Geopolitics

Highlights ECB QE has pushed the euro area's Target2 banking imbalance to an all-time high. Thereby, QE has raised the cost of euro break-up. The ECB must dial down QE because the Target2 banking imbalance is directly related to the size of asset purchases. Core euro area sovereign bonds offer poor relative value in the government bond universe. Long Italian BTPs / short French OATs is now appropriate as a tactical position. Italian bank investors might have to suffer more pain before Brussels ultimately allows a public rescue. Feature "We've eliminated fragmentation in the euro area." Mario Draghi, speaking on October 20, 2016 Mario Draghi is wrong. QE was meant to reduce economic and financial fragmentation within the euro area. But in one important regard, it has done the exact opposite. In an un-fragmented monetary union, banking system liquidity would be spread evenly across the euro area. Unfortunately, the trillions of euros of QE liquidity created by the ECB has concentrated in four northern European countries: Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Finland (but interestingly, not France). This extreme fragmentation is captured in the euro area's Target2 banking imbalance (Box I-1), which is now at an all-time high (Chart of the Week). Box 1: What Is Target2? Target2 stands for Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system. It is the settlement system for euro payment flows between banks in the euro area. These payment flows result from trade or financial transactions such as deposit transfers, sales of financial assets or debt repayments. If the banking system in one member country has more payment inflows than outflows, its national central bank (NCB) accrues a Target2 asset vis-à-vis the ECB. Conversely, if the banking system has more outflows than inflows, the respective NCB accrues a Target2 liability. Target2 balances therefore show the cumulative net payment flows within the euro area. Chart of the WeekQE Has Pushed The Euro Area's Target2 Imbalance To An All-Time High To be absolutely clear, this geographical polarization of bank liquidity is not deposit flight in the strictest sense (Chart I-2). Investors are simply using the ECB's €80bn of monthly bond purchases to offload their Italian, Spanish and Portuguese bonds to the central bank, and hold the received cash in banks in perceived haven countries. Nevertheless, ECB QE has unwittingly facilitated a geographical polarization of bank liquidity more extreme than in the darkest days of 2012 (Chart I-3). Chart I-2No Funding Stresses At The Moment Chart I-3Target2 Imbalances Are The Result Of QE QE Has Exposed Euro Area Banking Fragmentation To understand how this polarization has arisen, it is necessary to grasp how Eurosystem accounting works. The following section is necessarily technical, but stick with it because it is important. The ECB delegates its QE sovereign bond purchases to the respective national central bank (NCB): the Bundesbank buys German bunds, the Bank of France buys OATs, the Bank of Italy buys BTPs, and so on. When the Bank of Italy buys a BTP from, say, an Italian investor, the investor gives up the bond, but simultaneously receives a corresponding asset - cash. If the investor then deposits this cash at an Italian bank, say Unicredit, then Unicredit would have a new liability - the investor deposit. But in line with Eurosystem accounting, Unicredit would simultaneously receive a corresponding credit at its NCB, the Bank of Italy.1 Completing the accounting circle, the Bank of Italy would now have a new liability - the Unicredit claim, but it would also have a corresponding asset - the BTP that it has just bought. Therefore, all three accounts would be in perfect balance (see Figure I-1). Figure I-1Italian Investor Sells A BTP To The Bank Of Italy And Deposits The Cash At Unicredit Now consider what happens if the Italian investor deposits the cash not at Unicredit, but at a German bank, say Commerzbank. In this case, it would be the Bundesbank that had a new liability - the Commerzbank claim. However, the Bundesbank would not have a corresponding asset. Conversely, the Bank of Italy would have a new asset - the BTP, but without a corresponding liability. In order to balance these Eurosystem accounts, the Bundesbank would accrue a Target2 asset vis-à-vis the ECB, while the Bank of Italy would accrue an equal and opposite Target2 liability (see Figure I-2). Figure I-2Italian Investor Sells A BTP To The Bank Of Italy And Deposits The Cash At Commerzbank Essentially, the Target2 imbalance captures the mismatch between a Bundesbank liability denominated in 'German' euros and a corresponding Bank of Italy asset denominated in 'Italian' euros. Aggregated over the whole euro area, these imbalances now amount to more than €1 trillion. Does any of this Eurosystem accounting gymnastics really matter? No, as long as the monetary union holds together and the 'German' euro equals the 'Italian' euro. But if Germany and Italy started using different currencies, then suddenly the Target2 imbalances would matter enormously. This is because the Bundesbank liability to Commerzbank would be redenominated into Deutschemarks, while the Bank of Italy asset would be redenominated into lira. Hence, the ECB might end up with much larger liabilities than assets. In which case, any shortfall would have to be borne by the ECB's shareholders - essentially, euro area member states pro-rata to GDP. The ECB Must Dial Down QE Unlike in the depths of the euro debt crisis, the current Target2 imbalances do not reflect deposit flight. Rather, they are the direct result of ECB QE. Nonetheless, the indisputable fact is that QE has increased the cost of euro break-up. And another six or more months of QE will just add to this cost. Some people might argue that by increasing the cost of a divorce, an actual split becomes less likely. But this reasoning is weak. As we have seen in this year's polling victories for Brexit and President-elect Trump, the biggest risk comes from a populist backlash against the status quo. And populist backlashes do not stop to do detailed cost benefit analysis. Although the ECB is unlikely to broadcast the unintended side-effects of its policy, it must be acutely aware that the costs of QE are rising while its benefits are diminishing. Given that the Target2 imbalances are directly related to the size of asset purchases, the ECB needs to indicate its intention to dial down QE purchases. And if it does need to loosen policy again in the future, it might be better off emulating the Bank of Japan - in targeting a yield rather than an asset purchase amount. The 6-9 month investment implication is that core euro area sovereign bonds offer poor relative value in the government bond universe. And within the core euro area, perhaps French OATs offer the least relative value. OATs are priced as haven sovereign bonds, yet interestingly Target2 imbalances suggest that banking liquidity flows do not regard France as a haven in the same way as Germany (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4French OATs Are Priced ##br##As Haven Bonds... Chart I-5...But Banking Liquidity Flows Do Not ##br##Regard France As A Haven Another implication is that the euro should be stable or stronger against a basket of other developed economy currencies. Indeed, expect euro/pound to lurch up in the first half of next year when the U.K. government triggers Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to formally begin Brexit negotiations. Only then will the EU27 reveal its own negotiating strategy, and it is highly unlikely to be a sweet deal for the U.K. Italian Referendum Result: A Postscript The financial markets have shrugged off the Italian public's resounding "no" to constitutional reform, and rightly so. The current constitution, created in the aftermath of the Second World was designed to prevent a repeat of a populist like Benito Mussolini gaining power. Irrespective of whether the next General Election is in 2017 or 2018, the no vote actually reduces political tail-risk. A tactical position that is long Italian BTPs and short French OATs is now appropriate. As we discussed last week in Italy: Asking The Wrong Question the bigger issue is how Italy will unburden its banks of its non-performing loans (NPLs). Monte de Paschi's efforts at raising equity are baby steps in the right direction. But Monte de Paschi's €23 billion of sour loans2 are just the tip of Italy' NPL iceberg, which sizes up at €320 billion in gross terms and €170 billion net of provisions. These numbers, expressed as a share of GDP, show striking parallels with peak NPLs in Spain's banking system (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Spain ultimately unburdened its banks with a government bailout. Italy may have to do the same. But this will require Brussels to let Italy bend the EU's new bail-in rules for troubled and failing banks. Chart I-6Spain Unburdened Its Banks ##br##With A Government Bailout... Chart I-7...Italy May Ultimately##br## Do The Same The danger for investors is that Italian bank equity and bond holders might have to suffer more pain before Brussels relents. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Unicredit and all other commercial banks use their accounts at their NCLs to make interbank payments. 2 MPS NPLs amount to €45bn in gross terms and €23bn net of provisions. Fractal Trading Model* Bucking the synchronized sell-off in global bonds, Greek sovereign bonds have actually rallied strongly in the last three months. But this rally could be near exhaustion, warranting a countertrend position. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-8 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

Highlights There are rising odds that Turkey will undertake military action in the Middle East. When and if this occurs, it will severely undermine already fragile investor confidence, and foreign capital inflows will evaporate. Feature As foreign capital inflows dry up, the lira will continue to plunge, pushing up borrowing costs. Yet the authorities' tolerance for higher interest rates is extremely low. The only way to gain control over interest rates and prevent them from shooting up when the currency plunges will be to impose capital controls. The imposition of capital controls would be a political decision, and hence it is impossible to forecast its form or timing with any precision. That said, investors should be mindful of growing odds of capital controls being imposed, and incorporate it into their strategic decision-making. Rising risks of capital controls entail not only closing long positions and taking capital out of the country but also closing short positions because, capital controls, if enacted, mean any capital will be stuck in liras, which will likely depreciate a lot. Turkey's "Two-Level Game" BCA's Geopolitical Strategy's main geopolitical theme since 2012 has been American hegemonic deleveraging.1 This process ushered in an era of multipolarity, a distribution of power where more than one or two countries can pursue their national interests independently. We know from history and formal modeling in political science that a multipolar context is the one most likely to produce military conflict.2 Turkey is today a perfect example of why multipolarity is volatile. Once a staunch U.S. ally and model democracy for the region, Turkey largely toed the American line for the post-World War II era. Over the past five years, however, Turkish policymakers have experienced both the risks and rewards of multipolarity. On the one hand, multipolarity means that Turkey can finally pursue its own interests in the Middle East. On the other, it means that it cannot rely on the U.S. for protection when it does so. Turkey is today the most unpredictable major power. With its foreign policy outsourced to the U.S. for so many decades, Ankara is going through a trial-and-error process of what it can and cannot do on its own. This process is fraught with political risks. Complicating the situation further, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is playing a "two-level game" between international and domestic policy. Since the anti-government protests in 2013, Erdogan has exploited domestic and international crises to rally the people "around the flag" and increase support for his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its planned constitutional reforms. Geopolitical Risks In February 2016, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy noted that direct Turkish involvement in Iraq and Syria could be one of the five "Black Swans" of the year.3 It was clear to us that the days of the Islamic State's pseudo-Caliphate were numbered, and that both Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds stood to gain the most from the terrorist group's defeat. This was unacceptable to Turkey, which therefore intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains, and may intervene further in the near future. We are particularly concerned about three potential dynamics: Direct intervention in Syria and Iraq: The Turkish military entered Syria in August, launching operation "Euphrates Shield." Turkey also reinforced a small military base in Bashiqa, Iraq, only 15 kilometers north of Mosul. Both operations were ostensibly undertaken against the Islamic State, but the real intention is to limit the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, who benefit from the collapse of the Islamic State. Map I-1 shows the extent to which Kurds have expanded their control in Syria and Iraq. In Syria, Turkish forces are attempting to prevent Syrian Kurds from connecting their territory in the north of the country, which would create a Kurdish mini-state right next to the Turkish border. In Iraq, it is unclear what Turkish intentions are. Map I-1Kurdish Gains In Syria & Iraq Conflict with Russia and Iran: Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are staunch American allies. As such, Turkey's direct military intervention in both states will anger Washington. However, the real risk to Turkey is not from its NATO ally, but rather from Russia and Iran. Consider that in Syria, Erdogan's stated objective is to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.4 Yet Russia and Iran are both involved militarily in the country - the latter with its regular ground troops - to keep Assad in power. True, Russia and Turkey cooled tensions recently. Yet the Turkish ground incursion into Syria increases the probability that tensions will re-emerge. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Erdogan has cast himself as a defender of Sunni Arabs and has suggested that Turkey still has a territorial claim to northern Iraq. This stance would put Ankara in direct confrontation with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, allied with Iran. Turkey-NATO/EU tensions: Turkey is a member of NATO, a collective self-defense alliance. However, the cornerstone Article 5 of the NATO Treaty specifically limits the alliance to attacks that occur in Europe or North America. As such, Turkey would have no recourse to the Treaty's self-defense clause if it were to get into a war with Russia and Iran in the Middle East.5 Furthermore, tensions have increased between Turkey and the EU over the migration deal they signed in March 2016. Turkey claims that the deal has stemmed the flow of migrants to Europe, which is dubious given that the flow abated well before the deal was struck (Chart I-1). Since then, Turkey has threatened to open the spigot and let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe. This is likely a bluff as Turkey depends on European tourists, import demand, and FDI for hard currency (more on Turkey's foreign capital dependence in the sections below) (Chart I-2). If Erdogan acted on his threat and unleashed Syrian refugees into Europe, the EU could abrogate the 1995 EU-Turkey customs union agreement and impose economic sanctions. Chart I-1Turkey's Migration Threat Is Not Credible Chart I-2Turkey Is Heavily Dependent On The EU The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a "shooting war" that could impact global investors in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions6 - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. First, it is not clear what state the Turkish military is in. President Erdogan has purged the military of hundreds of generals and thousands of lower level officers since the July 2016 coup d'état. Second, Turkey would be directly challenging Russia and Iran when both have prepositioned troops and air assets in the Middle East. Third, any Turkish military aggression will further distance Ankara from its Western allies. The U.S. and Europe could impose an arms embargo on Turkey, which would severely limit its ability to prosecute a long military campaign (given its reliance on NATO-compliant armament). Bottom Line: Turkey's increasing involvement in the geopolitical morass that is the Middle East is a clear and definite risk. It has no upside. So why is President Erdogan contemplating it? Domestic Political Risk President Erdogan has used geopolitical and security crises to bolster his popularity and hold on power. We therefore see Erdogan's geopolitical assertiveness as a reflection of his domestic political insecurity. This insecurity began with the mid-2013 Gezi Park protests, which came as a shock to Erdogan. We noted at the time that political volatility has been the norm for Turkey since the Second World War. The anomaly was the decade of tranquility under the AKP rule.7 The anti-government protests came amidst a slumping economy and as Erdogan was trying to enact multiple constitutional changes. The first change was to turn the presidency into a democratically elected position, which Erdogan subsequently contested and won in August 2014 (albeit with only 52% of the vote). The second change, to turn Turkey into a presidential republic and give Erdogan sweeping powers at the expense of the parliament, required a two-thirds majority in the legislature and thus a big win at the scheduled 2015 elections. From that critical moment in mid-2013, Erdogan faced multiple setbacks on the domestic front that stalled his constitutional reforms: December 2013: A corruption scandal embroiled several key members of government, including family members of ministers. June 2015: The ruling AKP failed to win a majority in parliamentary elections, with the pro-Kurdish and liberal People's Democratic Party (HDP) winning an extraordinary 80 seats. July 2015: June elections were immediately followed with renewed violence between Turkish armed forces and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a Kurdish militant group based in Turkey. November 2015: Erdogan campaigned on a law and order platform, charging pro-Kurdish HDP with responsibility for renewed violence. The incumbent AKP won a majority, but fell short of the two-thirds needed to turn the country into a presidential republic. We expect Erdogan to call a constitutional referendum in the spring of 2017, given that his AKP, plus nationalists in parliament, have 60% of the seats needed to call for one. Polls are unreliable, but if we combine public support for AKP and nationalists in the November 2015 election as a proxy for support for a presidential republic, it suggests Erdogan will win the plebiscite. To gain support from nationalists for constitutional amendment, Erdogan will have to agree to their demands that the constitution reaffirm Turkish ethnic identity as the basis for citizenship, as well other anti-Kurdish demands. The referendum could therefore rekindle tensions between the government and Kurds, a conflict that could gain an international dimension with the Kurds in Syria and Iraq ascendant. Erdogan may continue to use geopolitical crises to rally support. Domestic politics is messy in Turkey as the country has competitive and largely free elections. If the liberal, coastal opposition were to unite with the Kurdish population behind a single candidate, Erdogan could conceivably be defeated in a future election. As such, external and internal geopolitical and security crises are useful as they give a popular boost to the president while giving the security apparatus a reason to target political opponents. Unfortunately, this dynamic is likely to increase domestic political risk and encourage Erdogan to sacrifice Turkey's political and economic institutions - including the country's adherence to the principals of the free market - for short-term political gain. It is highly unlikely that this political and geopolitical context will create an environment conducive to difficult, pro-market, choices. Instead, we expect the government to double down on populist policies that boost wages, increase liquidity in the banking system, and erode central bank independence. Bottom Line: President Erdogan is playing a "two-level game," with domestic political insecurity motivating geopolitical assertiveness. This is dangerous as the game could get out of hand. Populist policies will continue. Financial And Economic Constraints Foreign financing has been and remains a major constraint. Turkey is dependent on foreign capital flows to finance its still-large current account deficit of $32 billion, or 4% of GDP (Chart I-3). Therefore Turkish policymakers should, in theory, conduct credible monetary and fiscal policies, as well as provide an investor-friendly political and economic backdrop to attract foreign capital. Yet, in reality, the exact opposite is happening. Macro policies, and monetary policy in particular, have been completely unorthodox. On the one hand, the central bank has been intervening in the foreign exchange market, depleting its already extremely low level of foreign exchange reserves. On the other, it has been injecting liquidity into the financial system via lending to banks and other means (Chart I-4). The central bank's overnight lending to commercial banks has surged (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-3Turkey: Large Current Account Deficit = ##br##Reliance On Foreign Capital Chart I-4The Central Bank Is Injecting Enormous ##br##Liquidity Into The System In short, the Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) has been conducting "reverse sterilization" by injecting liras into circulation. It is doing so to avoid a rise in market-based interest rates, since rates typically rise when a central bank sells foreign currency and buys (i.e. withdraws) local currency from the system. In addition, the CBT cut interest rates 6 times from March to September. Remarkably, this combination of liquidity expansion and rate cuts has taken place while wages have been skyrocketing - 20% in nominal terms and 10% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms (Chart I-5). Money and credit growth have also boomed at 15-20% (Chart I-6). Wages and unit labor costs are the most critical factors in generating genuine inflation in any economy. We can very confidently state that in recent years Turkey had extremely high inflation. Chart I-5Turkish Wage Inflation Is Explosive Chart I-6Turkey: Money Supply Is Booming In a country where inflationary forces are genuine and intense and the central bank is running very loose monetary policy - i.e. well behind the curve - the currency typically depreciates a lot. Chart I-7Turkey's Net Foreign ##br##Reserves Are Running Low Hence, it is not surprising that the lira has plunged. In fact, without central bank intervention through foreign currency sales, the lira would have plunged much more. The CBT's net international reserves have dropped to a mere $20 billion from $46 billion in 2010 (Chart I-7). Net foreign exchange reserves exclude commercial banks' deposits at the central bank. The often-quoted number by the central bank of $100 billion is gross foreign exchange reserves, which includes commercial banks' foreign currency deposits at the central bank. These are liabilities of the central bank, and they do not belong to the monetary authorities. Net foreign currency reserves are currently equal to only one month of imports, and odds are that the CBT will run out of its own foreign exchange reserves very soon. In such a case, the monetary authorities could choose to use banks' foreign currency deposits to defend the lira, but the CBT would then become liable to commercial banks. Since the government owns the central bank, this would ultimately become the government's liability. Although the monetary authorities could use commercial banks' foreign exchange reserves deposited at the CBT, the act of doing so would further undermine investor confidence, and foreign capital inflows would dry up and probably turn negative. This would also remove the buffer that prevents bank runs on foreign currency deposits from occurring. Furthermore, Table I-1 illustrates the current profile of Turkey's external debt. The high level of external and foreign exchange-denominated debt, as well as elevated foreign funding requirements - $150 billion or 21% of GDP over the next 12 months - mean that debtors and the overall economy have limited tolerance for further currency depreciation. Yet the only credible way to stem the currency's plunge is to hike interest rates. That, in turn, would produce a full-blown credit downturn, pushing the economy into recession. Hiking interest rates is precisely what Turkey did many times in the past when faced with unsustainable exchange-rate levels. However, that was back when the credit-to-GDP ratio was low (Chart I-8) and policymakers were more orthodox and followed IMF prescriptions. Table I-1Turkish External Debt By Sector Chart I-8Turkey's Credit-To-GDP ##br##Ratio Has Risen Considerably At the moment, President Erdogan is not only bashing orthodox monetary policies and blaming foreign speculators for his country's troubles,8 but also pursuing a geopolitical strategy that contradicts that of both the U.S. and the EU, as outlined above. Overall, having no appetite for higher interest rates and a recession, the Turkish authorities will ultimately have no choice but to opt for capital controls to diminish the lira's decline. Bottom Line: To prevent currency depreciation from causing a surge in interest rates and an economic implosion, policymakers will likely end up introducing capital controls. Is The Lira Cheap? Although the nominal exchange rate has depreciated a lot, the lira is not yet very cheap. This is because wages have been skyrocketing in local currency terms, while productivity has been stagnant (Chart I-9). This means Turkey's unit labor costs have swelled (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Consequently, the lira's real effective exchange rate is not yet very cheap (Chart I-10). When expressed in euros, unit labor costs in Turkey have not declined at all, and have not yet improved compared to those of central European countries (Chart I-11). Chart I-9Turkey: Low Productivity, ##br##High Unit Labor Costs Chart I-10Lira Is Not Cheap Chart I-11Turkish Manufacturing ##br##Is Not Competitive... Consistently, Turkey has lagged central European countries in penetrating European markets. Since 2006, Turkey's market share in non-energy European imports has been mostly flat, while it has significantly increased for central European countries (Chart I-12). Even though the rising export penetration of central European countries can also be attributable to factors beyond currency competitiveness, the point remains that Turkey needs further currency depreciation to boost exports. Consistent with the fact that the lira is not yet very cheap, Turkish manufacturing is struggling (Chart I-13) and the country's current account balance, excluding oil, has been deteriorating. Chart I-12...And Is Losing EU Market Share Chart I-13Turkish Industry Needs ##br##A Much Weaker Currency Bottom Line: The lira is not very cheap. It has to depreciate more to boost Turkey's competitiveness and ameliorate the current account deficit. Investment Recommendations Chart I-14Stay Underweight Turkish ##br##Stocks Versus The EM Benchmark Over the past several years, we have been recommending shorting/underweight Turkish assets on the grounds of a dire economic and financial outlook as well as uneasy geopolitics. We have repeatedly warned that the Turkish central bank cannot defy the Impossible Trinity - trying to control the exchange rate and interest rates simultaneously when the country has an open capital account. It seems a final showdown in policymakers' fight to control both the exchange rate and interest rates is looming: the odds of some sort of capital controls being implemented are rising. Dedicated EM equity and fixed-income portfolios (both credit and local-currency bonds) should continue underweighting Turkey (Chart I-14). Absolute-return and non-dedicated EM investors should limit their investments in Turkish financial markets. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service's trade of shorting the TRY versus the USD remains intact. However, we recommend investors book profits as the exchange rate approaches USD/TRY 3.9. Similarly, traders should take profits on our trade of shorting 2-year bonds and bank stocks when the lira's exchange rate gets closer to USD/TRY 3.9. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: Beware Of Excessive Wage Inflation In the very near term, Indonesia, like other EM countries with current account deficits and high equity valuations, is vulnerable to rising U.S. bond yields, an associated relapse in EM currencies, and a simultaneous rise in local bond yields. Heading into 2017, Indonesian financial markets will likely come under pressure from a renewed decline in commodities prices and rising domestic inflation. While the country's structural fundamentals are much better than those of Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Malaysia, Indonesia's financial markets are quite vulnerable due to elevated valuations and foreign investor positioning. Indonesia has been one of the darlings of EM investors over the past several years, and any selloff in EM risk assets could trigger an exodus of capital. With foreigners holding some 40% of outstanding domestic bonds, Indonesia is vulnerable to capital outflows. Furthermore, the equity market has formed a major top and a breakdown is likely (Chart II-1). High Wage Inflation Is Bearish For The Rupiah And Local Rates The inflation outlook is deteriorating in Indonesia: Wages are rising briskly across most industries (Chart II-2). Even in recession-hit sectors such as mining, wages grew by a stunning 20% between February 2015 and February 2016. Given the general rise in commodities prices this year, labor will demand even higher wage growth in 2017. Chart II-1Indonesian Equities Formed A Major Top Chart II-2Indonesia's Wage Growth Is High The central government's October 2015 minimum wage regulation - which sets minimum wage increases at the level of nominal GDP growth - is unlikely to be successful in restraining wage growth. Labor unions are extremely powerful in Indonesia, and they are currently staging numerous protests demanding minimum wage increases on the order of 25% in 2017. We therefore believe average wage growth will continue to be higher than nominal GDP growth. Odds are that wage growth will be in the double digits, while nominal GDP is currently 8.4%. Please refer to Box II-1 for more details on the issue of unions and strikes. BOX II-1 Union Protests Against Wage Indexation Labor unions across the Indonesian archipelago are highly dissatisfied with the announced 2017 minimum wage level. As a result of the government's minimum wage reforms adopted last year, pushback by unions was inevitable. The new rules will tie minimum wages to nominal GDP instead of letting it be decided at the district level by unions, businesses, and local governments. Since the unions are now at risk of losing significant influence, they are staging protests: The North Sumatran administration announced an 8.3% increase in 2017 minimum wages, but the region's labor union fiercely objected to it. The latter is now planning major protests and threatening to paralyze the industrial sector if the authorities do not comply. The region is Indonesia's fourth-most populated. Similarly, in East Java, Indonesia's second-most populous province, labor unions are not satisfied by the announced wage rise and are demanding revisions. Meanwhile, the administration in South Sulawesi raised minimum wages for 2017 by 11.1% - above the central government's assigned level - and the business community has voiced major concerns. The provincial administration has nevertheless publicly denied it has violated the central government's policy. The Confederation of Indonesian Workers Unions (KSPI) has grown dissatisfied with the announced increase in Jakarta's minimum wage (8.25%). As a result, the KSPI decided to latch on to Islamist-led protests on December 2, demanding the ousting of Jakarta's Governor "Ahok" (Basuki Tjahaja Purnama). This highlights that labor unions are willing to tap into growing religious tensions in order to make their demands more potent. This could end up being a serious issue, requiring the central government to negotiate a compromise that waters down efforts to reform minimum wages. Strong wage growth has outpaced productivity gains, and will continue to do so. While strong wage gains are good for consumption, mushrooming unit labor costs (Chart II-3) are compressing corporate profit margins and damaging Indonesia's competitiveness. Companies faced with rising wages/labor costs will have to either hike prices or squeeze margins. Both scenarios are bearish for share prices. The central bank has been extremely dovish and has, so far, disregarded rampant wage growth. Odds are that it will be late in addressing rising inflationary pressures. Typically, the exchange rate of a country where its central bank is behind the inflation curve depreciates. We expect the Indonesian rupiah to weaken significantly as Bank Indonesia (BI) will be late to raise interest rates. Although the policy rate and domestic bonds yields appear attractive when compared with the inflation rate,9 interest rates are very low compared with wage growth. We believe wages, and more specifically unit labor costs, are more genuine indicators of underlying inflation dynamics than food or energy prices - even though the latter have large weights in Indonesia's consumer price index basket. In short, interest rates are too low when compared to wage growth. Notably, over the past year or so households and businesses shifted their deposits away from foreign currency and into local currency. It seems the trend is now reversing (Chart II-4). Growing demand for U.S. dollars from residents will also weigh on the rupiah. Chart II-3Unit-Labor Costs Are Soaring Chart II-4Indonesian Residents Will Start Buying Dollars A weaker currency will push up interest rates. Higher interest rates in turn will curtail credit growth. Chart II-5 shows that the local-currency loan impulse is already rolling over and will drag economic growth lower. Indonesian commercial banks are saddled with rising non-performing loans (NPLs). Banks will be forced to increase provisioning for bad assets, leading to slower profit and loan growth. For a detailed analysis on Indonesian banks, please refer to our May 18 Weekly Report.10 Finally, narrow (M1) money growth has rolled over decisively. Historically, this has coincided with a relapse in share prices (Chart II-6). Higher interest rates will ensure a further slowdown in M1, escalating downside risks in share prices. Chart II-5Indonesia: Loan Impulse Is Turning Chart II-6M1 Money Impulse: ##br##A Worrying Signal For Stocks External Vulnerability Next year, we expect commodities prices (especially, industrial metals and coal prices) to decline due to renewed weakness in Chinese demand. This negative terms-of-trade shock will further depress the rupiah, push up interest rates, and extend the equity market selloff. Chart II-7 shows that China's imports of coal from Indonesia have surged. There has been some improvement in final demand for coal and other commodities, but supply cutbacks in China as well as financial demand (investor speculation) explain most of the exponential rise in prices. This vertical move is unsustainable, and prices will drop next year. Importantly, Chinese demand will likely weaken. China's fiscal spending and credit impulses have rolled over, warranting less industrial demand for electricity (Chart II-8). Besides, property construction will contract anew following policy tightening, high leverage among developers and hidden inventories (Chart II-8, second panel). Coal and base metals account for about 15% of Indonesia's total exports. Palm oil makes up another 9%. Given that Indonesia is running both current account and fiscal deficits (Chart II-9), lower commodities prices will weigh on the exchange rate. Chart II-7Positive Terms Of Trade##br## Boost Unsustainable Chart II-8China Growth Relapse In 2017? Chart II-9Indonesia's Twin Deficits Bottom Line: Indonesian share prices and domestic bonds are expensive and over-owned by EM investors. We recommend underweighting/shorting Indonesia relative to EM equity, local bond and sovereign credit benchmarks, respectively. We are also maintaining short positions in the IDR versus the U.S. dollar and the HUF. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst aymank@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "Geopolitical Strategic Outlook 2012," dated January 27, 2012, 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, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 President Erdogan, speaking at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul in November 2016, said that Turkey "entered [Syria] to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror... We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice." 5 A risk does exist, however, of Russia retaliating against Turkish actions in the Middle East by attacking Turkey itself. At that point, it would be a legal question whether Article 5 still applied. We are certain that Europe and the U.S. would not come to Turkey's aid, particularly if Turkey was the aggressor in Syria or Iraq. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Turkey: Canary In The EM Coal Mine?" in "The Coming Political Recapitalization Rally," dated June 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 President Erdogan, speaking at a Borsa Istanbul ceremony on November 23, said "We are heirs to the Ottoman Empire, which had been exploited since 1854 when it took its first external loan by banks, bankers and loan sharks. Some years tax revenues could not cover the interest payment. However, I can't consent to wasting what rightfully belongs to my people through high real interest rate." 9 This is why Indonesia scores as one of the most attractive EM local bond markets in our analysis published in last week. Please refer to our Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Will The Carnage In EM Local Bonds Persist?" dated November 30, 2016; the link to the report is available on page 23. 10 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "EM Bonds: Unloved And Under-Owned?" dated May 18, 2016; available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights We update the long-term structural themes that we expect will be key drivers of financial market performance over the next one to five years, drawing investment conclusions from each. Debt Supercycle. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often marked by an increase in public debt, which we may now see in the U.S. Meanwhile, the eurozone and emerging markets are still at an early stage of post-debt deleveraging. Technological Disruption. The IT revolution has reached the mature phase, and behind it is a new wave of technologies including artificial intelligence and biotech. The first and last stages of tech waves are the only times where investors typically make profits. Emerging Market Deleveraging. EM assets will continue to underperform until these countries complete structural reforms and deal with the consequences of a decade of credit excesses. Multipolar Geopolitics. The end of American hegemony raises the risk of military conflicts and will make the world less globalized. End Of The Bond Bull Market. Interest rates have been in structural decline since the early 1980s. With a rotation to fiscal policy and (eventually) higher inflation, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Subpar Long-Run Returns. With bond yields low and equities expensive, investors will find it hard to achieve the returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Substantially more risk will be required to achieve the same level of return. Bear Market In Commodities. Weak demand growth (as China reengineers its economy), excess resource capacity, and an appreciating dollar make this a very different environment to the 2000s. Mal-Distribution Of Income. The backlash from stagnant incomes in Anglo-Saxon economies will continue. Populism is likely to cause the labor share of GDP to rise, hurting profits and lowering investment returns. Feature I. Introduction Chart 1Major Market Cycles The key views in Global Asset Allocation (GAA), as in other BCA services, center on the cyclical time-horizon, six to 12 months. This means analyzing principally where we are in the business cycle, the impact of liquidity and monetary conditions, and the current outlook for economic and earnings growth. But it is also important to understand the long-term picture: the structural trends in asset prices, debt, demographics, technology, and other "long wave" factors that have profound and protracted impacts on investment performance. Specifically, investors need to get right long-term shifts in things such as economic growth, the U.S. dollar, commodity prices, interest rates, and the relative performance of stocks and bonds (Chart 1). Such long-term themes, therefore, represent the road-map around which GAA develops its cyclical views. Ever since the service began in 2011 (and indeed in its predecessor, the BCA Premium Service), we have published a list of Major Themes, that "should be key drivers of financial market performance over the next 1-5 years." This Special Report updates and fleshes out these major themes. We have retained five of our current themes: The End of The Debt Supercycle The End of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Subpar Long-Run Returns Bear Market in Commodities The Mal-Distribution of Income &Social Unrest And have added three new themes: Technological Disruption EM in A Multi-Year Deleveraging Multipolar Geopolitics In the report we describe each of these themes and draw investment conclusions from them. The descriptions are relatively brief (since most of these themes will be familiar to BCA clients), but we spend more time on analyzing the new themes and on the Debt Supercycle, which is central to our world view. We have dropped two of our earlier themes: Financial Sector Re-Regulation: Bank regulation has indeed been drastically tightened in the years since the Global Financial Crisis. As a result, banks have deleveraged significantly in most regions (Chart 2), their profitability has declined (Chart 3), and share price performance has been poor. But this phase may be over. Bank loan growth has recovered in the U.S. and the new Trump administration may both boost demand for borrowing and ease regulation. In Europe and Japan, bank stock performance will henceforth be driven more by shifts in loan demand and the shape of the yield curve than by regulation. Chart 2Banks Have Deleveraged... Chart 3... And Become Much Less Profitable Chart 4The Lowest Interest Rates Ever A Generational Shift: Our concept was that Millennials (usually defined as those who came of age after 2000 - so born between 1977 and 1994) would behave differently: they would own less (preferring to Uber and couch-surf), depend on social media, and be less focused on their careers. Arguably, this has not been the case. Like previous generations, Millennials have started to acquire possessions. In the U.S. last year, one-half of homebuyers were under 36; Millennials bought 4 million cars (making them the second largest group of purchasers behind baby-boomers). Moreover, this is a hard theme to draw investment conclusions from. Every generation is slightly different - but how concretely does this affect asset prices? One final thought. A common thread running through our themes is that there is little new under the sun. Most phenomena in economics and markets are cyclical. Many of the charts in this report show that the same environment comes round time and again, after five, 10 or 50 years. Much analysis in investment theory is based on this (think of Kontratiev waves, "the fourth turning," Dow Theory etc.) But what is fascinating about today's world is that there are trends we are experiencing for the first time in history: Zero or negative interest rates: never in history have governments, companies, and individuals been able to borrow so cheaply (Chart 4), sometimes even being paid for the privilege. Demographics: The world population has grown continuously since the Black Death in 1350. Indeed the fastest population growth on record was as recent as the 1960s (Chart 5). But growth has slowed sharply since, and is expected to be only 0.1% a year by the end of the century. As a result, we are seeing an unprecedented slowdown - and even decline - in the size of the workforce in many countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Population Growth Has Slowed Drastically Chart 6The Workforce In Some Countries Is Shrinking The impacts of these two trends will be profound - but they won't be found by looking at historical precedents. II. Debt Supercycles One of the key ways in which BCA has long looked at the world is through the concept of debt supercycles. Our founder, Hamilton Bolton, wrote in 1967 of "the possibilities inherent in an intensive study of changes in bank credit as a major cyclical and supercyclical investment tool....History shows period after period of excessive bank credit inflation. It also shows a number of periods in which bank credit deflation has been allowed to erode the whole economic and investment structure."1 Simply put, when credit in the economy expands (and these days one needs to look more broadly than at just bank credit) it tends to boost growth, raise asset prices, and underpin the effectiveness of monetary policy. At some point, the level of credit becomes unsustainable and the subsequent deleveraging causes financial conservatism as borrowers focus on repairing their balance-sheets. This makes monetary policy relatively ineffective, and has negative effects on growth and asset prices. The two biggest debt supercycles over the past 50 years were in Japan from 1970 to 1990, and in the U.S. and parts of Europe starting in the early 1980s and culminating with the Global Financial Crisis in 2007 (Chart 7). The fallout from the end of Japan's debt supercycle has been stark: since 1990, Japanese nominal GDP has grown by only 0.4% a year (compared to 6% a year over the previous 10 years) and even today the Nikkei index is 55% below its peak. In the U.S., the early 1980s' financial deregulation and the fiscal policies of the Reagan government caused both private and government debt to begin to rise as a percentage of GDP (Chart 8). From the late 1990s, monetary policy was kept too easy, which culminated in the housing bubble of 2004-7. After that bubble burst, households reduced debt (partly through defaults) and government spending rose sharply for a few years to cushion the recession. Chart 7Debt Supercycles Everywhere Chart 8U.S. Debt Started To Rise From 1980 Since 2009, BCA has been talking about a "post debt supercycle" in the U.S.2 The household savings rate rose (Chart 9), as consumers became cautious, preferring to save rather than spend (Chart 10). This has meant that consumption growth has been lower than wage growth, whereas the opposite was the case up to 2007. Monetary policy also became ineffective since, in such a weak growth environment, companies were not inclined to spend on capital investment despite ultra-low interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 9Household Savings Rate Has Risen Since The Crisis Chart 10Consumers Prefer To Save Than Spend Chart 11Companies Not Spending Despite Low Rates There are two competing theories to explain the sub-trend growth of the current expansion. Larry Summers' theory of secular stagnation3 describes a world in which, even with ultra-low interest rates, desired levels of saving exceed desired levels of investment, leading to chronic shortfall in demand. BCA's debt supercycle explanation is closer to that of economists such as Kenneth Rogoff, who argues that once deleveraging and borrowing headwinds subside, growth trends might rise again.4But the two theories may not be so incompatible: secular factors, such as demographics, play a role in both. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often an increase in public debt. That has certainly been the case in Japan: while the private sector has deleveraged aggressively since 1990, government debt to GDP has risen from 67% to 250% - without having much discernible effect on boosting growth. In the U.S., government debt has stabilized as a percentage of GDP over the past two years, and the baseline projection made by the Congressional Budget Office in March this year forecasts it to increase by only 10 percentage points over the next decade. But the election of President Trump might change that. His campaign promised tax cuts and infrastructure spending amounting to about USD6 Trn which, all else being equal, would increase government debt/GDP by another 30 percentage points over a decade. There are two other regions where we see the debt supercycle being an important factor over the coming years: the Eurozone and emerging markets. In Europe, some of the most indebted countries, notably the U.K. and Spain, have made progress in deleveraging since the Global Financial Crisis - although the balance-sheet repair is likely to remain a drag on the economy for a while longer. But France and Italy have hardly delevered at all, and some smaller countries such as Belgium have seen a substantial increase in private debt/GDP (Chart 12). The Eurozone remains generally a very heavily bank-dependent economy, with total bank credit almost back to a historical peak (Chart 13). Germany, by contrast, has long had an aversion to debt: private sector debt/GDP has never been above 130% and is currently only around 100%. This unwillingness to borrow and spend by the world's fourth largest economy has been a drag on European growth. Chart 12Deleveraging In Europe Has Been Patchy Chart 13Eurozone Bank Loans Have Not Declined Emerging markets delevered after the Asian crisis in 1997-8 but the wave of global liquidity created in 2009-12 flowed into EMs, triggering excessively high credit growth. Private-sector EM debt has reached an average of 140% of GDP (Chart 14), and a higher percentage of global GDP than was U.S. debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. Although the debt buildup is most extreme in China, where private-sector debt/GDP has risen by 70 percentage points over the past seven years, the same phenomenon is apparent in many other emerging markets, notably Brazil, Turkey, Russia and Malaysia (Chart 15). Chart 14The EM Debt Supercycle May Be Ending Chart 15And It's Not Just About China BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has argued for a while that this is unsustainable and that a period of deleveraging will cause growth to slow in many emerging markets and that the strains from the excessive lending, such as rising NPL ratios, will become apparent.5 The deleveraging has already started to happen, with loan growth in Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey - but not yet China - slowing sharply (Charts 16 & 17). Chart 16EM Bank Lending Now Slowing... Chart 17...Almost Everywhere We draw a number of conclusions for long-term asset allocation from this analysis. The post debt supercycle is likely to remain a drag on global growth, and therefore on returns from risk assets, for some years to come. But the U.S. is likely to be less affected than the eurozone since the household sector there has already substantially deleveraged and the Trump administration is more likely to use government spending to fill the gap. Emerging markets will underperform for some years to come as they too go through a period of deleveraging. III. Disruptive Technology Technological change is a key driving force of economies and markets. As Joseph Schumpeter said, capitalism is a "process of industrial mutation...that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." Nikolai Kondratiev described 45-60 year waves that were triggered by "the irruption of a technological revolution and the absorption of its effects." Understanding where we are in the technological cycle, then, is very important for investors wanting to catch deep trends. But it is particularly hard at the moment because, at the same time as the world is still seeing ramifications coming through from personal computing (which began as long ago as 1971, with Intel's announcement of the first microprocessor) and from the internet (which started as Arpanet in 1969), there is a new wave of revolutionary technologies still mainly on the drawing-board, including robotics, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. The best framework for thinking about technological cycles is provided by economist Carlota Perez.6 She describes five "surges of development" starting with the Industrial Revolution, which she dates from the opening of Arkwright's cotton spinning mill in Cromford in 1771 (Table 1). Her key argument is that these revolutionary technologies have powerful and long drawn-out effects on the financial, social, institutional, and organizational framework and therefore tend to move through a similar pattern of four phases (Chart 18) lasting around 50 years in all. The fifth wave, Information Technology, for example, started in its installation phase with development of the microprocessor, PCs, and mobile phones in the 1970s and 1980s, reached frenzy in the 1990s, hit a turning-point (which often triggers a stock market crash) in 2000-2, before reaching the deployment phase in the 2000s, and may now be at maturity (growth in computers and smart phones is slowing). Table 1The Five Historic Technology ##br##'Surges Of Development' Chart 18The Four Stages Of Technology Waves But Perez wrote her book in 2002, and we could now be close to the beginning of the sixth wave. Think about the situation 30 years ago, in 1986. It would not have been hard to extrapolate how technology might develop over the coming years since some people already used PCs, mobile phones, and the internet but, as William Gibson said at the time, "the future is already, here - it's just not very evenly distributed." Today there are still a few further developments to come in these fifth-wave technologies (we've listed some in Table 2). But there is a whole further set of technologies (self-driving cars, graphene, distributed energy generation) which almost nobody uses now, but which could become important. Many of these build on the developments of the fifth wave (ubiquitous connectivity, cheap and powerful computing) in the same way that previous revolutions grew from their predecessors (cars wouldn't have been possible without steel, for example). Table 2Fifth And Sixth Wave Technologies Still To Come The implications of these new technologies are hard to predict, and many have undoubtedly been over-hyped. As Bill Gates said: "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." So how should investors deal with this? The macro implications are enormous. Every new wave of technologies has a large impact on employment, as jobs in dying industries disappear. U.S. farm workers, for example, fell from over half of the labor force in 1880 to only 12% by 1950 (Chart 19). But perhaps more relevant - given that self-driving vehicles may replace taxi, truck, and delivery drivers - is that the number of horses in the U.S. fell from 26 million to 4 million over the 50 years starting in 1915 (Chart 20). These jobs, of course, were replaced by new opportunities in manufacturing or services. And the number of drivers in the U.S. is only 3.8 million currently, or less than 3% of the workforce. Nonetheless, in the maturity phase of the technology wave (where we are now for the IT revolution), Perez points out, there is often popular unrest as "workers organize and demand...the benefits that have been promised and not delivered." Chart 19Farm Workers Were Disrupted ##br##In The Late 19th Century Chart 20...And So ##br##Were Horses Investing in new technologies is naturally appealing to investors, but often tricky to get right. Alastair Nairn7 identifies five similar phases for investing in technology but concludes that investors can usually make money only in the first stage, when initial skepticism reigns, and in the final stage, when the technology has matured and the surviving handful of leading players can now make good profit. Analysis by economists at the Atlanta Fed showed (Table 3) that, of the 24 U.S. PC manufacturers listed on the U.S. stock market between 1983 and 2006, only 10 made a positive return for shareholders.8 Of these, only five beat the overall index. The picture is similar for other technology waves, except perhaps for the nascent auto industry when 12 of 23 listed manufacturers outperformed the index in 1912-1928. Table 3Investments In New Technology Companies Rarely Beat The Market Nairn also argues that it is easier to spot losers than winners: "The winners take many years to emerge and...it is well-nigh impossible to identify them early. ...Conversely, the losers tend to be more obvious, and more obvious at an early stage." Think back to the early days of the internet. Investors would have struggled to pick the eventual winners (Apple, Amazon, Google - but many might have guessed Yahoo or even Pets.com) but should have understood that the media, travel, retailing, and film-camera industries would all be disrupted. Chart 21IT And Healthcare Sectors ##br##Are Likely To Continue To Outperform So how should investors apply these conclusions? If we are in the mature phase of the Fifth Wave and the skepticism phase of the Sixth, this is a time when investors can benefit from tilts towards sectors where technological changes are taking place, most notably IT and Healthcare, which are likely to continue to outperform over the long run (Chart 21). Exposure to what our colleague Peter Berezin calls BRAIN stocks - biotech, robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotech - makes sense.9 This can be captured through venture capital funds. Potential losers might include energy companies and utilities, as improvements in solar energy lead to more distributed power. Even oil company BP reckons that renewables will provide 16% of power generation in 2035 - and 35% in the EU - up from 4% today, with the cost of solar power expected to fall by 40% over the time. Other sectors that could be disrupted include automakers, which could be challenged by developments in electric vehicles, and financial institutions, whose business model could be under threat from peer-to-peer lending, robo-advisers and other developments in fintech. IV. Emerging Markets In A Multi-Year Deleveraging BCA has recommended a structural underweight on emerging market (EM) equities relative to developed markets (DM) since 2010.10 This call worked well until the end of last year. So far this year, however, EM equities have outperformed DM by 5%, despite their sharp selloff (Chart 22) after the U.S. election. Our view is that emerging markets remain structurally challenged and that their long-run underperformance is likely to continue. We view the outperformance this year as simply a counter-trend move driven largely by two factors: a) the extreme relative undervaluation of EM vs. DM at the beginning of the year; and b) unconventional quantitative easing from the ECB and BoJ, and massive back-door liquidity injections (Chart 23) by EM central banks, such as in China and Turkey. Chart 22Counter-Trend Rally Largley Driven By... Chart 23QE / Massive Liquidity Injection By PBoC After the bounce, however, EM equities are no longer especially cheap relative to their DM counterparts, with the relative forward PE ratio now at its five-year average. Going forward, the poor profit outlook - due to persistent structural problems in the EM economies - will continue to weigh on the relative performance of EM assets. We maintain our structural underweight call on EM equities in a global portfolio. First, the factors that drove the massive outperformance of emerging markets in 2002-2010 have disappeared: the once-in-a-generation debt-fueled consumption binge in DM, and the investment-fueled double-digit growth in China which triggered a bull market in commodities (Chart 24). But EM countries did not take full advantage of these exogenous forces to reform their economies: to foster domestic demand, and optimize resource allocation and industrial structure. When China slowed and U.S. consumers went through a much-needed deleveraging after the Great Recession, exports to DM slowed and even contracted, and commodities prices declined sharply. As a result, the export-driven economic model of EM countries has broken down. The structural drivers of economic growth in the EM, both productivity and capital efficiency (Chart 25), have been in a downtrend, while debt (Chart 26) has continued to soar. Chart 24Regime Has Shifted Chart 25Structural Drivers Have Weakened Chart 26Debt Has Soared Structural problems require structural solutions. These solutions vary by country, but in general require less state intervention in the economy, flexible labor markets, and better incentive structures to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. But structural reforms are a painful process and take strong political will to implement. A case in point is China, which delayed its announced supply-side reforms and reverted to monetary and fiscal stimulus when growth slowed. Second, history shows that no credit boom can last forever. Chart 27 shows private non-financial credit-to-GDP ratios in major developed economies. They have experienced periods of deleveraging of various magnitudes and durations, even though these nations have deep and sophisticated banking, credit, and financial markets, and some have plenty of domestic savings. Similar patterns have been observed in EM economies, although their deleveraging episodes have tended to be more frequent and of larger magnitude (Chart 28). Chart 27No Credit Boom Lasts ##br##Forever In DM Economies Chart 28Asian Economies: Many Interruptions During Structural Leveraging Process The main reason for these boom-bust credit cycles is the burden of debt servicing. As the private credit-to-GDP ratio rises, if interest rates are held constant, a larger share of income needs to be allocated to paying interest. At some point, debt service eats too much into debtors' incomes, causing debtors to default and creditors to reduce credit provision. This causes the economy to slow, followed by a painful but necessary restructuring to work off the excess leverage before a new cycle can start. We see no reason see why EM countries, China in particular, can sustain their current high and rising leverage levels. Deleveraging is inevitable. Third, this deleveraging in EM is at a very early stage, since credit in most EM countries continues to grow faster than nominal GDP (Chart 29). After years of booming corporate and household debt, a period of consolidation is inevitable. Hence, credit growth is set to slow to at least the level of nominal GDP growth. The credit impulse - the change in the rate of credit growth - is a key factor influencing GDP and profit growth. Chart 30 shows that if credit growth converges to nominal GDP growth within the next 12-24 months, the credit impulse will turn negative, ensuring a slowdown in the EM economies and a further contraction in corporate earnings, thus putting downside pressure on asset prices. Chart 29A Break In LEveraging Cycle Is Overdue Chart 30Negative Credit Impulse Bodes Ill For Profit And Equities Prices Chart 31Dismal Return on Equity Bottom Line: EM economies are at a very early stage of a multi-year deleveraging to work off credit excesses. Despite their year-to-date outperformance, we expect EM equities will continue to underperform their DM counterparts over the long run until their return on equity (Chart 31) improves significantly. V. Geopolitical Multipolarity Since the end of the Cold War, geopolitics has mostly remained in the background for investors. This is because the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in an era of American hegemony that lasted for roughly two decades. During this period, the global concentration of economic, trade, and military power increased as the U.S. became the only true superpower (Chart 32). The world entered a period of "hegemonic stability," an era during which regional powers dared not pursue an independent foreign policy for fear of U.S. retaliation and during which the "Washington consensus" of laissez-faire capitalism and free trade was adopted by policymakers in both developed and emerging markets. Chart 32The End Of American Hegemony A central thesis of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is that the world has entered a multipolar phase.11 Multipolarity implies that the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally-relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). Today, multipolarity is the product of America's decaying unipolar moment. The U.S. remains, by far, the most powerful country in the absolute sense, but it is experiencing a relative decline as regional powers become more capable on both the economic and geopolitical fronts (Chart 33). Multipolarity is not a popular theme with investors. It augurs uncertainty, rising risk premia, and unanticipated "Black Swan" events. In addition, some of our clients take issue with the thesis that the U.S. is in "decline." Although we can measure hard power and illustrate the relative decline of the U.S. empirically, perhaps the greatest evidence of global multipolarity are recent events that were unimaginable just five or ten years ago: Russia's annexation of Crimea; China's military expansion in South China Sea; Turkey's disregard for U.S. interests in Syria; U.S.-Iran détente (with little evidence that Tehran has actually curbed its nuclear capabilities); Dramatic withdrawal of U.S. troops in the Middle East. The point of a multipolar world is not that Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and other powers seek to challenge America's global reach, but rather that each is more than capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy within their own spheres of influence. As the number of "veto players" in the global "Great Game" increases, however, equilibrium becomes more difficult to achieve. Uncertainty rises and conflicts emerge where none were expected. So what does multipolarity mean for investors? First, we know from formal modeling in political science, and from history, that a multipolar world is unstable and more likely to produce military conflict (Chart 34).12 There are three reasons: Chart 33U.S. Experiencing Relative Decline Chart 34Geopolitical Risk Is The Outcome Of Global Multipolarity During periods of multipolarity, more states can effectively pursue foreign policies that lead to war, thus creating more potential "conflict dyads" in the parlance of International Relations theory. In fact, evidence shows that this has already happened (and continues to happen), with the number of international or internationalized conflicts rising since 2010 dramatically (Chart 35). Power imbalances between states are more likely if there are more states that matter geopolitically. And power imbalances invite conflict as they are more likely to produce a situation in which one country's rising capabilities threaten another. During the Cold War, it didn't matter that Iran was more powerful than Saudi Arabia because the U.S. was present in the Middle East and willing to balance against Tehran. In a multipolar world, the weaker states are on their own. The probability of miscalculation rises due to the number of relevant states making geopolitical decisions simultaneously. For example, last year's shooting down of a Russian jet by the Turkish air force over Syria is an example of an incident that is mathematically more likely in a multipolar world. During the Cold War, the chances that Turkey would independently make the decision to shoot down a Soviet jet was far smaller as its foreign policy was closely aligned with that of its NATO ally the U.S. Chart 35Multipolarity Increases ##br##The Frequency Of Conflict There are a number of derivatives from the multipolarity thesis that will be relevant for investors. For example, despite Brexit, a multipolar world will support European integration.13 With geopolitical uncertainty rising in Europe's neighborhood - particularly in the Middle East and with Russia reasserting itself - Europe's core countries will not follow down the "exit" path that the U.K. pursued. On the other hand, the geopolitical disequilibrium in East Asia is deepening, with China's pursuit of a sphere of influence in the South and East China Seas likely to continue to raise tensions in the region. But the overarching concern for investors should be how multipolarity impacts the global economy. Global macroeconomic imbalances - such as the current combination of insufficient demand and excessive capacity - can be overcome either by unilateral policy from the hegemon or through coordination among the major economic and political powers. A multipolar world, however, lacks such coordination. Globalization is therefore at risk from multipolarity.14 Not only are regional powers pursuing spheres of influence, which is by definition incompatible with a globalized world, but the world lacks the hegemon that normally provides the expensive, and hard to come by, global public goods: namely economic coordination and geopolitical stability. History teaches us that the ebb and flow of trade globalization has been closely associated in the past with the shifting global balance of power (Chart 36). Trade globalization collapsed right around 1880, when the rise of a unified Germany and the ascendant U.S. undermined the century-old Pax Britannica. This trend ushered in a rise of competitive tariffs as the laggards of industrialization attempted to catch up with the established powers. Trade globalization recovered and began to grown again in the early twentieth century and immediately after the First World War, but both attempts were aborted by the lack of a clear hegemon willing to undertake the coordinating role necessary for globalization to take root and persevere. Chart 36Back To The 1930's? The lack of a clear hegemon and the diffusion of geopolitical power amongst multiple states can act as a headwind to global coordination. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the U.K. was too weak to enforce global rules and norms, and the surging U.S. was unwilling to do so. Today, the U.S. is (relatively) too weak and unwilling to do the job of a hegemon, while China is understandably unwilling to coordinate its economic policy with a strategic rival. The investment implications of multipolarity center on three broad themes: Apex globalization: Going forward, the world is going to be less, not more, globalized. This will favor domestic over global sectors and consumer-oriented economies over the export-oriented ones. Globalization is also a major deflationary force, which would suggest that, on the margin, a world that is less globalized should be more inflationary. DM over EM: Multipolarity is more likely to produce a number of conflicts, some of which lay dormant throughout the Cold War and subsequent era of American hegemony. These conflicts tend to be in emerging or frontier markets. Safe Havens: With the frequency of geopolitical conflict on the rise, safe haven assets like the U.S. Treasurys, U.S. dollar, gold, and Swiss and Japanese government bonds, should continue to hold an important place in investors' asset allocation. VI. End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Since the early 1980s, interest rates have been in a structural decline on the back of falling inflation expectations. Thirty-five years later, the global bond bull market has reached its end (Chart 37). Importantly, this is not to suggest that a secular bear market in bonds is beginning. The global economy is still suffering from significant spare capacity and markets usually go through a volatile bottoming process before a new secular trend is established. Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Chart 37Long-Term Yields Have Bottomed The most significant shift regarding sovereign yields is the global transition from monetary to fiscal stimulus. Over the next few years, central bank asset purchases will be negligible at best, with normalization in central bank balance sheets being far more likely, albeit at a muted pace. From the fiscal perspective, the rotation has already occurred in several regions, with the liberal government in Canada promising to increase infrastructure spending, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe postponing next year's planned VAT tax hike, and incoming U.S. President Donald Trump expected to ramp up fiscal spending. Sovereign bond yields have been weighed down by the rise in inequality. IMF studies found that this increase in inequality has had substantial negative effects on real GDP growth and therefore the real component. Populism is growing, as evidenced by the surprising outcome of the Brexit vote, the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, and the highly polarizing candidates in the U.S. elections. However, as populism continues to mount, policymakers will be further pressured to take on additional reflationary measures, inevitably leading to higher inflation. Anemic productivity growth has dampened aggregate demand and applied downward pressure to bond yields. Initially, weak productivity gains are deflationary as they reduce the incentive for firms to invest and consumers to reduce their spending. The longer term effect however, is that the supply side catches up, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise (Chart 38). This was the case in low productivity economies in Africa and Latin America. Chart 38A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Nevertheless, not all factors are pointing to higher yields. Demographic trends have been unfavorable, as working age population growth in the major countries has decelerated sharply since 2007. Conditions will likely worsen, with the UN forecasting growth to reach zero in the latter half of the next decade. The effect is further compression in the real component of bond yields as slower labor force growth reduces the incentive for firms to build new factories, shopping malls and office towers. Overall, while the global economy has been plagued by deflation, these signs suggest that the tide is finally turning. Higher consumer prices will not only lead to an increase in the inflation expectations component, but also the inflation risk premium, which compensates investors over the inflation outlook. As the majority of the rise in bond yields will come via the inflation component and not the real component, we advocate a long-term allocation to TIPS. VII. Subpar Long-Run Returns Asset prices have surged following the global financial crisis and have reached fairly expensive valuations. While this not to say that a bear market is imminent, it certainly makes financial assets more vulnerable to correction and it does suggest that long-term return prospects are bleak. Lower future returns will shift the efficient frontier inward, requiring substantially more risk to achieve the same level of returns. Investors will find it far more difficult to achieve returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Sovereign Bonds: After 35 years, the structural decline in interest rates is at an end. While we do not expect an outright bond bear market, the path of least resistance for yields is up (Chart 39). Across all major countries and regions, starting long-term real yields have been an excellent predictor for future five-year returns. Given that yields are at multi-century lows, and even negative in some regions, future returns will be meager. Investors should reduce their long-term allocation to sovereign debt. Chart 39Yields: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Up Corporate Bonds: Corporate debt is also priced expensively relative to its long-term history. The credit cycle is in its late stages, and while accommodative monetary policy will extend this phase, defaults will eventually grind higher and low starting yields will limit long-term returns. Investment grade real returns can be mostly explained by their starting real yields. In fact, real yields have been an even better predictor for investment grade returns than they have for sovereigns. Investment grade spreads are less important as they have historically been stable, and defaults are fairly rare in this space. For high yield, while starting real yields are important, spreads and defaults are also crucial determinants for performance. All valuation metrics suggest that both future investment grade and high-yield returns will fall far short of investors' ingrained expectations (Chart 40). Equities: The relationship between cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings ratios (CAPEs) and real returns is well established, as a simple regression generates a high r-squared (Chart 41). Current valuations are expensive, suggesting low to mid single digit returns. However, there is reason to believe that this scenario is overly optimistic. First, global equities have benefitted from the structural decline in interest rates. Going forward however, the end of the bond bull market removes a substantial tailwind. Secondly, the Debt Supercycle, in which each cycle begins with more indebtedness than the one that preceded it, is played out in the developed world. The implication is that household credit demand will be weak and businesses are less likely to spend on capex, thereby dampening economic growth. Chart 40Low Starting Yields = Low Future Returns Chart 41Shiller P/E Suggests Below-Average Long-Run Equity Returns In order for investors to reach their return targets, we recommend several options. The end of the structural decline in interest rates does not bode well for sovereign bond returns. Instead, allocators should increase their structural exposure to equities. Investors should also focus more on bottom-up analysis and differentiating at lower levels, i.e. industry groups (GICS level 2). Finally, we advocate a long-term allocation to alternative assets. Alternatives provide downside protection through volatility reduction and substantial return enhancement potential given their active management and an illiquidity premium. VIII. Structural Bull Market In Resources Is Over Commodities experienced an unusually strong bull market in the 2000s, driven by very supportive global economic and financial conditions (Chart 42): 1) the U.S. dollar spent the decade in decline; 2) investment in mining capacity was depressed following the bear market of the 1990s; 3) rapid industrialization and double-digit growth in China. The bull market of 2000s lasted longer than its predecessors and was driven more by demand growth than by supply shortages. Commodities have never been a long-term buy. While there have been cyclical bull markets, the commodity complex in real terms has been in a structural downtrend for the past two centuries (Chart 43). This is despite a 20-fold increase in real GDP, a sign that rapid economic growth and weaker commodity prices can go hand in hand. The simple reason is that humans constantly find ways to extract commodities from the ground more cheaply and use them more efficiently. The current cyclical downturn is likely to continue for some years. Demand: A number cyclical and structural factors (Chart 44) will weigh on marginal demand for commodities in the long run: Chart 42Very SUpportive Backdrop In The 1990s Chart 43Not A Good Long-Term Investment Chart 44Shaky Demand Outlook Anemic Global Growth: Despite rising incomes, per capita consumption of base metals has been flat in most developed nations. With growth in the working age population slowing to 0.7% in 2010 - 2050, down from 1.7% in 1970 - 2010, the long-term outlook for consumer demand is poor. China: China consumes more zinc, aluminium and copper than the U.S., Japan, and Europe combined. It comprises more than 40% of global base metal demand, while it has only a 15% share of global GDP. With China's plans to transition into a consumer-driven services economy, this magnitude of incremental demand is highly unlikely in the future. Alternatives & Technological Advancements: Improved energy efficiency, the transition to renewable sources, and growth in electric-hybrid vehicles will weigh on demand for traditional sources of energy. A large-scale push towards nuclear energy, led by China's plans for 80GW of installed capacity by 2020, will pose a serious threat to marginal demand. Supply: Coordinated production cuts are a thing of the past. Underutilization (Chart 45) and market share-wars by countries that need to finance rising fiscal deficits have changed supply dynamics: Excess Capacity: Following the Global Financial Crisis, completion of projects which had been previously committed to, led to enormous capacity expansion when global growth was struggling. Both mining and oil & gas extraction capacity have reached new highs led by the U.S. This will continue to put downward pressure on both metals and energy prices until excess capacity has been removed. Proven Reserves: Known reserves of most metals have risen over the past decade and reached new highs: for example, in the case of copper, nearly three tons have been added to reserves for every ton consumed. In the crude oil market, technological progress has led to discovery of unconventional deposits, the best-known being Canadian oil sands, which by some estimates contain more than twice Saudi Arabia's crude oil reserves. Price Elasticity: The shale revolution brought with it leaner drilling operations which have a much shorter supply response time. The key to the price of crude is how quickly U.S. shale oil producers respond once the oil price rises above their current average cash cost of $50. This will limit the upside potential to crude oil for the next few years. U.S. Dollar & Real Rates: The dollar (Chart 46) has much more explanatory power for commodity prices than Chinese demand does. Given monetary policy and growth divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world, the U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate. When real rates are low, the opportunity cost of keeping resources in the ground is also low. As growth starts to stabilize, rising real rates will add downward pressure on prices. Chart 45Relentless Supply Response Chart 46U.S. Dollar Vs Chinese Growth We remain structurally bearish on the overall commodity complex, but expect short-lived divergences within the group. As more nations agree on production cuts in oil, we expect energy markets to outperform metals. Precious metals will continue to stage mini-rallies on the back of heightened equity market volatility. Agricultural commodities will continue to bear the brunt of poor global demographics. IX. Mal-Distribution Of Income And Social Unrest The decision by the U.K. in June's referendum to leave the EU and Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election suggest a high degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo in Anglo-Saxon economies. This is hardly surprising given the stagnation of median wages in developed economies since the early 1980s, especially among the less educated (Chart 47), and growing inequality. The middle class (defined as those with disposable income between 25% below and 25% above the median) in the U.S. has fallen to 27% of the population from 33% in the early 1980s, and in the U.K. to 33% from 40% (Chart 48). Note that the decline in the middle class is much less prominent in continental Europe and Canada. Chart 47Wages For Less Educated Have Stagnated Chart 48Middle Class Has Shrunk In U.S. And U.K. But Not In Continental Europe The Gini coefficient in the U.S. has risen to as high a level as during the 1920s (Chart 49). Branko Milanovic, the leading academic working on global inequality, explains the reasons are follows: "The forces that pushed U.S. inequality up in the roaring twenties were, in many ways, similar to the forces that pushed it up in the 1990s: downward pressure on wages (from immigration and/or increased trade), capital-based technological change (Taylorism and the Internet), monopolization of the economy (Standard Oil and large banks), suppression or decreasing attractiveness of trade unions, and a shift toward plutocracy in government."15 Chart 49U.S. Inequality Back To 1920's Level The backlash has begun. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has described how the median voter in the Anglo-Saxon world is shifting to the left.16 Around the world governments are abandoning austerity and moving to fiscal stimulus and spending to improve infrastructure. Many, for example, are raising the minimum wage. In the U.K., it is due to go up from GBP7.20 to 60% of the median wage (about GBP9.35) by 2020, and in California from $10 to $15 by 2022. The 40 years of a falling labor share of GDP and rising capital share have started to reverse in the U.S. over the past two or three years (Chart 50). These shifts also threaten growth of global trade. Trump opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and says he will renegotiate or scrap the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Global trade, after continuous growth as a percentage of GDP since World War Two, has slowed since the Great Recession (Chart 51). The WTO reports an increase in trade-restrictive measures and a fall in trade-facilitating measures over the past 12 months (Chart 52). Chart 50Fall In Labor Share ##br##Of GDP Starting To Reverse Chart 51Trade Globalization* Chart 52Trade Measures Are Getting ##br##Increasingly Restrictive Chart 53Populism Could Cause ##br##Profit Margins To Mean Revert These trends have significant implications for investors. The shift to populist politics is likely to be inflationary, as governments increasingly fall back on stimulative fiscal policy. A faster rise in wages will hurt corporate profit margins which, in the U.S., are likely to mean-revert from their current near-record highs (Chart 53). The popular discontent (and the growing unreliability of opinion polls) will make election results more unpredictable, as witnessed in the Brexit vote and the U.S. presidential election. A further pullback in global trade will hurt exporting sectors and export-dependent countries. All these factors lead to the conclusion that returns from investment assets over coming years are likely to be lower, and volatility higher, than has been the case over the past 40 years. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Money And Investment Profits, A. Hamilton Bolton, Dow-Jones-Irwin Inc, 1967, pp74, 304. 2 For our most recent detailed analysis of this, please see BCA Special Report, "The End Of The Debt Supercycle, An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at reports.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see, for example, Summers' article in Foreign Affairs, "The Age of Secular Stagnation," dated February 15, 2016. 4 Please see, for example, Rogoff's article, "Debt Supercycle, not secular stagnation," Centre for Economic Policy Research, dated April 22, 2015. 5 Please see, for example, Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses," dated August 31, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see, for example, her book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, published in 2002. 7 Please see Alasdair Nairn, "Engines That Move Markets," Wiley, dated January 4, 2002. 8 Measured either over the whole period, or between the dates that they were listed during the period. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Human Intelligence And Economic Growth," March 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM Equities: Downgrade To Underweight," dated April 20, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Mearsheimer, John "The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics," New York: W.W. Norton & Company (2001). 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-Exit?," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and BCA The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014. 15 Please see Branco Milanovic, "Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization," Harvard University Press, 2016. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

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 An Italian referendum 'no' is not really revolting. Some people are voting no for no change to the current constitution's vital checks and balances. Lean against any knee-jerk widening of the Italian sovereign yield spread versus France that followed a no vote. Lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote. A 50bps spike in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months is normally a bad omen for risk-asset performance. Retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Feature After shock victories for Brexit and Donald Trump at the polls, a 'no' vote in Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform would be the next worrying sign of a growing grassroots revolt against the establishment. Or would it? An Italian 'No' Is Not Really Revolting The votes for Brexit or Donald Trump were clearly votes for change. At first glance, an Italian no would also look like a revolt, with the potential to trigger political uncertainty and instability in the euro area's third largest economy. Chart of the WeekItalian Banks Are Tracking Japanese 'Zombie' Banks The truth is more nuanced. Clearly, some Italians are voting no to reject Prime Minister Renzi. But others - including former Prime Minister Mario Monti - are voting no for no change. These voters want to leave in place the current constitution's vital checks and balances. If Italians vote yes to constitutional reform, the upper house of parliament - the Senate - would be relegated to an advisory chamber. Meanwhile, an already approved new electoral law for the lower house of parliament - the Chamber of Deputies - hands an automatic 55 percent majority of seats to the largest party. Some people fear that this combination would amount to excessive executive power. So they are voting no to mitigate the danger. Granted, a no vote might also force Renzi to resign, but this would not necessarily trigger new elections. President Sergio Mattarella would likely explore options for a new government - perhaps a technocratic government - which the parties in the current governing coalition have a strong incentive to support until the next elections are due in 2018. Even if there were early elections, it is improbable that they would result in a government led by the populist 5 Star Movement. If 5 Star was the largest party, it would hold a 55 percent majority of seats in the lower house, but only 30 percent in the upper house, in proportion to its popular vote share (Chart I-2). Therefore, it could not form a government. Under the current constitution, the government needs the support of both houses. The irony is that a yes vote - by giving the executive excessive powers - would make it more likely for a populist party like 5 Star to form a government in 2018 or beyond. Still, even this might prove a tall order. Italy's constitutional court is reviewing the electoral law change that gives 55 percent of lower house seats to the largest party. The court will likely demand more proportionality, making it hard for any one party to win an outright majority. This means more coalition governments, which 5 Star rejects. Hence, an Italian no will not be the equivalent of the Brexit vote or U.S. election of Donald Trump. Fears that it will unleash a dangerous phase of populism and political instability in Italy are overblown. Yet in the last three months, the Italian sovereign yield spread has widened sharply versus France (Chart I-3). Note also that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Italy versus France sovereign bond performance is close to its technical limit, indicating excessive pessimistic groupthink. Chart I-2The 5 Star Movement Could Not Form A ##br##Government Under The Current Constitution Chart I-3Italy's Political Risk Premium Has ##br##Increased, But Is It Justified? If December 4 brings a no vote in the Italian referendum combined with the election of a far-right President of Austria - whose role is largely ceremonial - the knee-jerk market response might still be fright. In which case, a further widening in the Italy/France yield spread would be a tactical entry opportunity, given that political risk is overstated. Fixing Italian Banks Needs A 'Deep-V' Or A 'Long-L' The real question in Italy is not about an imminent populist backlash. The real question is what does the cure for Italy's banking malaise look like? The answer is either a 'deep-V', meaning a banking crisis forces a quick workout; or a 'long-L', meaning no banking crisis but a very long struggle back to normal health. As an investor, neither seems particularly appealing. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Today, Italian banks' non-performing loans (NPLs) account for 18% of gross lending, and NPLs net of provisions equal 85% of equity capital. A few years ago, Irish banks looked even worse. Irish NPLs peaked at 25% of gross lending in 2013 and net NPLs peaked at 100% of equity capital. Following government bailouts Irish banks have recovered well (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Likewise, the Spanish government created a 'bad bank' in 2012 to offload bank NPLs. Subsequently, Spanish banks' NPLs as a share of gross lending has almost halved. Chart I-4Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy##br## For NPLs As A Share Of Loans Chart I-5Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy ##br##For NPLs As A Share Of Capital Compared to Ireland and Spain, Italy's avoidance of outright crisis (thus far) appears a blessing. Unfortunately, it is now a curse. In waiting so long, Italy cannot follow Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. in their escapes from their banking woes. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the bailout escape route. The BRRD does allow state intervention in a banking crisis. But the overarching aim is to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. Therefore, in a banking crisis "other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." For bank investors, this would constitute the 'deep-V' cure: likely intense pain up-front albeit with much better long-term prospects thereafter. Alternatively, without a crisis, the process to recognise and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Indeed, the Chart of the Week shows a striking parallel between Italian bank profits and Japan's 'zombie' bank profits, if we lag the Japanese experience by 17 years. Japan perfectly illustrates this alternative 'long-L' cure: no outright crisis, just a long and seemingly never-ending struggle back to normal health. Either way, absent any further information, we would lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote on December 4. What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? Turning to the broader financial markets, a bigger concern is the impact that sharply higher bond yields will have on growth and/or on risk-asset valuations. Higher long-term borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the credit impulse (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). A depressed credit impulse then almost always drags down subsequent GDP growth. The recent spike in U.S. 15-year and 30-year mortgage rates has already caused mortgage refinancing applications to plunge by 40% since July (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Higher Bond Yields Depress##br## Credit Growth In Europe... Chart I-7...And In ##br##The U.S. Chart I-8Mortgage Applications##br## Have Plunged Prior to the current incidence, a 50bps rise in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months has occurred only eight times this century (Chart I-9). Table I-1 lists those eight occasions and the subsequent 3-month performance of the equity market. On three out of the eight occasions, the equity market rose modestly, but on the other five it fell. Chart I-9The Bond Yield Has Spiked Table I-1What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? But perhaps the most interesting finding is that on all eight occasions, the equity market's subsequent 3-month performance consistently deteriorated, on average by -7%, compared to the preceding 3-month performance. For reference, today's preceding 3-month performance is just 0.7%. Given this evidence, it is prudent to retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The Italy versus France sovereign bond underperformance indicates excessive pessimistic groupthink. However, in this instance we would wait until after Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform before initiating the countertrend trade. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Special Report

My colleague Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President of BCA’s European Investment Strategy, has penned an excellent update on the upcoming Italian constitutional referendum. Dhaval argues that the market is mispricing risks emanating from the referendum. Not all voters who reject the plebiscite are Euroskeptic. In fact, many will vote against the referendum precisely because it removes checks and balances and increases the odds of an anti-establishment party forming a government. Geopolitical Strategy group agrees with Dhaval and has made a similar point in our November Monthly Report. Our September Special Report also posited that Italy cannot easily disentangle itself from European institutions due to its own incomplete unification. This is not to say that Italy is not a risk to the stability of the euro area. There are plenty of reasons to worry, starting with the banking system, which Dhaval addresses in his missive. However, the market’s obsession with the referendum is overdone and thus presents an investment opportunity. I hope you enjoy the European Investment Strategy report and I encourage you to take a look at Dhaval’s research closely, if you are not already a subscriber. Kindest regards, Marko Papic Highlights An Italian referendum 'no' is not really revolting. Some people are voting no for no change to the current constitution's vital checks and balances. Lean against any knee-jerk widening of the Italian sovereign yield spread versus France that followed a no vote. Lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote. A 50bps spike in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months is normally a bad omen for risk-asset performance. Retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Feature After shock victories for Brexit and Donald Trump at the polls, a 'no' vote in Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform would be the next worrying sign of a growing grassroots revolt against the establishment. Or would it? An Italian 'No' Is Not Really Revolting The votes for Brexit or Donald Trump were clearly votes for change. At first glance, an Italian no would also look like a revolt, with the potential to trigger political uncertainty and instability in the euro area's third largest economy. Chart of the WeekItalian Banks Are Tracking Japanese 'Zombie' Banks The truth is more nuanced. Clearly, some Italians are voting no to reject Prime Minister Renzi. But others - including former Prime Minister Mario Monti - are voting no for no change. These voters want to leave in place the current constitution's vital checks and balances. If Italians vote yes to constitutional reform, the upper house of parliament - the Senate - would be relegated to an advisory chamber. Meanwhile, an already approved new electoral law for the lower house of parliament - the Chamber of Deputies - hands an automatic 55 percent majority of seats to the largest party. Some people fear that this combination would amount to excessive executive power. So they are voting no to mitigate the danger. Granted, a no vote might also force Renzi to resign, but this would not necessarily trigger new elections. President Sergio Mattarella would likely explore options for a new government - perhaps a technocratic government - which the parties in the current governing coalition have a strong incentive to support until the next elections are due in 2018. Even if there were early elections, it is improbable that they would result in a government led by the populist 5 Star Movement. If 5 Star was the largest party, it would hold a 55 percent majority of seats in the lower house, but only 30 percent in the upper house, in proportion to its popular vote share (Chart I-2). Therefore, it could not form a government. Under the current constitution, the government needs the support of both houses. The irony is that a yes vote - by giving the executive excessive powers - would make it more likely for a populist party like 5 Star to form a government in 2018 or beyond. Still, even this might prove a tall order. Italy's constitutional court is reviewing the electoral law change that gives 55 percent of lower house seats to the largest party. The court will likely demand more proportionality, making it hard for any one party to win an outright majority. This means more coalition governments, which 5 Star rejects. Hence, an Italian no will not be the equivalent of the Brexit vote or U.S. election of Donald Trump. Fears that it will unleash a dangerous phase of populism and political instability in Italy are overblown. Yet in the last three months, the Italian sovereign yield spread has widened sharply versus France (Chart I-3). Note also that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Italy versus France sovereign bond performance is close to its technical limit, indicating excessive pessimistic groupthink. Chart I-2The 5 Star Movement Could Not Form A ##br##Government Under The Current Constitution Chart I-3Italy's Political Risk Premium Has ##br##Increased, But Is It Justified? If December 4 brings a no vote in the Italian referendum combined with the election of a far-right President of Austria - whose role is largely ceremonial - the knee-jerk market response might still be fright. In which case, a further widening in the Italy/France yield spread would be a tactical entry opportunity, given that political risk is overstated. Fixing Italian Banks Needs A 'Deep-V' Or A 'Long-L' The real question in Italy is not about an imminent populist backlash. The real question is what does the cure for Italy's banking malaise look like? The answer is either a 'deep-V', meaning a banking crisis forces a quick workout; or a 'long-L', meaning no banking crisis but a very long struggle back to normal health. As an investor, neither seems particularly appealing. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Today, Italian banks' non-performing loans (NPLs) account for 18% of gross lending, and NPLs net of provisions equal 85% of equity capital. A few years ago, Irish banks looked even worse. Irish NPLs peaked at 25% of gross lending in 2013 and net NPLs peaked at 100% of equity capital. Following government bailouts Irish banks have recovered well (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Likewise, the Spanish government created a 'bad bank' in 2012 to offload bank NPLs. Subsequently, Spanish banks' NPLs as a share of gross lending has almost halved. Chart I-4Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy##br## For NPLs As A Share Of Loans Chart I-5Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy ##br##For NPLs As A Share Of Capital Compared to Ireland and Spain, Italy's avoidance of outright crisis (thus far) appears a blessing. Unfortunately, it is now a curse. In waiting so long, Italy cannot follow Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. in their escapes from their banking woes. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the bailout escape route. The BRRD does allow state intervention in a banking crisis. But the overarching aim is to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. Therefore, in a banking crisis "other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." For bank investors, this would constitute the 'deep-V' cure: likely intense pain up-front albeit with much better long-term prospects thereafter. Alternatively, without a crisis, the process to recognise and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Indeed, the Chart of the Week shows a striking parallel between Italian bank profits and Japan's 'zombie' bank profits, if we lag the Japanese experience by 17 years. Japan perfectly illustrates this alternative 'long-L' cure: no outright crisis, just a long and seemingly never-ending struggle back to normal health. Either way, absent any further information, we would lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote on December 4. What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? Turning to the broader financial markets, a bigger concern is the impact that sharply higher bond yields will have on growth and/or on risk-asset valuations. Higher long-term borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the credit impulse (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). A depressed credit impulse then almost always drags down subsequent GDP growth. The recent spike in U.S. 15-year and 30-year mortgage rates has already caused mortgage refinancing applications to plunge by 40% since July (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Higher Bond Yields Depress##br## Credit Growth In Europe... Chart I-7...And In ##br##The U.S. Chart I-8Mortgage Applications##br## Have Plunged Prior to the current incidence, a 50bps rise in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months has occurred only eight times this century (Chart I-9). Table I-1 lists those eight occasions and the subsequent 3-month performance of the equity market. On three out of the eight occasions, the equity market rose modestly, but on the other five it fell. Chart I-9The Bond Yield Has Spiked Table I-1What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? But perhaps the most interesting finding is that on all eight occasions, the equity market's subsequent 3-month performance consistently deteriorated, on average by -7%, compared to the preceding 3-month performance. For reference, today's preceding 3-month performance is just 0.7%. Given this evidence, it is prudent to retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The Italy versus France sovereign bond underperformance indicates excessive pessimistic groupthink. However, in this instance we would wait until after Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform before initiating the countertrend trade. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Fractal Trading Model

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

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