We doubt he will settle for cosmetic changes and the establishment Republican "business as usual." This means China relations are a major risk, especially in the long run. We will expand on these tensions, which will become geopolitical, in an upcoming report. What happens if Trump pursues protectionism wholeheartedly? First, the good. On the margin, some trade protections could attract foreign companies to relocate to the U.S. and discourage American companies from outsourcing - boosting investment and wages. It could also help slow the decline of American manufacturing employment. A simple comparison with Europe and Japan shows that the decrease of manufacturing jobs has been more dramatic in the U.S., so policy may be able to conserve what is left (Chart 16). Second, the bad. All the developed countries have seen manufacturing jobs decrease, and not only because of globalization. Technological advancement has played a major role as well. You can block off foreign goods, but you cannot roll back the march of the automatons (Chart 17), as our colleagues at U.S. Investment Strategy recently pointed out.25 Trump's blue collar workers may realize, after four years of protectionism that jobs are not coming back while the WalMart bills are getting pricier. Who will they vote for after that realization sets in? Chart 16U.S. Manufacturing Decline##br## Sharper Than In Other DM Chart 17Reasons For Robots##br## To Replace Workers Third, the ugly. If the U.S. goes protectionist, it will pull the rug out from neoliberalism globally and provide cover for similar protectionist realignments around the world - retaliatory as well as copy-cat. A falling tide lowers all boats. Worse than that, the decline in trade, insofar as it forces countries to rely on domestic markets, pursue spheres of influence, and protect access to vital commodities, could spark military conflict. Germany and Japan both started World War II precisely because their autarkic fantasies required expansion and pre-emptive warfare. This would be the mercantilist future that we warned clients of earlier this year.26 None of this is a foregone conclusion. There is simply too little information to judge which way the Trump administration will go - and how fast. But the fact remains that on trade, more so than anything else, Trump will be unconstrained. Bottom Line: De-globalization is the major risk of the Trump presidency.27 How Trump handles relations with China in 2017 will be the key indicator of whether he aims to revolutionize U.S. trade policy to the detriment of global exports and growth. If he blows past the rule of law and imposes steep "retribution" tariffs or quotas right away, then fasten your seat belt. Investment Conclusions For several years we have warned clients that austerity is kaput.28 It was never politically sustainable in the post-Debt Supercycle, low -growth environment that followed the 2008 Great Recession. The pendulum is swinging hard the opposite way, with Trump's heavy-handed, somewhat haphazard approach, adding momentum. Once the U.S. moves against austerity, we expect policymakers in other countries to follow. In the near term, the carnage in long-dated Treasury markets may pause as investors overthink the constraints to "G." Bond yields have already moved quite a bit. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over.29 We continue to recommend that clients play the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener, a position that is in the black by 11.2 basis points since November 1. In the long term, Trump's anti-globalization policies will impact investors the most. More protectionism, less immigration, and dollar-bullish fiscal policies will all be negative for America's MNCs. Meanwhile, fiscal spending, a stronger USD, and corporate tax reform that benefits small and medium enterprises (SMEs) paying the high marginal tax rate will benefit Main Street. As such, the way to play de-globalization in the U.S. is to go long SMEs / short MNCs, a view that we will expand upon in an upcoming collaborative report with BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy. Beyond the U.S., de-globalization will favor domestic consumer-oriented sectors and countries and will imperil international export-oriented sectors and countries. We particularly fear for export-heavy emerging markets, which depend on globalization for both capital and market access. Developed markets should have an easier time transitioning into a more protectionist world. As such, we continue to recommend a structural overweight in DM versus EM. For the time being, we are booking gains on our long S&P 500 / short gold trade, for a gain of 11.53% since November 8, due to our concern that equities may have already priced-in the lifting of animal spirits but not the negatives of de-globalization. Near term risk also abounds for our high-beta positions such as our long Japanese equities trade (gain of 3.99% since initiation on September 26) and long USD/JPY (gain of 3.57%, same initiation day). We will book gains and look to reinitiate both at a later date, given that our positive view on Japan remains the same. We will also close our long European versus global equities view, for a small loss of 1.34%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 In physics, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - fundamental to quantum mechanics - supposes that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known. Trump does not merely "flip flop" on policy issues - as his opponent Secretary Hillary Clinton was often accused of doing - but literally embodies two opposing policy views at the same time. 4 #TrumpisnotLucifer. 5 Reconciliation is a legislative process in the U.S. Senate that limits debate on a budget bill to twenty hours, thus preventing the minority from using the filibuster to veto the process. The procedure has also been used to enact tax cuts. In both 2001 and 2003, the Republican-held Senate used the procedure to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts. 6 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. For analysis, please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, September 16, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 7 A "flow-through" entity passes income on to the owners and/or investors. As such, the business can avoid double taxation, where both investors and the business are taxed. Only the investors and owners of a flow-through business are taxed on revenues. 8 Several groups would see no substantial tax cuts under the plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would see their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would see their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would see their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 9 A favorable rate of 10% (4% for non-cash assets) will be applied to accumulated earnings prior to 2017, while future overseas earnings will be subject to the corporate tax rate of 15%. The Tax Policy Center projects that $148 billion worth of unpaid tax revenue can be collected through the "deemed" (mandatory) repatriation. 10 The Bush tax cuts were extended in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, with some exceptions, like for the highest income groups. 11 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. The Trump campaign initially implied a decade-long total investment of $1 trillion "Trump Infrastructure Plan," with the government contributing a seed amount. The $1 trillion infrastructure-gap estimate comes from the National Association of Manufacturers, "Build to Win," dated 2016, available at www.donaldjtrump.com. The Trump team has reduced its total infrastructure investment goal to $550 billion, a number reaffirmed on Trump's White House transition website, www.greatagain.gov. 12 Please see Daniella Diaz, "Steve Bannon: 'Darkness is good,'" CNN, November 19, 2016, available at edition.cnn.com. Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, said: "Like (Andrew) Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ... It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." 13 Dynamic-scoring, also known as macroeconomic modeling, is a favorite tool of Republican legislators when passing tax cut legislation. It allows them to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. However, there is no reason why Republicans, under Trump, could not use the methodology for infrastructure spending as well. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 By these executive orders, the Obama administration sought to prioritize the deportation of "high-risk" illegal immigrants while delaying action on more sympathetic groups. However, only one program was actually implemented (DACA), and both ground to a halt when the Supreme Court ordered an injunction. The justices concurred with lower courts that halted the programs as a result of the burden they would place on state finances. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Immigration Wars: The Coming Battle For Skilled Migrants," dated March 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The courts have already done the heavy lifting. Moreover the nullification of DACA only makes illegal immigrant children eligible for deportation, it does not necessitate that Trump actually deport them - that would require increasing the budget and capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cope with an additional four million deportees, all "low risk" and politically sympathetic. We doubt Trump will do this. 18 If Trump acts on his promise to make Mexico pay for the wall - a claim notably missing from his transition website greatagain.gov - then he may need to precipitate a foreign policy crisis (not to mention court opposition) through his own series of controversial executive orders. Alternatively, he could try to get Congress to amend the Patriot Act to allow the U.S. to extract payments from remittances from the U.S. to Mexico, but he would be at risk of a Senate filibuster. Both pose significant constraints. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Lisa Reisman, "Nucor Provides Testimony To US House Ways And Means Committee On China Exchange Rate Policy," Metal Miner, September 16, 2010, available at www.agmetalminer.com. 21 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 In what follows we are indebted to an excellent paper by Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 23 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 24 A Federal District Court and the Supreme Court ruled against Harry Truman's executive orders to seize steel mills during the Korean War, but Truman's lawyers did not provide a statutory basis for his actions - they simply argued that the constitution did not limit the president's powers! 25 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Easier Fiscal, Tighter Money?," dated November 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Austerity Is Kaput," dated May 8, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Recommended Allocation The Meaning Of Trump Sudden large shocks in markets are rare. But the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President is one such. After a shock of this magnitude, markets tend initially to overreact, then correct, before settling on a new course. Market action since November 9th has caused many asset prices to overshoot short term. It is likely that U.S. bond yields, inflation expectations, the performance of bank and materials stocks, and the U.S. dollar (Chart 1) will correct over the next month or so, perhaps triggered by the Fed's likely rate hike on December 14th or simply by shifting expectations for Trump's economic policies. But what is the likely long-term course, which should set our asset allocation for the next 6 to 12 months? We think investors should take Trump at least partly at his word when he says he will enact tax cuts and increase infrastructure investment. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service sees few constraints on Trump from Congress in the short term.1 The OECD in its latest Economic Outlook has given its imprimatur, arguing that "a stronger fiscal policy response is needed," and estimating that U.S. fiscal stimulus could add 0.1 percentage point to global growth next year and 0.3 points in 2018.2 If such a policy boosted growth and inflation, it would be negative for bonds. The only question, with 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields having already risen by almost 100 bps since July, is how much of this is priced in. In the long run, government bond yields are broadly correlated with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). In H1 2016, U.S. nominal GDP growth was 2.7%, and for 2016 as a whole probably about 3.2%. If it picks up to 4-5% in 2017 (2.5-3% real, plus inflation of 1.5-2%), an additional rise of 50-100 bps in the 10-year yield would not be surprising (though ECB and BoJ asset purchases might somewhat limit the rise in yields). Moreover, growth was already accelerating before Trump's victory. The effects of 2015's commodity shock and industrial and profits recessions have passed, with U.S. Q3 GDP growth revised up to 3.2% and the Fed's NowCasting models suggesting 2.5%-3.6% for Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index has surprised on the upside in recent weeks both in the U.S. and Europe - though not in emerging markets (Chart 3). And the Q3 earnings season in the U.S. was well above expectations, with EPS coming in at +3.3% YoY (compared to a consensus forecast pre-results of -2.2%). Analysts' forecasts for 2017 EPS growth are a comparatively modest 11%. Chart 1Some Short-Term Overshoots Chart 2Bond Yields Relate To Nominal Growth Chart 3Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside But whether this new world will be positive for equities is harder to answer. Trump's unpredictability raises policy uncertainty: how much emphasis, for example, will he put on trade protectionism or confrontational foreign policy? This should raise the risk premium. The Fed's response will also be key. Futures have now priced in the rate hike in December and (almost) the two further rate hikes in the Fed's dots for 2017 (Chart 4). But the market still sees the long-term equilibrium rate (as expressed in five-year five-year forwards) as only just over 2%, compared to the Fed's 2.9%. And, although Janet Yellen has suggested that the Fed will act only after Trump's policies take effect ("We will be watching the decisions that Congress makes and updating our economic outlook as the policy landscape becomes clearer," she said), if core PCE inflation continues to pick up in 2017 beyond the current 1.7% and a strong stimulus package is implemented, the Fed might accelerate its rate hikes. More worryingly, Trump's fundamental views on monetary policy are unknown: does he, as a businessman, like low rates, or will he listen to his "hard money" advisers who believe the Fed has been too lax? Since he can appoint six FOMC governors in his first year in office, he will be able to influence monetary policy. Too fast a rise in Fed rates would be negative for equities. On balance, in this environment we see equities outperforming bonds over the next 12 months. It is unusual for the stock-to-bond ratio to decline outside of a global recession (Chart 5) - and, with the extra boost from fiscal policy (with Trump possibly joined by Japan, the U.K., China and others), a recession is unlikely over our forecast horizon. Chart 4Market Has Priced In 2017 Fed Hikes - ##br##But Not The Long-Term Chart 5Stocks Don't Often ##br##Underperform Outside Recession Accordingly, we are raising our recommendation for global equities to overweight, and lowering bonds to underweight. The problem is timing: we recognize that there may be a better entry point over the next couple of months. Some investors may, therefore, want to implement the change gradually. In addition, some recent market moves are not fundamentally justified: for example, we cannot see how the materials sector would be a significant beneficiary from a Trump fiscal stimulus. We plan to make further detailed adjustments to our equity country and sector recommendations and bond-class recommendations in the next Quarterly Portfolio Update, to be published on December 15th. Currencies: Stronger U.S. growth and tighter monetary policy suggest that the USD will continue to appreciate. The dollar looks somewhat expensive but is still well below the peak of overvaluation at the end of previous bouts of strength in 1985 and 2002. The Bank of Japan's policy of capping the 10-year JGB yield at 0% has worked well (pushing the yen down by 12% against the dollar in the past two months) and, as rates elsewhere rise, this implies further long-run yen weakness. The euro is likely to weaken less, with eurozone growth recently surprising on the upside and the ECB therefore likely to reconsider the amount of asset purchases at some point next year, though probably not at its meeting on December 8th. Emerging market currencies continue to look particularly vulnerable. Equities: In common currency terms, U.S. equities are more attractive than European ones. In local currency terms, however, the call is closer since the strong dollar will depress U.S. earnings relative to those in Europe, and an acceleration of global economic growth should help the more cyclical eurozone stock market. On the other hand, Europe faces structural issues, such as the chronically poor profitability of its banking system, and political risk from a series of upcoming elections (starting with the Italian referendum on December 4th). We continue to like Japan (on a currency hedged basis) and expect that the BoJ's policy will be bolstered by government fiscal and employment policies. We remain underweight on emerging markets. They have always been vulnerable during periods of dollar strength, and political side-effects from their bout of economic weakness in 2011-5 are starting to spread, recently to Turkey, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Korea and South Africa. Fixed Income: The risk of tighter Fed policy and higher yields suggest investors should remain underweight duration. We have liked U.S. TIPS over nominal bonds all year and, with 10-year breakeven inflation still only at 1.8%, they remain attractive in the current environment. We reduced high-yield bonds to neutral on September 30th, on the grounds that investors were no longer being sufficiently compensated for default risk: they have subsequently given -3% return, while equities rallied. We recommend investment grade credits for those investors who need to pick up yield (Chart 6). Commodities: After the OPEC agreement on production cuts, we expect the oil price to move towards $55 in the first few months of 2017 as inventories are drawn down. Over the longer run the risk is to the upside as a dearth of new projects, following cancellations last year, will tighten the supply/demand balance. Metals prices have strengthened since Trump's victory, with the CRB Raw Industrials Index up sharply (Chart 7). This makes little sense. Trump's stimulus will be centered on tax, not infrastructure. China remains a far more important factor: the U.S. represented only 7% of global steel consumption in 2015, for example, compared to 43% for China. And China's recent stimulus is running out of steam. Chart 6Yield On Investment Grade Credits ##br##Still Attractive Chart 7Trump Shouldn't Have ##br##This Much Effect On Metals Prices Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report,"U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see OECD Global Economic Outlook, November 2016, available at http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/economicoutlook.htm. Recommended Asset Allocation

Special Report

Highlights The economy is near full employment, which means that a more fertile cyclical environment for wage hikes is getting underway. However, the aging of the U.S. workforce is exerting powerful downward pressure on overall wage inflation. The policy implication is that the Fed is unlikely to find itself behind the inflation curve and the Fed rate cycle will ultimately be shallow relative to recent cycles. The extent to which cyclical wage pressures exert upward pressure on CPI inflation will depend on the ability of companies to raise prices to protect profit margins. The evidence so far suggests that wage growth acceleration will prove difficult to pass on via price hikes. The global environment remains highly competitive and the general problem is inadequate demand, not scarce resources. Feature The wage and employment outlook remains critical for investors. The speed and timing of a renormalization of interest rates and the outlook for Treasury yields hinges critically on the Fed's assessment of labor market slack and the speed at which wage growth will feed into higher generalized inflation. For stocks, the key question is whether wage gains will lead to better top-line growth or simply continue to eat away at margins (Chart 1). Chart 1Will Wages Spark Generalized Inflation? Throughout this report, we use the employment cost index as our primary measure of wage inflation. We use this metric because we view it as the best index for measuring the cost of employing workers. It measures compensation growth within the same firms and occupational groups and its construction is analogous to the CPI index for the price of goods and services. But there are several other wage trackers and indices published and each one is slightly different. In the Appendix on page 16, we list the main ones and describe their usefulness. Our analysis concludes that the lackluster performance of wage growth since the beginning of the recovery reflected both cyclical and structural forces. However, a more fertile cyclical environment for wage hikes is underway, as most indicators suggest that the U.S. economy is nearing full employment. From a structural perspective, there are enough headwinds to believe that a wage-price spiral will not get out of hand. This reinforces our view that the Fed rate cycle will ultimately be shallow relative to recent cycles, and that policymakers are unlikely to find themselves behind the inflation curve. Why This Cycle Is Harder To Gauge Gauging the tightness of the labor market has been more uncertain this cycle because there have been strong structural trends at work that have clouded the cyclical picture. Importantly, it is unclear to what extent a lower participation rate is due to demographics versus a very long shadow on the Great Recession. Indeed, forecasting changes in the participation rate is more difficult than normal because it has declined for two different reasons. On the cyclical side, an unusually large number of people dropped out of the labor force during and after the Great Recession (Chart 2). As is typical in recession, workers became discouraged by the poor quantity and quality of jobs on offer, and stopped looking for work. Some of these workers are now returning to the workforce as the economy improves and jobs become more plentiful, but not all will return: the long-term unemployed rarely return to the job market.1 Nonetheless, there is a pro-cyclical component to the participation rate, which is in effect. In contrast, structural factors are working in the opposite direction. Demographic trends are depressing the structural, or "equilibrium," participation rate. The equilibrium shown in Chart 3 is the rate that would have emerged if the Great Recession had not occurred and there was no discouraged-worker effect. The underlying (structural) participation rate has fallen by almost 0.25 percentage points per year since 2007, as aging baby boomers move into the over-55 age cohorts, which have a lower average participation rate. Chart 2Dropped Out Chart 3Structural Factors Suppressing Wages Moreover, the underlying labor force participation of the 16-24 year-old segment has been eroding for more than two decades. Youth now stay in school longer. Labor force attachment for youth tends to be more sensitive to business cycles. Prior to the 2001 recession, youth were "first out" (losing jobs early in recessions) and "first in" (getting hired in the early stages of a recovery). But the last two recessions saw massive permanent drops in their participation rate. Finally, the rise of the gig economy has made it less clear what percentage of young people are truly looking for work. Participation for the 25-34 year old cohort is still under 82% and is lagging the pick-up in participation of their older peers. It is unclear to us why labor participation among this cohort is still falling. Perhaps some of the drop is due to a failure of statistics to adequately measure participation in the sharing economy (Uber, AirBnB, etc), but even if only half the decline is "real," it is still alarming. The remainder of this report is divided into three sections. First, we gauge the force of secular headwinds. In the second section, we examine how much cyclical labor market slack is left. Finally, taking the structural and cyclical backdrops together, we present the implications for Fed policy and Treasuries, and risks to the corporate sector. There Are Structural Headwinds To Wage Gains... The long-term slowdown in wage growth in the past 35 years has been, in part, reflective of the aging of the workforce. Recent research from the Federal Reserve Bank of NY shows that across all education cohorts, rapid real wage growth occurs early in a worker's career, with positive real wage growth ending when the worker is in his/her forties. This is followed by a period of either flat to declining real wages. By age 55, all education categories are experiencing negative real wage growth, on average (Chart 4). Chart 4Wage Inflation Is An Early Career Phenomenon The rapid real wage growth early in a worker's career is explained by a combination of on-the-job learning and better matching of workers to jobs. In early career, workers will change jobs more often in search of a position that optimally utilizes their skills. As workers age, the decline in the pace of their real wage growth reflects a diminished incentive to invest in new skills (remaining work life is shorter) and fewer job changes (because they have found a good job match). As the labor force ages, more workers will transition from the fast to the slow or negative real wage growth phases of their careers. This is precisely what is happening today. And in fact, researchers at the FRBNY go on to conclude that since 1982, changing demographics and aging of the U.S. adult population has reduced the real wage growth rate by about one-third. According to their work, this slowdown is likely to continue in the years ahead as more individuals approach retirement and experience negative real wage growth. This is corroborated by the expected evolution of the U.S. population profile through 2020 (Charts 5A, 5B and 5C). Chart 5A1990 U.S. Population Chart 5B2015 U.S. Population Chart 5C2025 U.S. Population (Projected) Another factor to consider is the composition of the work force. As baby boomers retire, the fraction of exits from the labor force that have a wage that is above the median is getting larger, reflecting the relatively high level of earnings of older workers. In other words, as high-paid older workers leave the workforce, the vast majority of new entrants to full-time employment do so at below-median wages, putting downward pressure on median earnings growth.2 Another important structural factor is the impact of automation of production across the wage spectrum. In the past 25 years, employment has become concentrated at the tails of the occupational skill distribution (Chart 6). Academics refer to this as the polarization of job opportunities, i.e. employment growth is concentrated in relatively high-skill, high-wage and in low-skill, low-wage jobs, at the expense of "middle skill" jobs that are routine in nature and can be codified in computer software and performed by machines (or sent electronically to foreign worksites and performed by lower wage workers). Since 1988, wages both above and below the median rose relative to the median (median wages have stagnated for over the past thirty years, and has thus become a misleading measure of wage dynamics).3 Chart 6The Hollowing Out Of Middle Skills Jobs The bottom line is that both the aging of the workforce and the exiting of higher-paid mature workers are suppressing overall measures of wage growth. Even if the labor market is at full employment, wage growth is likely to be muted relative to past cycles given the demographic drags. In other words, the Phillips Curve - inverse relationship between the level of unemployment and the rate of inflation - is quite flat. Even if the Fed allows the economy to "run hot," wage pressures will take longer to accumulate. ...Although Cyclical Wage Pressures Are Building The above analysis suggests that demographics will dampen wage growth throughout the business cycle. The implication is that since wages are being depressed by factors outside of the business cycle, the pace of wage growth may not actually fully reflect the amount of slack in the labor market. Below, we look at a range of indicators to gauge how much slack is left in the labor market. Unemployment Rate Relative To NAIRU: The Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU) is a theoretical threshold at which the economy is in balance and inflation pressures are neither rising nor falling. Since the unemployment rate is now below the Fed's best guess of the NAIRU, it would suggest that wage pressures are building. Chart 7 shows historically, the unemployment gap correctly corresponded with the direction of wage growth. However, estimates of NAIRU are revised with the benefit of hindsight such that the resulting labor market gap lines up with changes in the trend in inflation. In real time, it is extremely difficult to estimate NAIRU. The Fed itself has repeatedly misjudged NAIRU: since August 2013, the Fed has revised down its estimate of NAIRU six times, from 5.6% to 4.9%. But even if further revisions, say to 4.5% are forthcoming, it is clear from the chart that the bulk of excess labor has been absorbed. Chart 7Near Full Employment... Takeaway: The concept of employment slack is simple in theory, but tough to quantify in practice. Nonetheless, even if NAIRU is half a percent lower, this concept supports the view that slack is almost gone. Participation Rate Gap: In the previous discussion, we highlighted that the decline in labor force participation has both a cyclical and structural component. The labor force participation rate peaked in 2000, when the first of the baby boomers started leaving the labor market. However, in every recession and recovery, there is nonetheless a cyclical recovery in participation, as previously discouraged workers are enticed back into the labor market. As shown in Chart 8, this has finally started to occur in the past twelve months. However, the large gap between the actual participation rate and the demographically adjusted participation rate suggests that there is still some way to go. It is unclear if this gap will fully close since, as highlighted above, the long-term unemployed rarely return to the job market. Chart 8...But Still Some Slack Here? If we assume that due to the long-term unemployed effect, the participation rate makes it only halfway back to the demographically adjusted trend line, i.e. to 63.2%, then it will require a further 1.1 million jobs to be created by the end of 2017 in order to close the gap.4 If payrolls continue to average 150,000 per month, then it would take about an extra two quarters to create enough jobs to absorb these workers. Is it possible that discouraged workers return in such droves that the unemployment rate rises despite reasonable payroll gains? History is not much help, since the labor market has never seen such a mass exodus from the labor market due to discouragement. However, it seems unlikely that the absorption of discouraged workers would cause the unemployment rate to head higher at this point in the cycle. Until 2016, annual labor force growth had stayed under 1% per year since the beginning of the recession (Chart 9). In the past year, it has shot to 2%, which is on par with the cyclical highs in previous business cycles dating back to 1990. This strength has only managed to halt the decline in the unemployment rate. Takeaway: The labor force participation rate remains lower than what demographics predict. Part of that gap may be permanent since the long-term unemployed may never return to the labor force. But even with some improvement in participation, it is unlikely that full employment would be delayed by more than a couple of quarters. Underemployed Gap: One feature of this recovery is the massive pool of idle or unemployed workers. There are several ways to measure this; one popular way is the U-6 unemployment rate which includes discouraged and marginally attached workers (Chart 10). The U-6 rate peaked at 17% at the height of the recession and has nearly - but not quite - fallen back to pre-recession rates. Is this "not quite" significant? A back of the envelope calculation shows that if part-time workers for economic reasons fell back to its historic average, i.e. by another 1.5%, this would constitute an additional 2.4 million workers moving back into full-time work. At average payroll growth of 150,000 per month, it would take another 12-18 months to absorb these extra workers. Chart 9Labor Force Growth Already Popped Chart 10Some Slack Here? Takeaway: The still elevated number of employees working part-time for economic reasons represents an extra source of labor market slack. Nominal Wage Rigidity: The inability or unwillingness of employers to accept nominal pay cuts is known as downward wage rigidity. In recessions, employers tend to avoid reducing pay because cuts to nominal wages threaten to reduce morale. The implication of this behavior is that the price of labor does not accurately reflect underlying supply and demand conditions for work. Zero wage inflation continues to be the rule rather than the exception. In Chart 11, the bar that spikes at zero indicates the number of workers who report no change in wages over one year. The data in the chart shows a snapshot from 2011, but Chart 12 notes that the picture has not changed since the early days of the Great Recession. This chart shows that the proportion of workers whose wages have stayed exactly the same (i.e. wage growth of zero) increased substantially during the recession and has remained elevated since then. This makes sense since; if employers "overpaid" during recession, then businesses will try to delay wage hikes when market conditions tighten. Chart 11(Part I) Wage Hikes Stuck At Zero? Chart 12(Part II) Wage Hikes Stuck At Zero? Strictly speaking, the wage rigidity phenomenon does not help us better understand the current amount of slack. Nonetheless, there is a cyclical element behind the high rates of zero wage increases. Monitoring nominal wage rigidity may help understand the extent that employers are still "catching up" even once employment slack is completely gone. Takeaway: The proportion of workers receiving zero wage hikes is unchanged since the recession took hold and is historically very elevated. Businesses do not appear under pressure to offer substantial pay raises. Chart 13Wage And CPI Inflation Often Diverge Conclusions And Investment Implications Gauging full employment and therefore the likelihood of substantial wage inflation is tricky. The Fed is also struggling to interpret the data. At the November FOMC meeting, two members of the committee voted for an immediate rate hike, primarily arguing that the economy is already at full employment, and that "monetary policy was unable to affect the longer-run growth potential of the economy." Participants expressed uncertainty about how long the participation rate could be expected to continue rising, particularly in light of the downward structural trend in the series. But they also argued that, given the depressed level of prime-age male participation, participation should head higher! Our take is that, for years, cyclical and structural forces pulled in the same direction to produce a very poor backdrop for wage inflation. The same structural forces continue to restrain wage growth. But cyclically, various indicators described above suggest that the economy is near full employment. Therefore, for the remainder of the business cycle, the direction of wage growth inflation is (mildly) up. Since the mid-1980s, total compensation growth has peaked around 4%. In the last business cycle, when some of these structural headwinds were just beginning, compensation growth failed to breach 3.5% (Chart 13). Given that the structural forces are stronger today, the economy will have to run even hotter if wage inflation were to climb to that level. To what extent will cyclical wage pressures exert upward pressure on CPI inflation? That will depend on the ability of companies to raise prices in order to protect profit margins. Chart 13 shows that wage inflation trends do not lead, and sometimes diverge from, inflation in goods and services. That is because about 20% of the CPI and PCE baskets are not produced on U.S. soil and therefore, domestic costs are not a factor in production. Service sector inflation has a much tighter relationship with wage inflation, albeit even here, wage price growth does not consistently lead services growth. Theory suggests that there is a two-way relationship between wages and prices. Sometimes inflation starts in the labor market and spills over into consumer prices (cost-push inflation), and sometimes it is the other way around (demand-pull inflation). For bonds, wages play an important role in determining the pace and magnitude of Fed rate hikes. Most likely, secular wage trends that mute the cyclical signal for full employment will, on the margin, reduce the likelihood of an aggressive tightening cycle: the Fed is unlikely to find itself behind the curve. This suggests that, while Treasury yields will likely trend higher over the next year or more, a vicious and prolonged bond bear market can be avoided. Chart 14Businesses: It's Not Easy To Raise Prices Table 1Industry Group Pricing Power For stocks, we are monitoring the ability of companies to pass on input costs very closely. Table 1 shows a breakdown of pricing power at the industry level. Pricing power has been improving over the past twelve months, but is still weak. Retail prices are still falling and surveys do not indicate businesses are on the cusp of raising prices. Chart 14 shows that NFIB surveys of price hikes does a good job of leading goods and services price inflation. The current message is that strongly rising prices are unlikely in the near future and that wage growth acceleration in the next several months will prove difficult to pass on via price hikes. The global environment remains highly competitive and the general problem is inadequate demand, not scarce resources. We will update the pricing table on a monthly basis, with particular emphasis on the evolution of industries with domestically sourced revenues and cost structures (i.e. that are most exposed to domestic labor costs). Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Which Measure Of Wage Inflation? There are various measures of wage trends published by different U.S. statistical offices. None of them are perfect. Below, we provide a definition of the key gauges, as well as their main virtues and flaws (Chart 15). Chart 15Various Measures Of Wage Inflation Employment Cost Index (ECI): The ECI is the broadest measure of average compensation of all workers in the private sector. Total compensation is calculated as the average compensation (for jobs tracked in the survey) multiplied by the number of workers in that industry and occupation. The trend in wages and salaries can be tracked independently of other benefits. The wage component tracks mostly similar readings as other wage measures, but the total compensation index captures changes in the structure of compensation packages - the mix of wages and various forms of benefits. Average Hourly Earnings (AHE): AHE is a timely data set, released alongside monthly payroll numbers. It includes average earnings of private non-farm production and non-supervisory positions. The major disadvantages of this measure is that hourly wage earners represent only about 58% of workers and do not account for trends in salaried jobs. Earnings do not include bonus bay or employee benefits. The data are available beginning only in 2006. Compensation Per Hour: This measure covers private nonfarm workers including all types of employment (employees, proprietors, and unpaid family members) for all forms of compensation (wages, stock options, benefits, and employer payroll taxes). It is the most comprehensive in terms of sources of compensation. It has the most history, beginning in 1947. The major drawback of this data is late release dates: the quarterly data are typically reported five weeks after the end of quarter and are subject to revisions one month later. The data also tend to be more volatile, making it more difficult in real-time to establish the trend. Unit Labor Costs: Unit labor is compensation per hour divided by output per hour (productivity). The data are released alongside compensation per hour data (described above) and suffers from the same long time lags and revisions. Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker: The wage tracker measures the growth in wages for the same worker over a 12-month period. The main problem with the tracker is that it tends to be biased upward, since it includes an "experience premium", i.e. it tends to follow older workers that stay in jobs longer and does not account for churn in the job market. But following the same workers also means that it is less susceptible to compositional or demographic changes in the economy. In this sense, it is a better indicator of cyclical wage trends. The tracker also differs from other indices because it publishes the median percent gain (loss) in wages irrespective of the level of earnings. 1 Please see "How Tight Is The Labor Market?," Alan B. Kreuger, NBER Reporter 2015 Number 3. 2 "What's Up With Wage Growth?," FRBSF Economic Letter, March 7, 2016 Mary C. Daly, Bart Hobijn, and Benjamin Pyle. 3 "The Trend Is The Cycle: Job Polarization And Jobless Recoveries", NBER Working Paper 18334, http://www.nber.org/papers/w18334.pdf 4 Our calculation further assumes that labor force will continue to grow at 0.8% per year as per BLS forecasts.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The rise in Treasury yields is approaching a threshold that has often caused equity market indigestion. Stay focused on current monetary conditions rather than fiscal unknowns. The bear market in lodging stocks has played itself out: take profits on an underweight position. The sell-off in home improvement retail shares is overdone, and a contrarian long position should pay off despite the backup in mortgage rates. Recent Changes S&P Hotels Index - Take profits of 3% and raise to neutral. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Momentum may carry the market higher in the short run, but from current valuation levels, stocks, the dollar and bond yields can only climb sustainably in tandem if a non-inflationary economic boom is taking hold. In that sense, equities appear to be taking their cue solely from the anticipated U.S. political shift while ignoring the tightening in monetary conditions and hints of emerging market financial strains. The equity market outlook hinges on a judgement call as to whether the action in the currency and Treasury yields is reflective or restrictive? There are no easy answers, but below we discuss some of the variables that influence this decision. Chart 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield has climbed above fair value. Equity bulls may rejoice because yields have sauntered much deeper into undervalued territory before stocks have run into trouble. The big difference this time is that the greenback is also climbing. Parallel powerful rises in both the currency and yields are rare, and typically culminate in steep market pullbacks. Importantly, most of the recent yield rise reflects an increase in inflation expectations. The real component, i.e. economic growth expectations, has been far more muted (Chart 2). Chart 1Stocks, Yields, And The Dollar##br## Can't Climb Together For Long Chart 2Inflation Expectations ##br##Are Driving Up Yields Equities shrugged off the surge in yields during the 2013 taper tantrum. However, yields never rose above fair value then, and the increase was almost entirely due to the real component rather than a rise in inflation expectations, i.e. it was more reflective than restrictive (Chart 2). Meanwhile, equities had just been through a difficult stretch in 2012 on fears the euro was going to break apart, and sovereign yields in the periphery were in the early stages of a long descent (Chart 3). In other words, there was a structural tailwind for equities. In addition, the U.S. dollar was range-bound during that period, overall profit growth was strong, business lending was picking up and corporate bond spreads stayed tight (Chart 3). The outlook today is much different. Euro area periphery yields are up sharply, EM bond spreads are flaring out, profit growth is much weaker and the U.S. is importing deflation through U.S. dollar strength (Chart 3), particularly against China and other developing market currencies. Thus, we are uncomfortable making comparisons between today and 2013 broad market resilience. The speed of upward adjustment in Treasury yields also influences equity prices. At the moment, yields are rising faster than profit growth. The overall market has typically become more volatile and often corrects when the growth in yields outpaces profit growth (Chart 4). Chart 3The 2013 Taper Tantrum##br## Is Not A Good Guide Chart 4Too Far,##br## Too Fast? The most painful equity corrections have occurred when this gauge drops below -10%, as the latter suggests that inflation expectations are increasing rapidly, warning of valuation and monetary tightening ahead. This threshold is in danger of being breached on any further rise in yields. However, if the currency continues climbing, yields are unlikely to rise much further, if at all, underscoring that the next big tactical sub-surface market move may be a recovery in yield-dependent sectors as investors begin to fret about the deflationary and profit-sapping impact of a strong dollar. Against this backdrop, we caution against getting too comfortable extrapolating market momentum, because recent gains could be erased just as quickly as they accrued if monetary conditions keep tightening. On a sub-surface basis, value is being created in interest rate-sensitive sectors and destroyed in cyclical sectors, primarily industrials, as discussed last week. Meanwhile, we maintain a domestic vs. global focus, and recommend buying into the pullback in housing stocks. Buy Home Improvement Retailers Like many other interest rate-sensitive groups, home improvement retailers (HIR) have lagged recently, fueled by the surge in bond yields, and hence, mortgage rates. We doubt this is sustainable. U.S. currency strength will refocus attention on the lack of top-line growth in global-oriented industries, which will reverse recent countertrend intra-sector capital flows, and ensure that bond yields are capped. The housing market slowed this year by most metrics (housing starts, permits, sales growth), which undermined remodeling activity. In response, building supply store sales cooled (Chart 5, bottom panel). Recent earnings reports from housing-geared industries such as appliances and furniture vendors have also disappointed. Analysts have been quick to slash both sales and earnings growth estimates (Chart 5). However, as often happens, an overreaction appears to be occurring. There is little indication of a return to punitively deflationary industry conditions. In fact, the producer price index for appliance and furniture makers has shot up in recent months, heralding stronger HIR pricing power (Chart 6, second panel). Lumber prices are also up sharply, despite U.S. dollar strength, which will boost the top-line and profit margins (Chart 6). At a fixed spread over lumber prices, the higher the latter go, the more profit earned at a constant volume sold. We continue to be encouraged by the long-term outlook. Household formation is accelerating now that the unemployment rate is below 5%. Building permits are below average levels, even excluding the housing bubble period (Chart 7). Chart 5Housing Slowdown Already Reflected Chart 6No Sign Of Deflationary Stress Chart 7Still Early In The Mortgage Cycle Consumers have only recently become comfortable taking on mortgage debt, and first time buyers represent a rising share of total home sales. Banks are ready and willing to extend mortgage credit (Chart 7, bottom panel), unlike most other credit. Ergo, housing activity still has legs. While the backup in Treasury yields will no doubt make housing somewhat less affordable, Chart 8 shows that even a 100 basis point rise would not push affordability back to average levels. Mortgage payments would still be well below the long-term average as a share of income, and effective mortgage rates are still extremely low. Therefore, we would not be surprised to see stable housing metrics in the coming months, despite the yield back up. Existing house prices are flirting with new highs (Chart 7), despite the early stage of mortgage re-leveraging, which bodes well for future house price increases. If homeowners are confident that house prices will stay solid, they will be more inclined to make home improvement investments. These factors are represented in our HIR model. The model is climbing steadily, exhibiting a rare positive divergence from relative share prices (Chart 9). Our inclination is to side with the objective message from the model. The valuation case for the group has improved markedly. The forward P/E is well below the average of the last decade and the dividend yield is now on a par with that of the broad market. Typically, a positive yield differential has been a bullish relative performance signal (Chart 10). Chart 8Higher Yields Are Not A Game Changer Chart 9Our Model Remains Firm Chart 10Discounting A Weak Housing Market Most importantly, the industry continues to generate sky-high return on equity, and free cash flow is booming. The implication is that shareholder-friendly stock buybacks and dividend increases should continue apace, especially compared with the overall corporate sector. At current valuation levels, there is room for a playable recovery in relative performance, especially if Treasury yields level off on the back of relentless U.S. dollar strength. Bottom Line: Home improvement retail (BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW) stock price weakness is a buying opportunity. We recommend an above-benchmark allocation. End Of The Bear Market In Hotel Stocks The S&P hotels index has been in a relative performance bear market since late last year when we reduced it to underweight, but downside risks have diminished even though a number of players have lowered 2017 guidance and revenue per room (REVPAR) expectations. Relative value has been created by the past year of underperformance. A variety of valuation metrics show that the price ratio is plumbing recessionary-type levels (Chart 11). Most notably, the relative price/sales ratio is almost on a par with the lows during the Great Recession, when a steep contraction was anticipated for the foreseeable future. Such a dire forecast is not in the cards, even if economic growth disappoints an increasingly optimistic consensus. The plunge in net earnings revisions has not been confirmed by a downturn in hours worked. Typically, these two series move hand-in-hand (Chart 12). Instead, hours worked continue to trend higher suggesting that reduced profit guidance is bringing analyst expectations to more attainable levels rather than signaling impending doom. After all, persistent hotel construction growth means that demand needs to run hot in order to keep deflationary pressures at bay. This has been a tall order in the past year, as tight business budgets and lackluster discretionary consumer spending have kept REVPAR under wraps (Chart 13). Occupancy rates remain below previous expansionary run rates, leaving revenue per room more exposed than normal to demand soft spots. Chart 11End Of Bear Market Chart 12An Undershoot In Estimates Chart 13Slow, But Steady, Growth REVPAR could be supported by decent consumer spending. Wage growth, and thus aggregate income, are perking up, job security has risen and income expectations are on the upswing. Consumers are behaving as if income gains will be permanent, given the increase in consumer loan demand. Low fuel prices and the surge in vehicle miles driven are consistent with solid lodging outlays. The latter have recently reaccelerated, and are supporting better than market hotel pricing power (Chart 13). Importantly, hotel profit margins are no longer under extreme duress. Decent pricing power gains and an easing in the industry's total wage bill inflation have combined to support an increase in our profit margin proxy (Chart 14). All of this implies that profit conditions are stabilizing, just as valuations have been squeezed, warranting an upgrade to neutral. Why not a full shift to overweight? There are a number of factors to consider. The lodging industry is battling secular crosscurrents. On the positive side, the lodging industry has consistently managed to increase its share of total consumer spending, in real terms (Chart 15), with periodic underperformance phases, typically during recessions. This likely reflects well-timed capacity investments and strong brands. As a result, hotel pricing power has also been in a structural uptrend (Chart 15). This cycle, pricing power has lagged, consistent with subdued REVPAR gains, but hotels have still managed to aggressively grow earnings per share. While buybacks have undoubtedly played a role in this advance, EPS is following a typical pattern. In the last four decades, hotels have suffered four major recession-related earnings contractions. After each contraction, profits ultimately surpassed their previous peak by more than 75%, on average. The duration of the upcycle averaged five years. This cycle the recovery has already lasted more than six years, but hotel profits have only increased 30% from the 2007 peak. That implies substantial profit upside ahead just to reach the average, albeit pricing power will need to kick in as it has in past cycles. On the downside, consumers are still showing a penchant for spending more on essentials compared with non-essentials. The ratio of retail sales at cyclical stores to non-discretionary stores has been highly correlated with relative performance (Chart 16, top panel). Chart 14The Margin Squeeze Is Over Chart 15Structural Tailwinds... Chart 16... And Headwinds That raises some question about the latest burst of strength in lodging outlays, especially in view of the pruning in business travel budgets, as confirmed by anecdotes from recent earnings reports. BCA's capital spending model is not forecasting any improvement (Chart 16, bottom panel). Lingering in the background has been the relentless increase in lodging construction. Capacity growth represents a long-term threat to pricing power (Chart 16), over and above the threat from new entrants such as AirBnB. Expansion explains why real hotel consumer prices have not come close to hitting new highs even though real hotel spending has. Hotel capacity expansion heralds intensifying deflationary pressure. Meanwhile, hotels have sizeable global operations, exposing profitability to risks of incremental U.S. dollar strength. Consequently, we would prefer to await signs of an impending improvement in capital spending, and thus, business travel, and/or a sharp downturn in hotel construction spending, before lifting positions all the way to overweight. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P hotels index (BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, WYN) to neutral, locking in an 3% relative performance profit since our initial underweight call nearly a year ago. A further upgrade is tempting, but awaits relief from pricing power constraints. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights The pace of globalization is slowing, reflecting the culmination of a decades-long process of integrating China and other emerging economies into the international trading system. Most commentators overstate the benefits of globalization, while glossing over the increasingly large distributional effects. A modest retreat from globalization would not irrevocably harm global growth, but a full-fledged trade war certainly would. Investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures from a Trump administration. Tactically underweight global equities. U.S. large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H-1B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan. EM stocks could also come under pressure. Treasurys are oversold, but the structural trend for bond yields remains to the upside. The trade-weighted dollar could rally another 5% from current levels. And Take Your Damn Trump Hat With You If there is one sure way to get thrown out of a Davos party, it is by telling the assembled guests that globalization is not all that it is cracked up to be. After all, don't all cultured people know that globalization has made the world vastly richer? Well, maybe it has, but the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as most people might imagine. Twenty years ago, the consensus among economists and policymakers was that international capital mobility should be strongly encouraged. Poor countries had a myriad of profitable investment opportunities, but lacked the savings to finance them, so the argument went. The solution, they were told, was to borrow from wealthier countries, which had a surfeit of savings. In the early 1990s, everything seemed to be going to plan. Emerging markets were running large current account deficits, using the proceeds from capital inflows to finance all sorts of investment projects. And then the Peso Crisis struck. And then the Asian Crisis. And just as quickly as the money came in, it came straight out. The result was mass defaults and depressed economies. Since then, most emerging economies have been trying to maintain current account surpluses - exactly the opposite of what theory would predict. Not to worry, the experts reassured us. What happened in emerging markets could not happen to developed economies with their strong institutions and sophisticated methods for allocating capital. The global financial crisis and later, the European sovereign debt crisis, put these claims to shame. Faced with this reality, the IMF published an official report in 2012 acknowledging that "rapid capital inflow surges or disruptive outflows can create policy challenges." It concluded that "there is ... no presumption that full liberalization is an appropriate goal for all countries at all times."1 This was a stunning about-face for an institution that, among other things, had sharply criticized Malaysia for imposing capital controls in 1998. Diminishing Returns To Globalization In contrast to capital account liberalization, the case for free trade in goods and services stands on sturdier ground. That said, proponents of free trade tend to overstate the benefits. As Paul Krugman has noted, the widely-used Eaton-Kortum model suggests that only about 5% of the increase in global GDP since 1990 can be attributed to higher trade flows.2 Moreover, it appears that the benefits to middle class workers in advanced economies from globalization have fallen over time. This is partly because trade liberalization, like most aspects of economic life, is subject to diminishing returns. Chart 1 shows that each succeeding round of trade liberalization has resulted in ever-smaller declines in average tariff rates. With tariffs on most tradeable goods now close to zero in the U.S. and most other advanced economies, there is less scope to liberalize trade further. As a result, proposed trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have focused on harmonizing business regulations and expanding patent and copyright protections. To call these deals "free trade agreements" is a stretch. Chart 1Tariffs Have Little Room To Decline Further Granted, many "invisible" barriers continue to stymie trade. John Helliwell has documented that a typical firm in Toronto generates roughly ten times as much sales from customers in Vancouver as it does from a similarly-sized, equidistant city in the U.S. such as Seattle.3 As it turns out, differences in legal systems and labor market institutions across countries, as well as differing social networks, can be as important an obstacle to trade flows as tariffs and quotas. But think about what this implies: If globalization were the key to economic development, then Canada, as a small economy situated next to a much larger neighbour, could prosper by dismantling these massive invisible trade barriers. However, we know that this proposition cannot be true: Canada is already a very rich economy, so any further trade liberalization would only boost incomes at the margin. What's Behind The Trade Slowdown? The analysis above helps put the much-discussed slowdown in global trade into context (Chart 2). As the IMF concluded in its most recent World Economic Outlook, while much of the deceleration in trade growth is attributable to cyclical factors, structural considerations also loom large.4 In particular, the boost to global trade over the past few decades stemming from the collapse of communism, the progressive elimination of most trade barriers, and the decision by most developing economies to abandon import-substitution policies appears to have run its course (Chart 3). In addition, the regional disaggregation of the global supply chain is slowing. These days, motor vehicle parts are shipped across national borders many times over before the final product rolls off the assembly line. The manufacturing process can only be broken down so much before diminishing returns set in. Chart 2Global Trade ##br##Growth Is Slowing Chart 3The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Productivity gains in the global shipping industry are also moderating. As Marc Levinson argued in his book "The Box," the widespread adoption of containerization in the 1970s completely revolutionized the logistics and transportation industry. As a consequence, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are long gone. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them into waiting trucks or trains. To the extent that there are still technological advances on the horizon - think self-driving trucks - these are likely to reduce intranational transport costs more than international costs. This could result in even slower trade growth by encouraging onshoring. Trade And Income Distribution Chart 4China's Rise Came Partly At ##br##The Expense Of U.S. Rust Belt Workers As every first-year economics student learns, David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage predicts that real wages will rise when countries specialize in the production of goods that they can manufacture relatively well. Students who stick around (and manage to stay awake) for second-year economics might learn about the Heckscher-Ohlin model. This model qualifies Ricardo's findings. Yes, free trade raises average real wages, but there can be large distributional effects. In particular, low-skilled workers could actually suffer a decline in real wages when rich countries increase trade with poorer countries. As trade ties between advanced and developing countries have grown, these distributional issues have become more important. David Autor has documented that increasing Chinese imports have had a sizable negative effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. (Chart 4).5 It is thus not surprising that voters in Rust Belt states were especially receptive to Donald Trump's protectionist rhetoric. A Tale Of Two Globalizations: China Versus Mexico Most economists agree that trade liberalization has disproportionately benefited developing economies. Nevertheless, there too the benefits are often overstated. China, of course, is frequently cited as an example of a country that has prospered by integrating itself into the global economy. But what about Mexico? It also made a massive push to liberalize trade starting in the mid-1980s, which culminated in NAFTA in 1994. As a consequence, the ratio of Mexican exports-to-GDP rose from 13% in 1994 to 35% at present. Yet, as Chart 5 shows, GDP-per-hour worked has actually declined relative to the U.S. over this period. One key reason why China benefited more from globalization than Mexico is that China had a much better educated workforce. This allowed it to quickly absorb technological know-how from the rest of the world, setting the stage for the spectacular growth of its own domestic industries. Sadly, when it comes to human capital, China is more the exception than the rule across developing economies (Chart 6). Chart 5Trade Liberalization Has Not ##br##Improved Mexico's Relative Productivity Chart 6Educational Achievement ##br##In Emerging Economies: China Stands Out Noble... And Not So Noble Lies To be clear, the discussion above should not be interpreted as arguing that globalization is bad for growth. Trade openness does matter for economic development. However, other things, such as the level of human capital and the quality of domestic economic institutions, matter even more. How can one reconcile this view with the near-apocalyptic terms in which many commentators discuss the anti-globalization sentiment sweeping across many developed economies? Let me suggest two explanations: one noble, one less so. The noble explanation goes beyond economics. Proponents of trade liberalization often argue that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was a leading cause of the Great Depression. On purely economic grounds, this argument makes little sense. Exports accounted for less than 6% of U.S. GDP in 1929. While trade volumes did fall rapidly between 1929 and 1932, this was mainly the result of the economic slump, rather than the cause of it. In fact, trade volumes actually fell more in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 7). Yet, from a political perspective, the importance of Smoot-Hawley is hard to deny. At a time when Nazi Germany was on the rise, the U.S. and its allies were squabbling over trade issues. As such, the main problem with Smooth-Hawley was not that it pushed the U.S. into a Depression, but that it sabotaged diplomatic coordination at a time when it was most needed. One suspects that something similar underlies much of the angst over Trump's trade policies. The Global Trade Alert, currently the most comprehensive database for all types of trade-related measures imposed since the global financial crisis, shows an increase in protectionist measures over the last few years (Chart 8). The risk is that this trend will accelerate after Donald Trump is sworn in as President. Chart 7Global Trade Fell More ##br##During The Great Recession Chart 8Protectionist Measures ##br##Are On The Rise Considering that globalization ran into diminishing returns some time ago, a modest unwinding of globalization would probably not have the calamitous impact that many fear. However, just like a plane that fails to fly sufficiently fast will fall to the ground, a "modest unwind" may prove difficult to achieve in practice. Globalization, in other words, may be approaching stall speed. And given the large number of issues that require global cooperation - terrorism, migration, climate change - that is a risk which requires attention. Money Talks If that were all to the story, it would be easy to forgive those who overstate the economic benefits from globalization in order to preserve the political ones. One suspects, however, that there may also be a self-serving motive at work. The integration of millions of workers from China and other developing economies into the global labor market has put downward pressure on wages, boosting profit margins in the process. Not surprisingly, CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other titans of industry have benefited greatly from this development. Chart 9 shows that most of the increase in income equality since 1980 has occurred not at the 99th percentile, but at the 99.99th percentile and higher. It would be naïve to think that the colossal gains that some have enjoyed from globalization would not color what they say on the subject. Chart 9The (Really) Rich Got Richer Investment Conclusions U.S. equities have been in rally mode since the election. Many aspects of Trump's agenda are good for stocks - corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and fiscal stimulus, just to name a few. These factors make us somewhat constructive on equities over a long-term horizon. Chart 10Tech Stocks Are Heavily ##br##Exposed To Globalism Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Trump's anti-globalization rhetoric represents a direct threat to corporate earnings. While some of Trump's protectionist proposals will undoubtedly be watered down, investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures. Unlike on most issues where he has flip-flopped repeatedly, Trump has consistently espoused a mercantilist view on trade since the 1980s. He is also the sort of person that strives to reward his supporters while disparaging those who slight him. Rust Belt voters awarded Trump the presidency. Their loyalty will not be forgotten. This means the stock market's honeymoon with Donald Trump may not last much longer. We remain tactically cautious global equities and are expressing that view by shorting the NASDAQ 100 futures. Globally-exposed large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H1-B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan (Chart 10). Emerging market equities are also likely to feel the heat from rising protectionist sentiment in developed economies. A stronger dollar will only add to EM woes by putting downward pressure on commodity prices and making it more expensive for EM borrowers to service dollar-denominated loans. As we discussed in "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar" and "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Will Win, And The Dollar Will Rally," the three key elements of Trump's policy agenda - fiscal stimulus, tighter immigration controls, and higher tariffs - are all inflationary, and hence are likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more than it otherwise would.6 Higher U.S. rates, in turn, will keep the greenback well bid. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to strengthen another 5% from current levels. The flipside of a stronger dollar is increasing monetary policy divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world. U.S. bond yields have risen significantly since the election. Tactically, we would not be adding to short duration positions at current levels. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over. As we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook,7 weak potential GDP growth is eroding excess capacity around the world, which is bad news for bonds. Population aging could also shift from being bullish to bearish for bonds, as more people retire and begin to draw down their savings. Meanwhile, central banks are looking for ever more creative ways to boost inflation, while the populist wave is forcing governments to abandon austerity measures. Lastly, and most relevant to this week's discussion, globalization - an inherently deflationary force - is in retreat. This, too, suggests that the longer-term risks to inflation are to the upside. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "The Liberalization And Management Of Capital Flows: An Institutional View," IMF Executive Summary, November 14, 2012. 2 Paul Krugman, "The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)," The New York Times, October 1, 2013. 3 John F. Helliwell and Lawrence L. Schembri, "Borders, Common Currencies, Trade And Welfare: What Can We Learn From The Evidence?" Bank of Canada Review, Spring 2005. 4 Please see "Global Trade: What's behind the Slowdown?" in "Subdued Demand: Symptoms and Remedies," IMF World Economic Outlook (October 2016). 5 David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson, "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects Of Import Competition In The United States," The American Economic Review, Vol. 103, No. 6, (2013): pp. 2121-2168. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar," dated June 3, 2016, and Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. Even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. Trade friction between the U.S. and China may increase with product-specific tariffs, but that a broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may be becoming less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. Over the long run, the "normal" negative correlation between the performance of exchange rate and that of the stock market should also emerge with regards to the RMB and Chinese stocks. Feature Financial markets will continue to grapple with what U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will bring to the global economy as we head into the final trading weeks of 2016. His signature policy proposals - fiscal stimulus, a more restrictive immigration policy, and trade protectionism - have already led to a significant repricing of risk asset, and will continue to unsettle investors. As far as China is concerned, the upshot is that more fiscal stimulus under President Trump will generate stronger American demand, which could spill over to China. The downside risk is undoubtedly protectionism, which will cast a long shadow on an economy that is still heavily dependent on overseas markets.1 President-elect Trump declared on the campaign trail that he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, accompanied by punitive tariffs on Chinese imports that could reach 45%. This adds a major uncertainty to the growth outlook for China next year. Conditions And Remedies For A Currency Manipulator For now, it is impossible to predict what President Trump will do. He has become notably more pragmatic since his election victory. In his first policy statement, he declared his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations as his top priority on trade, while avoiding further China-bashing. However, the true color of his trade policy remains unclear. What is more certain is that the basic conditions that the U.S. Treasury utilizes to evaluate its major trade partners do not justify labeling China as a currency manipulator. The existing Treasury review process of foreign exchange practices is a formal process laid out in statutory law that governs the reporting process, the need for negotiations in cases of manipulation, and the recommended trade remedies if negotiations fail. Specifically, there are three conditions a nation must meet to be labeled a currency manipulator: It runs a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S.; It has a material current account surplus; and It has engaged in persistent one-sided intervention in the foreign exchange market. In China's case, the country does run a significant bilateral trade surplus with the U.S., but its current account surplus as a share of GDP has declined from a peak of 10% in 2007 to 2.5% currently (Chart 1). More importantly, while China's foreign exchange market intervention has indeed been one-sided since 2014, the effort has been to prop up the RMB against the dollar. Without the PBoC's intervention, the RMB would have fallen further, potentially substantially. The RMB may have met all three criteria for currency manipulation before the global financial crisis, but the case is a lot harder to make at the moment. Chart 1Conditions For A Currency Manipulator Moreover, even if China were officially declared as a manipulator, the remedial measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are materially insignificant for a country like China. The U.S. Treasury is required to negotiate with alleged currency manipulators, utilizing several "sticks" if negotiations fail: Prohibit the Overseas Private Investment Corporation from financing (including providing insurance to) new projects in that country; Prohibit the federal government from procuring from that country; Seek additional surveillance of the macroeconomic and exchange rate policies of that country through the International Monetary Fund; Take into account the currency practices in negotiating new bilateral or regional trade agreements with that country. While these "sticks" may be intimidating enough for small open economies, for a country like China, they are largely irrelevant. There is no ongoing negotiation for bilateral trade agreement between the two countries, and on a federal level the U.S. government rarely procures in China, if at all. Therefore, labeling China a currency manipulator may be a highly symbolic move aimed at satisfying Trump supporters, but the real economic consequences are rather small. To be sure, the U.S. president has enough administrative authority to bypass existing legal constraints and take unilateral action on trade issues. However, that would require extraordinary political capital. Barring this rather "extreme" scenario, we expect trade frictions between the U.S. and China to increase in the form of product-specific tariffs. A broader escalation in protectionism is unlikely, at least in the near term. The Impact On Investment Flows From a balance-of-payment point of view, a country running a trade deficit should not be viewed as a sign that it is losing in bilateral trade. Rather, it reflects capital flows from a surplus country to a deficit country in the form of exported domestic savings. In this vein, China running a chronic current account surplus with the U.S. implies that the country as a whole has been accumulating U.S. assets. By the same token, so long as China runs a current account surplus, it means it is still a net creditor to the rest of the world, and the nation's foreign asset holdings, official and private sector combined, continue to increase. In previous years, it was the Chinese central bank that had increased its holdings of foreign assets, primarily in the form of U.S. Treasurys and other low-risk liquid assets. More recently, as the RMB has been depreciating against the dollar, the Chinese domestic private sector been accumulating foreign assets, particularly denominated in U.S. dollars. In fact, the private sector has taken over as the main source of demand for foreign assets, primarily in risker asset classes such as corporate equities, bonds and real estate. The official sector, on the other hand, has been selling foreign asset holdings, as reflected in China's declining official reserves. In other words, rather than experiencing an exodus of capital, there has been a gigantic "swap" of foreign assets between private and public sector in China. Indeed, Chart 2 shows China's official reserves have dropped significantly in the past two years. Chinese official holdings of Treasurys currently stand at USD 1157 billion, down from USD 1315 billion in 2011. Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence suggests that buoyant demand among Chinese households for foreign assets, particularly real estate. For the corporate sector, there has been a dramatic increase in overseas mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and other investment activity by Chinese companies, particularly in the U.S. (Chart 3). So far this year, total announced M&A deals by Chinese firms in the U.S. have already tripled compared to last year, however, most are still in progress and pending. Chart 2The Official Sector Is##br## Shedding Foreign Assets... Chart 3... While The Private ##br##Sector Accumulates Looking forward, if the business environment in the U.S. under President Trump becomes less foreign-friendly, it may impact Chinese enterprises' confidence in acquiring U.S. assets, and complicate Chinese companies' M&A deals. At a minimum, the massive increase in Chinese M&A interest in the U.S. will pause until policy visibility improves, while the outlook for many already announced pending deals will remain murky. This may deter further capital flows to the U.S. by the Chinese private sector. Changing Correlation Between The RMB And Stocks? The RMB has continued to drift lower against the dollar in the past week in both the onshore and offshore markets. Interestingly, Chinese stocks have appeared to have largely ignored the RMB's slide and have continued to move higher. This is in stark contrast to last year's panic selloffs that happened whenever RMB appreciation against the dollar appeared to quicken (Chart 4). In August 2015 and January 2016, the RMB's outsized moves against the dollar caused major disruptions in both A shares and H shares, sending shockwaves across the globe. It is too soon to draw definitive conclusions from very short-term moves. However, the changing correlation between the RMB and Chinese stocks suggests that investors may have become less worried about the RMB and China's foreign exchange policy. First, investors may be getting more accustomed to the RMB's rising volatility. The trade-weighted RMB in recent days has been stable, a sign that the RMB's weakness against the dollar is mainly a reflection of the strong dollar. The People's Bank of China and other relevant authorities have also been paying more attention when communicating to market participants, which may also help anchor investors' expectations. Second, in previous episodes of "sharper" RMB depreciation, the Chinese economy was clearly decelerating, and the RMB weakness further amplified investors' anxiety on China's macro conditions. Currently the Chinese economy is showing notable signs of improvement, particularly in the industrial sector, which also lessens investors' concerns. Chart 4The RMB Is Less Troubling ##br##To Market Chart 5The Mirror Image Between Yen ##br##And Japanese Stocks Finally, the market may be starting to reflect the reflationary impact of a weaker currency rather than the negative consequences of RMB depreciation. China's growth improvement is in no small part attributable to the falling exchange rate. This in and of itself limits the RMB's downside, rather than leading to an endless downward spiral. It remains to be seen whether Chinese stocks will stay calm as the RMB continues to depreciate against a surging dollar. Our hunch is that global equity markets, particularly in the U.S., have become complacent with a strong dollar and rising U.S. interest rates, both of which tighten global liquidity conditions. Therefore, global equities are vulnerable to downside risk, which could spill over to the Chinese market. For now, we are staying on the sidelines and do not suggest investors chase the rally in Chinese equities. However, over the long run, we expect investors will eventually come to terms with the "new normal" for the RMB as it becomes an important macro factor for the economy and stock market. Chart 5 shows that the performance of Japanese stocks has almost been a mirror image of the yen/dollar exchange rate, in which a weaker yen boosts Japan's growth profile as well as stock prices, and vice versa. Barring a crisis scenario, such a correlation will also emerge between the RMB and Chinese stocks over the long run. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture", dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Bank Credit Analyst

Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting in technology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.