Asset Allocation

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 U.S. bond yields and the U.S. dollar will rise further. Consistently, EM currencies and local bonds will continue selling off. There is meaningful downside in EM exchange rates. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KOR, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. Within domestic bond portfolios, overweight low-beta defensive markets as well as Russia and Mexico. Our underweights are Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia. The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy. Feature Emerging market (EM) risk assets will likely continue to be driven by both rising U.S. bond yields and a strong U.S. dollar over the next two months or so. Beyond the next couple of months, the focus of the markets will likely switch to China: renewed weakness in growth and possible instability in its financial markets, with negative implications for China plays globally and for commodities prices in particular. The combination of these two negative forces will lead to a considerable drop in EM currencies in the next six months or so. In turn, EM currency depreciation will trigger broad liquidation of EM risk assets. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service believes that EM risk assets will continue to sell off in absolute terms, and underperform their DM/U.S. peers. EM Local Bonds The total return (including carry) index of JPM GBI-EM1 local currency bonds in U.S. dollar terms has rolled over at a critical resistance level (Chart I-1). The total return index of EM local bonds has also relapsed relative to the total return of 5-year U.S. Treasurys, failing to break above its long-term moving average (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Consistently, domestic bond yields have troughed at important technical levels in several key countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Colombia, Russia, South Africa and Malaysia (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Chart I-1EM Local Bonds' Total ##br##Return In US$: Failed Breakout Chart I-2AHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? Chart I-2BHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? In short, EM local bonds are exhibiting negative technical dynamics that corroborate our downbeat fundamental analysis. Consequently, we believe the total return JPM GBI-EM index in U.S. dollar terms will drop to new lows for the following reasons: Currency swings are responsible for most of the fluctuations in EM local bond total returns. As we have elaborated numerous times and re-assert in this report, the outlook for EM exchange rates remains gloomy. Foreign holdings of EM local currency bonds are substantial (Table I-1). Even though there have been improvements in a few countries, current account and fiscal deficits generally remain wide in the majority of developing nations (Chart I-3A and Chart I-3B). In other words, a number of EM economies are still at risk from a slowdown in foreign funding. Table I-1Foreign Holdings Of EM Local Bonds Chart I-3ACurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-3BCurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-4U.S. And EM Local Yields Notably, the bar for exchange rate depreciation is very low in EM economies with current account deficits. It takes only a reduction in net capital and financial inflows - i.e., net outflows are not necessary - for these countries' currencies to depreciate significantly. As net foreign funding diminishes, exchange rates of countries with current account deficits should weaken and interest rates should rise in order to compress domestic demand, which in turn would equalize the current account deficit to net inflows in capital and financial accounts. Finally, the spread of EM local bonds (the yield for GBI-EM global diversified index) over duration-matched (5-year) U.S. Treasury yields has not risen much (Chart I-4). Heightened risks in EM currencies warrant higher local bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys. Bottom Line: Absolute return investors should stay away from EM local currency bonds. U.S. Bond Yields And The Dollar: More Upside We expect U.S./DM bond yields to keep rising as re-pricing in global fixed income markets continues. The decline in DM bond yields in recent years until the latest selloff was enormous, and some sort of mean reversion should not come as a surprise. Our bias is that this selloff will likely continue until sometime in January, when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office. This riot in the bond market could, in retrospect, resemble a typical "sell the rumor, buy the news" pattern. In other words, by the time President-elect Trump takes office, a lot of bad news will already be priced into the U.S. bond markets, creating a buying opportunity. In our July 13 Weekly Report,2 we argued that: "In the U.S., the combination of a healthy labor market and a heavily overbought fixed-income market have created the backdrop for a material rise in U.S. interest rate expectations/bond yields. As U.S. rate expectations climb, the U.S. dollar should gain support. This in turn will create headwinds for EM currencies and other EM risk assets." Then, we reiterated this view in our July 27 Weekly Report: "Nowadays, there is little talk in the investment community about a bond bubble and the potential for much higher bond yields. Indeed, "lower for longer" has begun to dominate the investor lexicon. This is a sign that many G7 bond bears have likely capitulated. Investor consensus on bonds has become quite bullish, and many investors are long duration. When many bears capitulate, the odds of a market selloff inevitably rise. "Importantly, the increase in G7 bond yields might not be gradual as many expect because of the following: with yields at such low levels, bonds' duration is high and price changes become very sensitive to changes in yield... Such (large) price changes (drops) would amount to large losses for bond investors, and forced selling could intensify. As a result, the unwinding of long positions could be abrupt and volatile." For now, odds are that U.S. bond yields will rise further. Given global bond funds have seen massive inflows in recent years, the latest drop in prices of various bonds has been substantial and will likely trigger withdrawals and redemptions from bond funds, prompting forced selling. This is true for all types of bond portfolios, including DM government and corporates, EM credit (U.S. dollar bonds) and EM local currency bonds. U.S. bond yields are still low, even from the perspective of the past several years, and the market-implied terminal fed funds rate is still 80 basis points below the median projection of the Federal Open Market Committee's longer-run rate (Chart I-5). Given that U.S. interest rate expectations are not high at all, they will rise further (Chart I-6) as the uptrend in U.S. wages persists - driven by an already reasonably tight labor market (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Are Still Low Chart I-6U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Chart I-7More Upside In U.S. Treasurys Yields Finally, the U.S. dollar will continue to be buoyed by rising U.S. interest rate expectations. Our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has bounced off the zero line (Chart I-8). This constitutes a strong technical confirmation of the durable bullish market trend in the dollar. Bottom Line: Odds are that the rise in U.S. bond yields is not over. As U.S. bond yields rise further, EM currencies and bonds will sell off. Long-Term EM Currency Trends We have several observations on the long-term performance of EM currencies and financial markets: In the long run, there is no guarantee that the majority of EM currencies will appreciate in real terms (adjusted for inflation differentials). In fact, even countries such as Korea and Taiwan - which have been very successful in their economic development and have tremendously grown their income per capita - have seen their real (inflation-adjusted) exchange rates depreciate over the past several decades (Chart I-9). The case for long-term appreciation in real terms is even weaker for exchange rates in countries that exhibit chronically high inflation rates and/or current account deficits. This has been true for many non-Asian EM currencies (Chart I-10). Chart I-8The U.S. Dollar Is ##br##In A Genuine Bull Market Chart I-9Long-Term Currency ##br##Downtrends In Korea And Taiwan Chart I-10EM Currency Trends: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Importantly, most losses to foreign investors in EM financial markets often occur via currency depreciation. This is even truer in the current bear market downtrend. The JPM ELMI+ currency total return index (including cost of carry) seems to be about to break down (Chart I-11). In EM ex-China, the real effective exchange rate is still elevated (Chart I-12). Given their poor productivity growth outlook, the real effective exchange rates will be inclined to depreciate. Chart I-11EM Currency Return With Cost ##br##Of Carry Versus U.S. Dollar Chart I-12Weak Productivity Means ##br##Further Currency Depreciation To limit the upside in domestic interest rates - both in bond yields and interbank rates - many developing nations' central banks will inject more local currency liquidity into their respective systems.3 This might help cap local interest rates, but is bearish for their currencies. The Turkish central bank has been among the most aggressive in this disguised money printing, and not surprisingly the value of its currency has collapsed (Chart I-13). There is no long-term history for EM currencies, as before 1998 most developing nations' exchange rates were pegged. Yet when one examines EM equities' relative performance against the S&P 500, it emerges that there is no single EM bourse that has outperformed U.S. stocks on a consistent basis in the very long run. Chart I-14A and Chart I-14B demonstrate that among 11 EM equity markets that have a long-term history, none have outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 30-35 years. Chart I-13Turkey's Central Bank Has Been ##br##Pumping Local Currency Into The System Chart I-14AEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Chart I-14BEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective This goes to reveal that the starting point of underdevelopment and the mark "emerging" does not guarantee consistent outperformance even in the long run. In fact, EM's relative performance against the U.S. has followed multi-year cycles, and we believe the current bear market and underperformance is not yet over. While EM underperformance is long in duration, economic and financial adjustments remain incomplete. DM QE programs and China's still-growing credit bubble have delayed the adjustment. As a rule, the longer a financial or economic imbalance/excess lingers, the more protracted the adjustment will be. Bottom Line: EM exchange rates will continue depreciating. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KRW, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. For a complete list of our open currency and fixed-income trades please refer to page 18. Country Allocation For EM Local Bond Portfolios Chart I-15 demonstrates the relationship between developing countries' foreign funding requirements and their real (inflation-adjusted) local bond yields. The foreign funding requirement is calculated as the sum of the current account deficit and foreign debt service obligations over the next 12 months. We use inflation-linked (real) bond yields for markets where they are available. In other cases, we subtract the headline inflation rate from nominal bond yields to derive the real one. Chart I-15Real Bond Yields And Foreign Funding Requirements: A Cross Country Comparison The higher the foreign funding requirement, the higher the real yield must be to attract foreign capital, all else equal. On this diagram, the value pockets are Brazil (its real yield of 6.3% offers the best value by far), Indonesia, Russia and India. Domestic real yields in these countries are relatively high compared to their foreign funding requirements, which is a proxy for exchange rate risk. In contrast, Turkey, Chile, Colombia, Hungary and Malaysia have low real yields relative to their large foreign funding requirements. However, there are other factors that are shaping local yields. For example, Brazilian real yields look very attractive on this matrix because the latter does not account for public debt dynamics. The fiscal dynamics in Brazil are dreadful.4 On the contrary, Chilean local bonds appear expensive, but the country's fiscal outlook is very healthy. After considering all factors that affect local bond yields as well as incorporating the currency outlook, we recommend the following allocations: Overweight Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Russia and Mexico (Chart I-16). For investors who can invest in Chinese, Taiwanese and Indian local bonds, we also recommend overweighting these markets within an EM domestic bond portfolio. Underweight Turkish, South African, Malaysian and Indonesian local currency bonds (Chart I-17). We will publish our analysis on Indonesia soon. Stay neutral on domestic bonds' total return in U.S. dollar terms in Brazil (with a negative bias because of the considerable currency risk), Chile and Colombia (Chart I-18). Chart I-16Our Recommended ##br##Overweights In Local Bonds Chart I-17Our Recommended ##br##Underweights In Local Bonds Chart I-18Local Bonds ##br##Warranting A Neutral Allocation A Word On China's Commodities Frenzy Speculative fever is running high in Chinese commodities exchanges. Frenetic commodities trading in China has seen prices skyrocket of late (Chart I-19). Prices often rise a limit during a day. We have the following observations: This stampede into commodities is a reflection of rotating bubbles in China. Mania forces rotated from property to stocks, then to corporate bonds, and then back to housing, again. It seems to be shifting into commodities now. While the mainland's industrial sector and real demand for commodities have registered gradual improvement in recent months, the sharp spike in commodities prices largely reflects speculative activity much more than real demand. In fact, net imports of base metals have been flat for the past six years (zero growth in six years), and all swings have most likely been related to inventory cycles (Chart I-20). Chart I-19The Spike In Commodities ##br##Prices Trading In China Chart I-20China: Net Import Of Base Metals Like any speculative frenzy, this is momentum-driven and will one day crash. Timing the reversal is impossible. A lot depends on policymakers' willingness to confront this speculative bubble and investor psychology. Notably, onshore corporate bond yields and swap rates have recently begun rising. As in DM bonds, the rise in yields from very low levels is causing large price drops. As and if yields rise further, losses in corporate bonds will become considerable and investors (especially ones managing retail investors' money) will head for the exits, triggering liquidation. This, along with the eventual unraveling of commodities speculation poses substantial potential risk to global, or at least EM, financial markets. Bottom Line: The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy that will end badly. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 The JPMorgan Government Bond Index-Emerging Markets (GBI-EM) indices are emerging market debt benchmarks that track local currency bonds issued by Emerging Market governments. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View," dated July 13, 2016. 3 Please see "EM: Is The Liquidity Upturn Genuine And Sustainable?" Parts I & II, dated November 25, 2015 and December 2, 2015, respectively. 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: The Honeymoon Is Over," dated August 3, 2016. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months are still quite elevated. Maintain below benchmark duration. Global Bond Strategy: The most likely candidates for another bond bearish catalyst would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus from Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. Investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral on JGBs. U.S. High-Yield: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal. Feature In a U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report1 published in August we observed that, since the financial crisis, material increases in global bond yields have all been associated with a policy catalyst (Chart 1). We identified three such catalysts: the Fed's 2010 announcement of QE2, the Fed signaling its willingness to slow the pace of asset purchases in 2013, and the European Central Bank's (ECB) announcement of its own QE program in 2015. Now we can add the election of Donald Trump as a fourth catalyst that has spurred a tantrum in global bond markets. Chart 1The Four Post-Crisis Bond Tantrums The common factor that links all of these catalysts is that each causes the market to quickly re-assess its expectations about the future pace of monetary tightening. Interestingly, this re-assessment can be caused by either the announcement of a program that is perceived to be extremely stimulative or the announcement that monetary stimulus will be scaled back. Examples of the former include both the Fed's and ECB's QE announcements as well as the recent U.S. election. An example of the latter would be the 2013 taper tantrum. As in August, the goal of this report is to perform a quick survey of the major global economies in order to assess the likelihood that another bond-bearish catalyst emerges during the next 6-12 months. While we find it difficult to see a catalyst of the same scale as those shown in Chart 1, we assign high odds to the possibility that the announcement of fiscal easing in Japan will add to the bearish pressure on global bonds. We also assign high odds to the possibility that upside inflation surprises in the U.S. cause the Fed to adopt a more hawkish forward guidance, further increasing the bearish pressure on global bonds. We assign low odds to the possibility that ECB policy will contribute to the global bond selloff. U.S. Chart 2Fed Wants Breakevens To Head Higher The recent "Trump Tantrum" has sent yields sharply higher, and expectations priced into the U.S. bond market are now not far from the Fed's median rate hike expectations, especially at the short-end of the curve (Chart 2). In the U.S., the next most likely catalyst for sharply higher global bond yields would be the Fed signaling that it will adopt a quicker pace of rate hikes. Specifically, the Fed would need to cease revising its funds rate forecasts lower - which has been the pattern for the last few years - and start revising them higher. While the market was quick to price-in the likelihood of greater fiscal stimulus and rising deficits under the incoming government, the Fed will take a more cautious approach. In fact, with inflation still below target (Chart 2, bottom panel) and market-based measures of inflation compensation still depressed, the Fed will be in no rush to signal a more hawkish policy stance. We expect the Fed will follow through with an expected rate increase in December, but that the median expectation will continue to call for only two more hikes in 2017. The Fed is only likely to shift toward a more hawkish policy stance once inflation expectations are more firmly anchored around levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target. This corresponds to a range of 2.4% to 2.5% on the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 2, second panel). Assuming that U.S. economic growth continues to accelerate into next year, as we expect, then the 5y5y TIPS breakeven rate could reach this target sometime in the middle of 2017. At that point, a more hawkish Fed policy becomes more likely. In the meantime, while the "Trump Tantrum" is likely to take a pause in the near-term (next 1-2 months), it may not have run its course just yet. If U.S. growth is strong in 2017 and the Trump administration appears to be making progress implementing its more stimulative policies, then the Treasury curve will likely resume its bear-steepening trend in the first half of next year.2 Euro Area Chart 3Strong Growth, But Plenty Of Slack According to the OECD and others, including the European Commission and ECB, trend GDP growth in the Eurozone is below 1%. In fact, most estimates center around 0.7%. This means that as long as GDP growth is maintained above these levels we should expect the labor market to continue to tighten. At least for now, the data suggest that growth is likely to remain well above trend. Led by gains in both the services and manufacturing indexes, the euro area's composite PMI jumped from 53.3 to 54.1 in November. The composite PMI has a good track record of leading European GDP growth (Chart 3), and the current reading is consistent with GDP growth of 2%. Despite strong growth, the ECB's policy stance is likely to remain accommodative for quite some time and is unlikely to spur a global bond tantrum within our 6-12 month investment horizon. The fact that core inflation remains below 1% (Chart 3, panel 3) tells us that the output gap in the euro area is still very wide. It will take a prolonged period of strong growth for the output gap to close and for inflationary pressures to mount. In prior cycles inflation has not begun to accelerate until the unemployment rate was below 9% (shaded regions in Chart 3). An announcement from the ECB that it will cease its asset purchase program because the economy has made adequate progress toward its economic and inflation goals would likely spur a large rise in global bond yields. However, this is unlikely to occur until the unemployment rate is below 9% and inflation is in an uptrend. As we argued in a recent Global Fixed Income Strategy report,3 the ECB will be able to alter the rules regarding the quantity of bonds available for purchase as is necessary to keep the program in place. Japan The Bank of Japan (BoJ) recently switched to a policy framework that involves targeting a level of yields as opposed to a quantity of purchases. In our view, this sends a pretty strong signal that monetary policy is close to being exhausted and that fiscal policy must take up the baton of Abenomics. While the timing and amount of any additional fiscal spending is not clear, it is probably necessary if policymakers are serious about reaching their 2% inflation goal. Chart 4Policy Action Required In Japan At present, the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget and government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. While any fiscal measures would not spur an increase in nominal JGB yields (because the BoJ will retain the cap), they would spur an increase in inflation expectations and a decline in real yields (Chart 4). We also think that the reflationary impulse would be felt by bond markets in the rest of the world, and that large enough fiscal stimulus from Japan would pressure global bond yields higher even though JGBs remain capped. Admittedly, the cap on nominal JGB yields would limit the contagion from Japanese fiscal stimulus to the rest of the global bond market. As would the impact of a depreciating yen relative to the euro and U.S. dollar. However, we also suspect that the shift toward greater fiscal stimulus in both the U.S. and Japan would cause investors to revise their global growth expectations higher, and that this impact would dominate in terms of the impact on global bond yields. Investment Conclusions The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months remain quite elevated. The most likely candidates would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus in Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. The ECB is unlikely to contribute to the bearish pressure on global bonds during the next 6-12 months. As such, we continue to recommend a below benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. In global bond portfolios, investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral JGBs. Valuation & Expected Returns In U.S. High-Yield A commonly used tool for assessing value in the high-yield bond market is a default-adjusted spread. That is, we formulate an expectation for default losses during our investment horizon and compare it to the spread that is currently on offer. If the current spread is elevated compared to our expectation for default losses then the default-adjusted spread is high and we would see good value in high-yield bonds relative to equivalent-duration Treasuries. This week we examine two different formulations of a default-adjusted spread for the U.S. high-yield market and test how well each corresponds to excess junk returns. The first measure we look at is a true ex-ante measure. It relies only on data that are available in real time, and can therefore be used as part of a trading strategy. Specifically, our ex-ante default-adjusted spread is calculated as the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield index less an expectation of default losses for the subsequent 12 month period. Expected default losses are calculated by taking the Moody's baseline forecast for the U.S. speculative grade default rate during the next 12 months and multiplying it by 1 minus our forecast of the recovery rate for this same period. We forecast the recovery rate based on its historical relationship with the default rate. The second measure we examine is an ex-post default-adjusted spread. In this case we look at the average spread of the index less actual default losses that are realized during the subsequent 12 months. As such, this measure can only be calculated after the fact. Comparing the ex-ante and ex-post measures, we see that both tend to reside within a range of 200 to 300 basis points. However, the ex-post measure periodically shows a negative value while the ex-ante measure is more often above 300 bps (Chart 5). This tells us that when forecasting default losses it is more common to underestimate default losses, rather than overestimate them. Chart 5Distribution of Default-Adjusted Spreads Over Time The next thing we look at is how closely each measure aligns with high-yield excess returns (Charts 6 & 7). Our ex-ante measure explains 34% of the variation in high-yield excess returns since 2002 (when our sample begins). Predictably, the ex-post measure, which removes the error surrounding the default loss forecast, explains a greater proportion of the variation in excess junk returns (53%). Our sample period is also longer for the ex-post measure, beginning in 1995. Chart 612-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Chart 712-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. ##br##Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread (1995 - Present) The current average option-adjusted spread for the High-Yield index is 459 bps. If we incorporate the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate during the next 12 months (4.1%) and our forecast for the recovery rate (39%), then we calculate an ex-ante default-adjusted spread of 210 bps. Using the relationship in Chart 6, this translates into an expected 12-month excess return of -26 bps. If we assume there is no error in our forecast then we can use the relationship in Chart 7. In that case, our expected 12-month excess return would be +55 bps. Of course, that exercise imposes a linear relationship between excess returns and the default-adjusted spread and doesn't consider that there is considerable variation in actual excess returns around this trendline. For that reason, in Charts 8 & 9 we split both our default-adjusted spread measures into intervals of 50 basis points. For each interval we display the average 12-month excess return along with a 90% confidence interval for where those returns are likely to fall. Chart 812-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals: ##br##Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 912-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals:##br## Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread Specifically, the blue dots in Charts 8 & 9 show the 12-month excess return that is earned on average when the default-adjusted spread falls into a particular interval. The top and bottom edges of the vertical lines correspond to the upper and lower limits of the 90% confidence interval. More statistics related to the 12-month excess returns that have been observed when the default-adjusted spread falls into a specific interval can be found in the Appendix to this report. The main message from these charts is that a default-adjusted spread below 100 bps is a powerful sell signal, while a default-adjusted spread above 350 bps is a powerful buy signal. Between those two thresholds the signal is less clear. Bottom Line: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal, but is consistent with small positive excess returns. Our inclination is to remain cautious on U.S. high-yield for the time being, but to look for opportunities to upgrade from more attractive valuations. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Tantrum Theory Of Global Bond Yields", dated August 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Appendix Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

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

Highlights Commodity prices and the dollar can occasionally rise together. The 1999-2001 and the 2005 experiences suggest a supply shock is required. If commodities were to rally alongside a strengthening dollar in 2017, this would be an oil-led move. Metals have very little potential upside as improving DM growth drains liquidity from EM economies. Favor petro currencies (CAD and NOK) relative to the antipodeans (AUD and NZD). Stay short AUD/CAD. USD/JPY is in a major bull market. However, near-term risks are to the downside. Feature It has become axiomatic among investors to assume that a dollar bull market is synonymous with a commodity bear market. While the relationships usually holds, there have been episodes where the narrow trade-weighted dollar and natural resource prices moved in tandem, not in opposite directions: 1982 to 1984, 1999 to 2001, and in 2005. The recent surge in base metals raises that possibility, but as DM economies suck in global liquidity away from EM ones, the prospect for a positive correlation between most commodities and the dollar is still remote. When Do Commodities And The Dollar Walk Together? Commodities and the dollar usually move in opposite direction. Since 1980, there has only been three episodes of consistent commodity strength despite dollar appreciation: 1982 to 1984, 1999 to 2001, and in 2005 (Chart I-1). What defines each of these episodes? In the early 1980s, the rally in commodities was concentrated outside of the energy complex. The U.S. economy was rebounding from the 1980s double-dip recession, and Japan was in the middle of its economic miracle. Their vigorous growth resulted in a large positive demand shock, boosting Japan and the U.S.'s share of global copper consumption from 34% to 37%. This undermined any harmful effect on metal prices from a rising dollar (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Commodities Can Rise ##br##Alongside The Dollar Chart I-2Early 1980s: U.S. Growth Was ##br##Able To Boost Metal Prices From 1999 to 2000, the rally in commodity was not broad based. In fact, it was concentrated in the energy sector (Chart I-3). It reflected three factors: After being decimated in 1997 and 1998, EM stock prices managed to stage a temporary rebound; one that mostly reflected bombed out equity and currency valuations. However, the muted response of non-oil commodities suggests that this rebound had little economic impact. Energy was buoyed by the vigorous growth in DM, with OECD oil consumption growing 1% annually between 1998 and 2001. Finally, as oil prices fell below US$10/bbl in late 1998 global oil production contracted sharply, plummeting by more than 4 million barrels, or 5% of total production. Not only could Saudi Arabia and Russia not withstand the pain of lower oil prices, but the latter was in the midst of a massive economic crisis that disrupted the local oil industry's ability to finance its operations. While most commodities in the 2005 episode experienced subtle upward drift, once again, energy was the true winner (Chart I-4). Supply disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico following the record-breaking 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons contributed to removing slightly more than one million barrels from the market. Additionally, oil had captured investors' imagination, with the peak-oil theory being all the rage. This combination explains why oil was the primary beneficiary of Chinese and EM economic strength while base metals could not overcome the dollar's hurdle. Chart I-31999-2001: Commodity##br## Rally Was An Oil Rally Chart I-42005: Commodity##br## Rally Was An Oil Rally Bringing it all together, the dollar and commodities where able to rise as one in the 1980s because they responded to the same positive U.S. growth shock. However, during the 1999-2001 and 2005 commodity rallies in the face of strong dollar, the supply/demand imbalance in oil was paramount. Bottom Line: The dollar and commodity prices can occasionally move together. This happens when a supply shock affects a natural resource as important as oil, lifting its price despite the greenback hurdle. Outside of energy, in general prices still displayed little upside through these episodes. Giant Sucking Sound Our bullishness on the dollar is built on our positive outlook for U.S. growth and rates, a view only reinforced by Trump's electoral victory.1 This does not mean we expect the same boost to metal consumption that we saw in the early 1980s. Today, combined Japanese and U.S. copper consumption only accounts for 11% of global consumption. For iron ore, the U.S. represents only 4% of global consumption. Even if the U.S. were to spend $1trillion over five years on infrastructure (an extremely optimistic assumption), it will not constitute the same relative boost to global demand as the U.S. expansion during the 1980s did (Chart I-5). Additionally, metals will remain slightly oversupplied. In fact, inventories have been rising and more supply of iron ore is coming upstream in 2017, as additional Pilbara iron ore deposits are being unleashed on the markets. In the case of copper, our commodity specialists expect supply to continue to grow in the years ahead. But still, could EM lift the demand for metals enough to play the same role as the U.S. did in the early 1980s? We doubt it. When it comes to China, the current growth improvement is likely as good as it gets. The Keqiang index - a measure of industrial activity in the Middle Kingdom - is approaching post-2011 highs, but the demand for loans remains very depressed (Chart I-6). Moreover, the Chinese fiscal impulse - which has buoyed the country's economy for much of 2016 - has rolled over and is now in negative territory, suggesting that the Keqiang index will weaken in 2017. This will weigh on Chinese imports of machinery and raw materials, representing a deflationary shock for other EM. Chart I-5Metals Are About China, Not The U.S. Chart I-6China: The Best Is Behind Us At the current juncture, additional deflationary forces on EM would be an unwelcomed development. The structural headwinds plaguing EM economies are still in place. EM remain burdened by too much capacity, too much debt, and too little productivity (Chart I-7). More worryingly, strong DM growth will do very little to lift EM economies and assets out of their structural funk. Instead, DM strength is likely to hurt EM. As Chart I-8 shows, since 2009 improvements in DM leading economic indicators (LEIs) have led to falling EM LEIs. Chart I-7EM Structural Headwinds Chart I-8DM Hurting EM EM nations are not very dependent on DM as a source of growth. Intra EM trade has been responsible for most of the growth in EM exports as shipments to the DM economies and the U.S. now account for only 28% and 15% of EM total exports, respectively. While this explains why DM growth cannot lift EM growth, it still does not explain why DM growth leads to deteriorating EM activity. The glue binding this paradox is global liquidity. In a nutshell, when DM growth improves, DM economies suck in global liquidity, which results in a tightening of EM monetary and financial conditions. This combined constriction acts as a large brake on EM growth. Underpinning the relationship between liquidity and growth are a few relationships: First, DM real rates are a relatively clean measure of growth expectations. As Chart I-9 shows, U.S. real yields and the growth expectations embedded in U.S. stocks prices correlate closely with each other. Second, when DM real yields rise, EM reserve accumulation - a measure of high-powered liquidity - moves into reverse (Chart I-10). This suggests that rising DM real yields prompt investors to abandon EM markets, attracted by improving risk-adjusted returns in DM. Chart I-9Real Interest Rates: ##br##A Read On Expected Growth Chart I-10The Liquidity ##br##Channel Third, rising DM rates puts downward pressure on EM FX (Chart 10, bottom panel). Being associated with a reversal of carry trades this is another indication that capital is leaving EM economies. Additionally, falling EM exchange rates tighten EM financial conditions by hampering the financial viability of EM borrowers with foreign currency debt. Fourth, given that the exogenously-driven fall in liquidity already hurts EM growth, rising EM borrowing costs in response to increasing DM real rates amplify the economic drag. By causing the return on EM bonds to fall (Chart I-11), this generates further outflows from EM, and also tightens EM financial conditions. Finally, rising DM yields have been associated with underperforming EM equities relative to DM equities (Chart I-12), giving investors another reason to pull money out of EM. These dynamics have implications for commodity currencies. BCA's view is that DM real yields have upside from here, and therefore EM liquidity and financial conditions are set to tighten. Not only will this hurt EM assets, but a flattening BRICs yield curve should also lead to falling commodity currencies (Chart I-13). Chart I-11The Financial ##br##Channel Chart I-12EM/DM Stocks: A Function ##br##Of DM Real Rates Chart I-13Tightening EM Liquidity Conditions##br## Hurt Commodity Currencies However, differentiation is needed. Tightening EM liquidity and financial conditions are likely to hurt the metal market where there is no broad-based supply deficit. However, like in the late 1990s, oil could actually do well under a strong dollar scenario. For one, the OECD and the U.S. represent much larger shares of oil demand than they do for industrial metals (Chart I-14). In the context of robust U.S. economic growth and consumer spending, we could see continued upward momentum in global oil demand. This is crucial as the oil market is already in a deficit following the collapse in oil capex in 2015 and 2016 (Chart I-15). Additionally, our Commodity and Energy Strategy team argues that OPEC and Russia are very likely to cut production next week. Economic strains and the desire for asset sales in Saudi Arabia and Russia are creating the needed incentives.2 In this environment, oil currencies (CAD and NOK) should outperform antipodeans (AUD and NZD). The outlook for the AUD is the poorest. It is the currency most exposed to metals, the segment of the commodity market most aligned with EM growth. NZD could be at risk too. While it is not exposed to metals like the AUD, the kiwi is very exposed to EM spreads, a variable that is likely to suffer if DM yields continue to rise.3 Buying a basket of CAD and NOK relative to AUD and NZD makes sense here. In terms of our trades, we shorted AUD/CAD too early. However, the economic backdrop described above suggests that the economic rationale for this trade is growing ever more potent. In fact, from late December 1998 to January 2000, CAD rallied against the USD, while the AUD was flat. Additionally, technicals and positioning point to a favorable entry point at the current juncture (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Oil Is Still About The U.S. Chart I-15Favorable Supply/Demand Backdrop For Oil Chart I-16A Good Entry Point For Shorting AUD/CAD Bottom Line: In 2017, the relationship between commodity prices and the dollar is likely to resemble the 1999-2001 outcome. While tightening EM liquidity conditions could weigh on metals, supply concerns and a strong U.S. economy could lift oil prices. This environment would favor the CAD and the NOK relative to the AUD and the NZD. A Countertrend Bounce In The Yen? As we discussed last week, the move in USD/JPY makes sense based on the BoJ policy dynamics we analyzed in our September 23 report titled "How Do You Say "Whatever It Takes" In Japanese?". However, despite our bearish disposition toward the yen, we worry that a countertrend correction in USD/JPY is in the offing. USD/JPY is approaching a formidable resistance. The tell-tale sign of a USD/JPY bull market has been when the pair moves above its 100-week moving average (Chart I-17). We do expect such a move to ultimately materialize. However, with the 100-week MA currently at 114.8, this key indicator is a stone throw away from the present exchange rate of 113.39 and might prove to be a temporary resistance. Additionally, a congestion zone exists between 113 and 114.5, reinforcing this risk. Increasing the danger at the 114 level is the recent high degree of groupthink behavior displayed by this pair. As was the case for the U.S. bonds, the fractal dimension measure for USD/JPY is now below 1.25, highlighting the risk of a countertrend move (Chart I-18). Chart I-17USD/JPY: Key Resistance In Sight Chart I-18A Countertrend Move In USD/JPY Moreover, we agree with our U.S. Bond Strategy service and expect a pause in the U.S. bond sell-off.4 With the tight relationship between USD/JPY and 10-year Treasury yields fully alive, any rebound in bond prices would imply a rebound in the yen. Finally, our intermediate-term timing indicator shows that USD/JPY is 5% overvalued on a tactical time frame, a level where the likelihood of a temporary reversal is heightened. Based on the above observations, today we are opening a tactical short USD/JPY position at 113.39, with a target of 107 and a stop at 115.2. We are also closing our long NOK/JPY trade at a profit of 5.3%. Bottom Line: While the cyclical outlook for USD/JPY continues to point upward, tactically, USD/JPY is facing some downside risk. We are implementing a tactical short USD/JPY trade with a target at 107 and closing our long NOK/JPY trade. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar: The Great Redistributor", dated October 7, 2016, and Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Reaganomics 2.0?", dated November 11, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "The OPEC Debate", dated November 24, 2016, available atces.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market", dated September 16, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The dollar has crossed a crucial resistance level, and the DXY is now trading close to 102. Positive data this month have contributed to this rally. Durable goods orders came in at 4.8% for October, up from 0.4% in September. This has lifted manufacturing PMI for November to 53.9, showing strength in the supply side of the U.S. economy. Minutes from the November 1-2 FOMC meeting indicate a clear hawkish consensus for December's meeting. A probability of a hike is now fully priced in and is reflected in the almost 14-year high reached by the DXY following the release of the minutes. We should see some stability in the DXY coming up to the December meeting. Otherwise, the U.S. economy seems strong. Upcoming data should ultimately buoy the strength in the dollar, but short-term movements will be limited. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Reaganomics 2.0? - November 11, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Draghi remains resolute in his commitment to reach the inflation target. Easy monetary policy has helped support recent growth in the euro area. Low policy rates have increased credit supply, leading to higher lending volumes to households, NFCs and SMEs. Key indicators, such as this month's composite PMI which went up to 53.7, from 53.3, highlight continued decent growth in Europe. Nevertheless, core inflation remains weak at 0.75%, which entails a high likelihood for easy policy going forward. Persistently low rates and structural weaknesses will continue to weigh on bank profitability. Banks may eventually respond by limiting credit growth in the future and hampering overall activity. The short-run outlook for the Euro still remains solid against crosses. EUR/USD has hit a support level, but momentum indicates strong downward pressure against the dollar, so attention to this resistance level is warranted. Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 USD/JPY has appreciated by more than 7% since the day Donald Trump was elected president. From 1990 up until the day Trump got elected, the yen depreciated at such a high rate in such a short time frame in only 4 occasions. We are taking a tactical short position in USD/JPY, because although we continue to be yen bears on a cyclical basis, the current sell-off seems overdone. USD/JPY has reached highly overbought technical levels and it is near its 100-week moving average of 114.8, which should act as a temporary resistance. More importantly, the sell-off in U.S. bond yields, a major driver of the recent plunge in the yen is likely to pause for the time being. USD/JPY will once again become an attractive buy at around 107. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 On Wednesday the Treasury released its Autumn Statement, outlining fiscal policy for the coming year. Philip Hammond, Chancellor of the Exchequer, offered no surprises as he vouched to continue to rebalance the budget, albeit at a slower pace. The fiscal impulse looks to increase slightly, yet stay negative for the next 4 years. Such a hawkish fiscal stance should be a drag on growth in an economy that cannot afford any setbacks as it prepares to exit the European Union. However, despite this grim outlook we are still monitoring the pound as an attractive buy, given that it is very cheap. In fact GBP/USD had very little movement after the announcement, which suggests that much of the risks for the U.K's economic outlook are already priced into the cable. Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The Australian economy continues to encounter structural weaknesses from a deteriorating mining sector, for which the outlook remains pessimistic. An interesting observation is that the mining investment-cut is considerably mature, as RBA Assistant Governor Christopher Kent states "about 80% of the adjustment" is done. However, weak Asian EM fundamentals and a questionable outlook for China imply impending demand-side problems, which will weigh, not only on Australian terms of trade, but also the Australian economy, as emerging Asia represents 66% of Australia's total exports. An additional hurdle for the terms of trade is a rising USD, which could drag down commodity prices and the AUD. In the short run, the MACD line for AUD/USD also points to downside in the near future, as the currency approaches a possible resistance level at 0.72. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand - October 28, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 We continue to hold a bearish stance towards NZD/USD, as the dollar bull market and weakness in Asian currencies will ultimately weigh on the kiwi. However, the outlook for the NZD against other commodity producers is not as clear. Prices for dairy products, which constitute over 30% of New Zealand exports, have skyrocketed and are now growing at 46% YoY. This trend is set to continue in the short term, as Chinese dairy imports continue to rebound, recording a 9.7% growth rate compared to last year. Furthermore, real GDP is growing at a 3.5% pace, the highest in the G10. That being said, we are reticent to be too bullish on this currency, as inflation remains very low and increasing migration is putting a lid on wages. However if inflation picks up, the NZD could become attractive relative to its commodity peers. Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data has come out below expectations: Core CPI came in at 1.7%. Wholesale sales are contracting at -1.2%. Retail sales excluding autos are at 0%. These figures support the view that there is an underlying weakness in the Canadian economy which will keep the BoC from reaching its inflation target. However, as the U.S. continues to be the largest consumer of oil in the world, with around 20% of global consumption, stronger U.S. growth will support oil demand, which in conjunction with tighter supply, will support oil prices. This will support the CAD against other commodity producing currencies. Structural weaknesses and an upward trend in USD/CAD since May suggest that the CAD could experience more downside momentum against USD. Nevertheless, it is important to monitor next week's OPEC meeting, the outcome of which will dictate the CAD. Report Links: When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The decline in EUR/CHF appears to have subsided for the time being. Last week we mentioned that the SNB would not tolerate much more downside on this cross, and would not be shy to intervene if necessary. This view has shown to be valid, as EUR/CHF has found support around 1.07. This floor imposed by the SNB means that the performance of the franc against the dollar should mirror EUR/USD for the time being. This implies that USD/CHF should have limited upside in the short term, as EUR/USD has hit a major support level around 1.05 that has been in place for the last 2 years. On a cyclical basis, monetary divergences should continue to weigh against the euro, which makes us bullish on USD/CHF on this time frame. Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The U.S. continues to be world's largest consumer of crude oil, with 20% of total consumption, while China leads in both the copper and nickel markets, accounting for nearly half of global consumption and consuming over 5 times as much as the U.S. in both markets. This divergence implies that if U.S. outperforms the rest of the world, and if the rising dollar continues to weigh on EM economies, oil should outperform base metals in the commodity space and consequently petro currencies like the NOK should outperform other commodity currencies. Additionally the NOK is supported by a current account surplus of 6%, and high inflation is prompting Norges Bank to back off from its dovish stance. While we like the NOK on its crosses, we are more bearish on the NOK versus the USD, as USD/NOK remains very sensitive to the dollar. Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The Swedish economy continues to show signs of strength. Recent data supports this view: Consumer confidence for November is at 105.8, compared to 104.8 for October. Producer Price Index came in at 2.2% annually for October. A strong consumer sector has lifted inflation expectations in Sweden. Strong PPI numbers validate this, as they foretell a potential rise in CPI as producers pass on their costs to consumers. Despite this strength, SEK may see limited upside. As mentioned last week, most of the movement in the SEK can be attributed to the USD. Rate hike expectations have now been fully priced in for the Fed, so it is likely that movements in the USD will be muted, and hence the SEK could find some support, at least for now. Report Links: One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In November, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P in USD and in local-currency terms. For December, the model reduced its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, most of the decrease in allocation came at the expense of EM, Sweden, Netherlands, U.S., and New Zealand. The model increased its weighting in Swedish, French, U.K., and Canadian bonds. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in November, while the bond risk index improved significantly. Chart 1Model Weights Feature Performance In November, the recommended balanced portfolio lost 1.5% in local-currency terms and was down 3.4% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 1.3% for the global equity benchmark, and a 3.7% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The sharp bond selloff and weakness in EM equity markets both took a toll on the model's performance in November. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 66% to 53%, and increased its bond weighting from 26% to 47%. The allocation to cash was brought down to zero from 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model trimmed its allocation to Latin American equities by 4 points, Sweden by 3 points, and the Netherlands by 3 points. Also, weightings were reduced in U.S., New Zealand, Spanish, and Emerging Asian stocks. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Swedish paper was boosted by 12 points, France by 7 points, Canada by 5 points, the U.K. by 3 points, and Italy by 1 point. Allocation to New Zealand bonds was decreased by 6 points and U.S. Treasurys by 1 point. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of November 24, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated significantly in November following the U.S. presidential election. Our Dollar Capitulation Index spiked and is currently at levels that suggest the rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar could pause (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The momentum indicator for commodities has moved further into overbought territory, pushing up the overall risk index. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 4). The deterioration in the liquidity and momentum indicators has lifted the risk index for global equities to the highest level in over 2 years. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the fourth month in a row (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.S. stocks increased sharply in November. With stocks reaching new highs, the model trimmed its allocation to this bourse. The markets took note of the growth-positive aspects of Trump's policies, but seem complacent about the stronger dollar, higher interest rates, and the potential for trade protectionist policies (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities has ticked up slightly in November. However, unlike its U.S. peers, it remains in the low-risk zone. Above-trend growth could provide support for euro area equities. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk The risk index for Dutch equities ticked up slightly and the model has downgraded this asset. That said, the weighting in Dutch equities remains the highest among its euro area counterparts (Chart 8). Improvements in the value and momentum measures for Latin American stocks have been largely offset by a deteriorating liquidity reading. As a result, the risk index did not decline much after the selloff. The model decreased its allocation to this asset (Chart 9). Chart 8Dutch Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Latin American Stock Market And Risk Over the course of only a few months, the risk index for bonds has swung from an extremely high risk level to the low-risk zone. Momentum has been the primary driving force behind this move and currently suggests that yields could pull back in the near term (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined significantly in November. While the model used the latest selloff to boost its allocation to bonds, it preferred to add allocation to bond markets outside of Treasurys. (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk After the rise in yields, Canadian bonds are massively oversold based on our momentum measure. The extremely low-risk reading has prompted the model to allocate to this asset (Chart 12). German bonds are oversold, but the reading on the cyclical measure has become considerably more bund-unfriendly. The model opted not to include bunds in the overall boost to its bond allocation. (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13German Bond Yields And Risk The risk reading in French bonds is more favorable than for bunds. Apart from oversold momentum, the value reading has also improved. The model increased its allocation to French bonds (Chart 14). The cyclical component of the risk index for Swedish bonds keeps moving in a bond-bearish direction. But that is completely overshadowed by extremely oversold conditions. In fact, the overall risk index for Swedish bonds is the lowest within our bond universe. Much of the increase in overall bond allocation ended up in Swedish paper (Chart 15). Chart 14French Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swedish Bond Yields And Risk Following sharp gains, the 13-week momentum measure for the U.S. dollar has reached levels at which some consolidation may take place. But the recovery in the 40-week rate of change measure indicates that it would probably be a pause in the dollar bull market rather than a trend change. With the December rate hike baked in, the Fed's communication about the policy next year holds the key to the path of the dollar - in addition to the fiscal policy of the next administration (Chart 16). The Japanese yen has been a major victim of the dollar rally. The 13-week momentum measure is approaching levels that halted the yen weakening trend in 2013 and 2015. However, this time around, it is not coupled with the same signal from the 40-week rate of change measure. The BoJ is sticking to its easy monetary policy, and some additional support on the fiscal front could drag the yen lower, notwithstanding a possible hiatus in the short term. Short term the yen could benefit from an EM pullback (Chart 17). After the latest bout of depreciation, the euro seems poised for another attempt to break below 1.05. The 13-week and 40-week momentum measures do not preclude this from happening. However, it would probably take the ECB to reaffirm its dovish message to push EUR/USD technical indicators into more oversold territory (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Yen Chart 18Euro Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Feature Happy Thanksgiving to all our U.S. clients. We wish you the best the holiday has to offer, as you share blessings with friends and family. In this holiday-shortened week, we are publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy (NRG) service. We succinctly examine the pros and cons of the debate over whether OPEC will or will not agree to and uphold a *real* production cut, as it has promised, at its much-anticipated meeting on November 30. Disagreement on the likely outcome of the meeting runs high. In late September, OPEC announced an agreement in principle to cut oil production at the formal November meeting to a level of 32.5-33.0 MMb/d. This would represent a 500,000-750,000 b/d reduction from August production levels, and an 830,000-1,330,000 b/d reduction from the IEA's latest OPEC production estimate for October of 33.83 MMb/d. In addition, non-OPEC behemoth Russia has signaled a potential willingness to contribute its own production freeze or cut to the agreement in an effort to support higher oil prices. Chart 1With A 1 MMb/d Cut, ##br##Draws Would Be Greater There are compelling arguments to be made both supporting the likelihood of a production cut as well as for being skeptical that such an agreement will be reached and adhered to. Even within BCA, there is disagreement. This service, the Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES), which sets the BCA house view on oil prices, pegs the odds at greater than 50% that there will be a meaningful cut of 1 MMb/d+, anchored by large cut pledges from OPEC's leader, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and Russia. The NRG team, dissents; they think it is more likely that no deal is reached, and if a deal is announced, it will not be adhered to. Regardless of whether there is an announced agreement to cut production or not, both CES and NRG expect KSA's production to decline by 400,000-500,000 b/d between August and December according to KSA's normal seasonal management of production levels; we would not include this expected seasonal reduction in the calculation of a *real* cut. In our analysis on Chart 1, we include a *real* cut of 1MMB/d below the normal seasonality of KSA's production, which lasts for six months. In H2 2017, we assume the cut is dissolved and the market also receives an extra 200,000 b/d of price-incentivized production from the U.S. shales. How To Bet On A Cut, The Out-Of-Consensus Call Chart 2Without A Cut,##br## Inventories Still Will Be Drawn In 2017 CES's view for a cut (established November 3) was significantly out-of-consensus until recent chatter from OPEC increased the perception that an agreement could be reached. Still, there remains significant doubt a freeze or cut can be accomplished. Without a cut, NRG and CES share a constructive outlook for oil markets heading towards steepening deficits during 2017 (Chart 2). Note: BCA's estimates show a tighter oil market than the EIA's estimates: Our Q3 2016 production estimates are lower than the EIA's by ~300,000 b/d due to differences in our assessments in Brazilian, Russian and Chinese production; our Q3 2016 consumption estimate is higher than the EIA due to our higher assessment of U.S. summer-time demand (the EIA has consistently underestimated U.S. demand over the past few years). A production cut coupled with a natural tightening in the market brought about by the price-induced supply destruction over the past 18 months would make 2017 inventory draws even greater, lifting oil prices higher, and providing even greater upward support to our favorite investment recommendations (Chart 1). Below we outline the investment recommendations that would benefit from an OPEC cut, spanning individual equities, ETFs, and commodity calls: Direct Commodity Investment: CES recommends two pair trades on oil contracts and call options. Long February 2017 $50/bbl Brent Calls vs. short February 2017 $55/bbl Brent Calls to play the spike in oil prices that would come from a successful OPEC cut, which was recommended November 3 and was up 50.41% as of Tuesday's close. Long August 2017 WTI contract vs. short November 2017 WTI contract to play an expected flattening of the forward curve, which also was recommended November 3 and it up 48.61% as of Tuesday's close. Oil Producers: NRG recommends overweight-rated Permian oil producers EOG, PXD, FANG and PE, which will be leaders in expanding production into an improving oil price market. Service Companies: NRG recommends overweight-rated completion-oriented services companies HAL, SLB and SLCA, which will benefit most from increased U.S. shale spending. Equity-Backed ETFs: NRG recommends overweight-rated ETFs XLE, FRAK, and OIH as vehicles that provide more diversified investment exposure to higher oil prices and oilfield service activity than individual equities. Oil-Backed ETF. Tactically buying the U.S. Oil Fund ETF (USO) would provide good direct exposure to a quick oil price surge. However, USO should not be held as a longer-term investment because the inherent cost of continually rolling contracts consistently erodes USO's value versus the equity-backed ETFs XLE and OIH. This longer-term underperformance informs NRG's underweight rating on USO. Risks To Our Views: Oil and natural gas prices that differ materially from our forecasts, possibly due to slower-than-expected global economic growth and/or greater than expected supply growth. Poor operational execution and/or changes to regulatory restrictions could negatively impact the financial and stock performance of our recommendations. A week ahead of the OPEC meeting, in the wake of recently recovering production in Libya and Nigeria, and amid campaigning by Iran and Iraq to be excluded from participation in the cuts, it is impossible to know for certain how the complicated politics of OPEC and Russia will play out. Below we outline the competing objectives and risks that will be in play. Case Against A Cut Undeniably, a cut in production, particularly a coordinated cut where several countries share the burden of restricting production, would raise oil prices and enhance 2017 oil export revenues for all OPEC producers. However, that near-term benefit for pricing and revenue has been obvious for the past two years, and yet neither KSA nor Russia has been willing to cut production, feeling the potential to lose longer-term market share outweighed the immediate revenue benefits of a cut. The hazard of a price-increasing production cut, is that the higher oil price would essentially subsidize non-OPEC competitors with higher cash flows, and would simultaneously bolster the confidence of capital markets that OPEC will support prices at a floor of $50, reducing the risk of future investments. These two effects would jointly encourage increased capital investment into establishing new production, especially by the fast-acting U.S. shale producers, whose rampant investment and production growth from 2010-2015 was, by far, the leading contributor to the 2015-2016 oversupply of oil. Encouraging a resurgence of drilling and production would certainly lead to faster production growth from the U.S. shales in 2017-2018, allowing those producers to grow market share under the umbrella of OPEC's production sacrifices that created the higher prices. OPEC has just endured a lot of economic pain through the oil price decline. The economic purpose of this pain was to starve global producers of operational cash flow and dissuade the inflow of new capital, thus choking off the reinvestment required to continue to grow oil production. By and large, this goal has been achieved, with U.S. shale producers slashing capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cutting capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. As a result, after the substantial surge in global oil production in 2014-2015 that created the current over-supply, the capital starvation caused by low oil prices will result in essentially no global production growth in either 2017 or 2018, allowing for demand growth to erode the oversupply of production during 2016, and to eat into the overstocked inventories of crude during 2017-2018. KSA has created fear and uncertainty throughout global producers and capital markets by steadfastly refusing to use its production-management powers to support a floor under oil prices. We are skeptical that KSA will ultimately agree to reverse this strategy, by now establishing a price floor. Such a reversal would undermine the profound market-share message KSA has delivered to competitors (at the cost of great financial pain), and weaken its perceived resolve to allow oil prices to be set by the market. As such, the NRG team believes KSA will not agree to cut production beyond the already-expected seasonal reduction in production, and that this position will scuttle September's tacit agreement to cut production at the official meeting next week. Such a scenario would be fairly similar to how KSA undermined the production-freeze discussions in Doha in April, by insisting other OPEC members - Iran, in particular - share in the production limitations in order to engender KSA's support; a condition that other members were unwilling to accept. The Case For A Cut The case to expect a cut agreement acknowledges that such a cut would subsidize competitors and diminish the impression of KSA's resolve and/or ability to out-last competitors through an oil price down-cycle. The case for a cut concludes that the benefits of higher 2017 oil prices simply outweigh these market share and reputational costs. The benefits that OPEC and Russia would receive are: Critical Need For Higher Revenue. If KSA and Russia each cut 2017 production by 500,000 below current expectations, and oil prices jumped $10/bbl as a result, KSA's 2017 oil export revenues would increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's would increase by almost $8.25 billion. If the financial pain endured by these countries is substantially greater than NRG has estimated, this near-term revenue lift could be more critical than we appreciate, overwhelming the reputational and longer-term market-share losses resulting from the reversal of policy. Borrowing capacity for each country also would increase, as a result of higher revenues. With both states seeking to tap international debt and equity markets, this increased revenue would increase their borrowing capacity. Higher Value For Asset Sales. KSA is preparing to IPO Saudi Aramco. Bolstering the spirits of capital markets with higher oil prices would be expected to increase the proceeds received from this equity sale, increase the market value of the company, reduce debt-service costs, and improve access to debt markets, which KSA and Saudi Aramco are both likely to tap more frequently in the future as the country tries to diversify the economy away from oil. Similarly, two weeks ago, Russia signed a decree to sell a 19.5% stake in Rosneft by the end of 2016. An immediate oil price strengthening and messaging that KSA and Russia would support a pricing floor would inflate the value of this sale, given the high correlation between Brent crude oil prices and Rosneft's equity price. Production Stability Not As Strong As It Seems. Russia's production levels in 2016 have been surprisingly strong, exceeding our expectations. The collapse of the Russian Ruble has allowed for continued internal investment despite the substantial reduction to dollar-denominated oil revenues. Still, it is likely that Russian producers are pulling very hard on their fields, over-producing the optimal level in an effort to scratch out higher revenues. Such over-production is not sustainable ad infinitum, and Russia may know that its fields need a rest in 2017 anyhow, so a 4-5% production cut is ultimately not much of a sacrifice. Make Room For Libya & Nigeria. Both Libya and Nigeria are trying to overcome substantial civil obstacles to allow production to increase back towards oilfield capabilities. If these problems were solved, we estimate Libya could increase production by 400,000-600,000 b/d while Nigeria could add 200,000-300,000 b/d. If KSA, OPEC, and Russia believe these countries will be able to re-establish shut-in production, they may conclude a production cut is necessary to make room for the growth, and to keep prices from collapsing. Entrenching U.S. Shale As The Marginal Barrel: If KSA and Russia can agree to a 1 MMb/d cut, U.S. shale-oil producers would be the first to take advantage of expected higher prices, given the fast-response nature of this production. This actually would work to the advantage of KSA and Russia and other low-cost producers in and outside OPEC, by firmly entrenching U.S. shale oil as the marginal barrel for the world market. On the global cost curve, shale sits in the middle some $30 to $40/bbl above KSA and Russia, which means that, as long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these mega-producers earn economic rents on their production. In order to retain those rents, KSA and Russia will have to find a way to keep shale on the margin - i.e., regulate their production so that prices do not rise too quickly and encourage more expensive output to come on line. For KSA and Russia, it is better to climb the shale cost curve than to encourage the next tranche of production - such as Canadian oil sands - to come on to the market too quickly, or to further incentivize electric vehicles and conservation with run-away price increases, with too-sharp a production cut. Allowing prices to trade through a $65 - $75/bbl range or higher would no doubt produce a short-term revenue jump for cash-strapped producers - particularly those OPEC members outside the GCC. But it also would make most of the U.S. shales economic to develop, and incentivize other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is developed (e.g., oil sands and deepwater). This ultimately would crash prices over the longer term, making it difficult for the industry to attract capital. This is not an ideal outcome for KSA's planned IPO of Aramco, or Russia's sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, or their investors. Global Reinvestment Needs To Be Re-Stimulated. Stimulating non-OPEC reinvestment with higher oil prices and increased price-floor confidence may actually be needed in the not-too-distant future. IOCs have barely started to show the negative production ramifications of their 40% cuts to capex; cuts which will grow deeper in 2018. We expect these production declines to show up increasingly over the next four years, and there is not much the IOCs can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time that spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. With such huge cuts to future expenditures, and enormous amounts of debt incurred by the IOCs to pay for the completion of legacy mega-projects that will need to be repaid ($130B in debt added in the past two years), OPEC could see a looming shortage of oil developing later this decade if IOC-sponsored offshore production falls into steep declines, as we think is likely. To orchestrate a softer landing, to prevent oil prices from spiking too high due to a shortage of production, to head-off an acceleration in the pursuit of alternative fuels and/or the recessionary impact of an oil price spike, KSA may actually want to accelerate the re-start of global investment. Bottom Line: There are strongly credible and well-reasoned arguments that support the expectations for a successful establishment of a production cut from OPEC and Russia, as well as to doubt that such an agreement will be achieved (and adhered to) amid the political and economic competition between OPEC members and against non-OPEC producers. A successful agreement to cut production in excess of 1 MMb/d, as CES believes is likely, would be the more out-of-consensus call, with substantially bullish implications for oil prices and for our oil-levered investment strategy and stock recommendations. Even without a production cut, the NRG service remains strongly constructive on the investment strengths of high-quality Permian oil producers and the completion-oriented service companies that will benefit from increased U.S. shale spending. If a production cut is achieved, our investment cases become even stronger, as the U.S. shale producers and service companies would be the greatest beneficiaries of an upward step-change in oil prices. Matt Conlan, Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Dairy: Moderate Upside In 2017H1 Dairy prices may have another 5%-10% upside over next three to six months, based on tightening supply in the global dairy market. China will become more important in the global dairy market. The country's dairy imports will continue heading north. Downside risks include elevated global dairy product inventory, a supply boost from major exporters, and a continuing strengthening dollar. We have been cautiously bullish on global dairy market since last October.1 Since then, the Global Dairy Trade (GDT) All-Products Price Index, which is widely used as a benchmark price for the market, has rallied over 50% in the past seven months off its November - March lows (Chart 3, panel 1). Chart 3Dairy: Tactically Bullish Now the question is: will the rally continue? A review of what had happened in 2015 and so far this year may be a good start of our analysis. A Terrible 2015 The GDT index tumbled to the lowest level on record in early August 2015. A sharply drop in Chinese dairy imports; the Russian import ban on dairy products; robust supply growth across major dairy producing countries; and the EU's decision to scrap its production quotas created a perfect storm for the global dairy market last year - resulting in an extremely oversupplied market, stock builds and depressed dairy prices (Chart 3, panels 2, 3 and 4). An Improving 2016 Fundamentals have improved since April, as major dairy exporting countries responded to low dairy prices, while Chinese dairy imports revived. Fonterra, the world's biggest dairy exporter, and Murray Goulburn, Australian's biggest dairy company, both announced retrospective price cuts in April to dairy farmers in New Zealand and Australia, which hit both countries' dairy industries hard. Many farmers exited the dairy business, given their production costs were well above farm-gate milk prices. As a result, dairy farmers In New Zealand have cut the national dairy cow herd size by 3.3% yoy in 2015 and then a further 1.5% in 2016, based on USDA data. In Australia, dairy farmers have sent more cows into slaughterhouse as well. According to Dairy Australia, in the past 12 months to August 2016, 109,102 head were sold, an increase of 33% on the previous year. New Zealand and Australia are the world's largest and the fourth largest dairy exporters, respectively. In June, one month before the start of the new season (July 2016 to June 2017), farm-gate milk prices set by major dairy processors in Australia were still much lower than most dairy farmers' production costs, further damaging the country's dairy production outlook for the 2016/17 season. In July, August and September, Australian milk production fell sharply for three consecutive months, with a yoy contraction of 10.3%, 9.3%, and 10.2%, respectively. In July, the European Commission funded a €150 million program to pay farmers to cut their milk production. At the same time, the region also intervened with a stock purchase program and a private-storage aid scheme to help remove excess supply from the market. The EU region is the world's second biggest exporter. Its production increase due to the removal of its quota system was one main reason for last year's price drop. The recent supportive policy has worked well - the region's milk volumes decreased in September for the third consecutive month. In the meantime, Chinese dairy imports have rebounded 9.7% yoy for the first nine months of this year, a significant improvement from last year's 44.4% contraction over the same period. China is the world biggest dairy importer, accounting for 51% of global fluid milk imports, and 40% of dry, whole-milk powder imports (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 4China Needs More Dairy Imports In comparison, the number of Chinese cow herds only accounts for 6% of global total cows for milk production, which is clearly far from meeting its domestic demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Early this year the country loosened up the "one-child" policy, and now allows "two-kids" in a family, starting this year. This will increase the country's baby formula's demand. The country's dairy product intake per capita is still far below Asian peers like Japan and Korea. Growing family wealth and increasing demand for healthy dairy food will continue boosting the dairy consumption in China. Due to the limited pasture land in the country for raising cows, we expect China's dairy imports will continue heading north. What about the price outlook in the remainder of 2016 and 2017? Most of the positive factors aforementioned are still in place. In the near term, we do not see significant supply increase. Despite the 61% price rally in the GDT price index over the past seven months, most of the price increase still has not passed to farm-gate milk prices in major producing countries (except New Zealand). Hence, for the remainder of 2016 and 2017H1, we expect prices will be prone to the upside. Pullbacks are always possible. But overall we still expect another 5% to 10% upside over next three to six months for the GDT price index. Beyond 2017H1, the price outlook is less clear. If prices either go sideways or up, milk production in major producing countries should eventually recover. For now, we hold a neutral view for dairy prices in 2017H2. Downside Risks Chart 5Downside Risks First, global dairy stockpiles are much higher than previous years (Chart 5, panel 1). According to the European Commission, at the end of September, around 428 thousand metric tons (kt) of skimmed-milk powder (SMP) was in public intervention stocks, while another 73 kt SMP was in private storage. In addition, there also is about 90 kt butter and 19 kt cheese stored privately. As the EU still is aiming to cut milk production to boost dairy prices, we believe the odds of an unexpected release from storage in a fast and massive manner is low. The release will likely be gradual. Second, much of New Zealand's milk production is dependent on weather conditions, which have improved from mid-August. Moreover, Fonterra increased its farm-gate milk price to $6 per kgMS (kilogram milk solid) from $5.25 per kgMS last week, which was the third increase over the past four months. Since August, farm-gate milk price in New Zealand has already been up 41% and well above the country's production cost. A combination of both factors may boost the country's milk production more than the market expected. In this case, prices could decline in 2017H1. Third, if the U.S. dollar continues strengthening versus the RMB and other major exporters' currencies, this will tend to discourage purchases from China and encourage sales from New Zealand, the EU and Australia, which will be negative to dairy prices (Chart 5, panel 2). We will monitor these risks closely. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for softs section "Oil Markets Pricing In $20/Bbl Downside," dated October 1, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the FTSE100 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the pound? Stay neutral in the Eurostoxx600 versus the FTSE100. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the Nikkei225 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the yen? Overweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the Nikkei 225. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the S&P500 reduces to: will European Banks outperform U.S. Technology? Underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Feature 2016 is the year of the political shock. But for investors, some things have stayed faithfully the same. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx Vs. Nikkei Reduces To: Will Euro/Yen Weaken? Last week's report From Berlin Wall To Mexican Wall explained how the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 ushered in a great era of globalization - an era in which goods, services, capital and people have moved around the world more and more freely. Chart I-2The Globalization Of Stock Markets For investors, one major upshot is that the world's biggest companies have also become more and more globalized. The leading European stock market indexes - Eurostoxx600, FTSE100, DAX30, CAC40 and many other national indexes - are now just a collection of multinational companies with a global footprint. The same applies to major indexes outside Europe, such as the Nikkei225 and S&P500. Before the era of globalization, many companies had little exposure to economies outside their country or region of domicile. Unsurprisingly, in the 1980s, a German bank share price was more correlated with the rest of the German stock market than it was with a U.S. bank share price. But today, a large proportion of sales and profits are sourced globally. The German bank share price is now more correlated with the U.S. bank share price than it is with the rest of the German stock market! (Chart I-2) This begs the question: if Brexit and President-elect Trump are ushering in a great era of anti-globalization, will the major indexes become parochial once again? The answer is perhaps, but it will be a slow process - even assuming that the anti-globalization rhetoric does fully materialize. Sometimes, Stock Market Allocation Reduces To A Currency View For the time being, one obvious distinction between the major indexes will remain instrumental in driving performance differences. The Eurostoxx600 is denominated in euros, the FTSE100 in pounds, the Nikkei225 in yen, and the S&P500 in dollars. However, the constituent companies' sales and profits are denominated in a mixture of major global currencies, or in dollars. So all else being equal, if the local currency weakens - in other words, if other global currencies strengthen versus the local currency - then index profits will rise in local currency terms. Meaning the index value must go up. And if the local currency strengthens, the index value must go down. Simplistic as it sounds, some important asset allocation decisions just reduce to a bi-lateral currency view. Chart I-3 clearly shows that Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100 relative performance reduces to a simple question: will the euro weaken against the pound? If so, the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the FTSE100. And vice-versa. Clearly, the outlook for euro/pound has been an important question this year, and will be an equally important question next year. Chart I-3Eurostoxx Vs. FTSE Reduces To: Will Euro/Pound Weaken? Likewise, the Chart of the Week clearly shows that Eurostoxx600 versus Nikkei225 relative performance reduces to a similar simple question: will the euro weaken against the yen? If so, the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the Nikkei225. And vice-versa. Sometimes, Stock Market Allocation Reduces To A Sector View But in the case of the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500, relative performance does not reduce to the direction of euro/dollar. Since mid-2014, the euro has weakened substantially versus the dollar, yet the Eurostoxx600 has underperformed the S&P500. This is because another factor drives this relative performance pair (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Does Not ##br##Depend On Euro/Dollar... Chart I-5...Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Does Depend ##br##On Banks Vs. Technology Although major indexes are a collection of multinational companies, it doesn't follow that the sector exposures of these indexes will be the same. Comparing the Eurostoxx600 with the S&P500, the Eurostoxx600 has a marked overexposure to Banks and an especially marked underexposure to Technology (Table I-1). Table I-1Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 = Overweight##br## Banks, Underweight Technology Banks comprise 13% of the Eurostoxx600 market capitalization but only 6% of the S&P500. On the flipside, Technology comprises just 4% of the Eurostoxx600 market capitalization but a very substantial 21% of the S&P500. To repeat, multinational company share prices today are more correlated with their global sector than with their domestic stock market of listing. Recently, this has been true even for U.S. Banks - which amazingly have shown a higher correlation with European Banks than with the rest of the U.S. stock market. It follows that when two indexes are distinguished by large sector skews, these sector skews will drive relative performance. Our Special Reports Picking Countries The Right Way 1 Parts 1, 2 and 3 showed that this is the case for most head to head stock market comparisons within Europe. It is also the case for the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Put simply, for the Eurostoxx600 to outperform the S&P500 on a sustained basis, Banks must outperform Technology on a sustained basis. Or to be more precise, European Banks must outperform U.S. Technology (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Reduces To: Will European Banks Outperform U.S. Technology? Applying Reductionism To The Eurostoxx600 We can now apply investment reductionism to position the Eurostoxx600 against three other major indexes: the FTSE100, the Nikkei225 and the S&P500. 1. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the FTSE100 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the pound? For the foreseeable future, the euro/pound exchange rate hinges on the perceived severity of Brexit. In this regard, there is unlikely to be meaningful new information until the U.K. Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the legal process that the U.K. government must follow. The verdict is due in January. So for the time being, it is appropriate to stay neutral in the Eurostoxx600 versus the FTSE100. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the Nikkei225 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the yen? 2. The euro/yen exchange rate hinges on ECB/BoJ relative monetary policy. Given that the BoJ made its bold policy move a few months ago, the focus now is on whether the ECB will continue with QE beyond March 2017. Chart I-7European Banks Do Not Offer An Especially##br## Large Discount To U.S. Technology The minutes of the ECB's most recent policy meeting provide some clues. On the one hand, the central bank cautioned on the unintended consequences of extended QE: "The possible side effects of the low interest rate environment and the range of non-standard measures in place on the longer-term intermediation capacity of banks and other financial institutions had to be further examined" On the other hand, the ECB emphasised: "(QE) was set to run... in any case until the ECB saw a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim... underlying inflation, however, continued to lack clear signs of a convincing upward trend." On this basis, it seems that the ECB will extend its QE program beyond March 2017, as well as give a strong commitment to keep policy rates anchored. But the recent underperformance of the Eurostoxx600 versus Nikkei225 has discounted a sizable strengthening of euro/yen. It is appropriate to lean against this and overweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the Nikkei225. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the S&P500 reduces to: will European Banks outperform U.S. Technology? Again, the minutes of the ECB's most recent policy meeting perfectly summarized the environment for European banks: "Ongoing structural challenges to banks' balance sheets, notably arising from still high levels of non-performing loans (NPLs) in parts of the euro area banking sector, in conjunction with regulatory challenges (BRRD), and the weakness in profitability were seen to pose a risk to the transmission of monetary policy and a further recovery in credit dynamics" Or as we recently put it,2 European bank investors are fighting three long-term headwinds: BRRD, NPLs and NIRP. Yet on a price to forward earnings multiple, European Banks do not offer an especially large discount to U.S. Technology (Chart I-7). Therefore, investment reductionism says it is appropriate to underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the three European Investment Strategy Special Reports 'Picking 5 European Countries The Right Way' November 13, 2014, 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 2' March 26, 2015 and 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 3' November 12, 2015, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "All Roads Lead To Banks", dated October 6, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The recent sharp moves in markets offer another opportunity for a long plantinum / short palladium pair-trade. A similar opportunity on October 6 successfully signaled a 13% countertrend move. 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

Highlights Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary agenda will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory plan will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place. We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. It will be difficult, politically, for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform. We expect a meaningful fiscal stimulus package to be passed in the U.S. that will boost growth temporarily. We cannot rule out a trade war that more than offsets the fiscal impulse. Nonetheless, Trump's desire for growth means that he may tread carefully on protectionism. A window may open next year that will favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary U.S. growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Our bias is to upgrade risk assets to overweight, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new Administration's policy intentions. In the meantime, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. The bond selloff is likely to pause until there is more concrete evidence that Congress will accept tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but global yields eventually have more upside potential. Value and relative monetary policies favor the Japanese and European stock markets versus the U.S., at least in local currencies. We are less bearish on high-yield bonds in relative terms, although we are still slightly below-benchmark. Feature Initial fears that a Trump victory would be apocalyptic for the economy and financial markets quickly morphed into an equity celebration on hopes that the Republican sweep would usher in policies that will shift American growth into high gear. Major U.S. stock indexes have broken above recent trading ranges, despite the surge in the dollar and the devastation in bond markets. Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary policies will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. In the meantime, investors should remain long the dollar and short duration within bond portfolios, although a near-term correction of recent market action appears likely. Our geopolitical strategists argued through the entire campaign that Trump had a better chance of winning than the consensus believed because he was riding a voter preference wave that is moving left. Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to white, blue collar voters by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican (GOP) orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Chart I-1Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For The Opposition The polarization of U.S. voters and comparisons with the U.K. Brexit vote are well trodden themes that we won't rehash here. The important point is that the GOP now holds both the White House and Congress. The investment implications hinge critically on how friendly Congress is to Trump's policy prescriptions. Many pundits argue that House and Senate Republican's will block Trump's ambitious tax cut and infrastructure spending plan because it would blow out the budget deficit. The reality is more complex. It will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Our post-election Special Report pointed out that, over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items.1 Moreover, the GOP is less fiscally conservative than is widely believed. Fiscal trends under the Bush and Reagan administrations highlighted that Republicans do not always keep spending in check (Chart I-1). The key pillars of Trump's campaign were renegotiating trade deals, immigration reform, increased infrastructure and defense spending, tax cuts, protecting entitlements, repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations. However, there is a big difference between election promises and what can actually be delivered. It is early going, but our first Special Report, beginning on page 19, presents a Q&A from our geopolitical team on what we know in terms of political constraints and possible outcomes in the coming year. Common Ground On Fiscal Policy We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support, as highlighted by last year's highway funding bill. Democratic senators and House Republicans have promised to work with the new President on infrastructure spending. Trump is likely to offer tax reform in exchange for his infrastructure plan. Trump wants to cut the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 39.6% to 33%), repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%). His plan also includes increased standard deduction limits and a full expensing of business capital spending. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest).2 An extra $1 trillion in infrastructure outlays over the next decade, together with a growing defense budget, could add another $100-$200 billion to total federal spending per year. The problem, of course, is that few sources of new revenue have been suggested to cover the costs of these policy changes. The Tax Policy Center's scoring of the Trump plan implies a jump in the U.S. debt/GDP ratio from 77% today to 106% in 2026. Other studies claim that the budget damage will be far less than this because government revenues will boom along with the economy. We doubt that will be the case. The outlook for U.S. trade policy is even more nebulous. Trump has threatened to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potentially place tariffs of 35% and 45%, respectively, on imports from Mexico and China (among other protectionist measures). He has even threatened to take the U.S. out of the WTO.3 These threats are no more than posturing ahead of negotiations, but Trump needs to show his base of support that he is working to "make America great again". Protectionism will probably generate more pushback from Republicans in the House and Senate than Trump's fiscal measures. The Economic Implications Of Trumponomics Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers In terms of the overall economic impact, there are many moving parts and it is unclear how much the Trump Administration will push fiscal stimulus versus trade protectionism. As discussed in the Special Report, it is possible that the tax cuts will be implemented as quickly as the second quarter of 2017, while infrastructure spending could begin ramping up in the second half of the year. However, we cannot rule out a lengthy bargaining process that would delay the economic stimulus into 2018. We doubt that Trump will get everything on his wish list. Moreover, the multiplier effects of tax cuts, which will benefit the upper-income classes the most, are smaller than for direct government spending (Table I-1). Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of what he is seeking, it could be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by up to 1% per year over a two year period. In terms of trade, Trump will undoubtedly kill the TPP immediately following his inauguration to show he means business. The President also has the power to implement tariffs without Congressional consent. It is unclear whether he can also cancel NAFTA unilaterally, but at a minimum he can impose higher tariffs and trade restrictions on Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, comments from his advisors suggest that president-elect Trump wants stronger growth above all else. This means that he may tread carefully to avoid the negative growth effects of a trade war. Some high-profile studies of the impact of the Trump economic plan paint a grim picture. The Peterson Institute points out that "withdrawal from the WTO would lead to the unraveling of all tariff negotiations and the reversion of rates to the MFN level of a preexisting agreement, conceivably all the way back to the Smoot-Hawley rates that were in effect in 1934." Another Peterson study reported the results of a simulation of the impact of returning to the Smoot-Hawley tariff levels, using a large general equilibrium global model.4 They find that U.S. real GDP would contract by about 7½%, or roughly $1 trillion. Thus, a "doomsday trade scenario" is possible, but it seems inconceivable that Trump would withdraw from the WTO given his desire for growth. More likely, he will settle for higher tariffs placed on Mexico and China. Such tariffs would undermine U.S. growth on their own, but we believe that some recent studies discussed in the press overstate the negative impact of these tariffs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest that the tariff increases would reduce U.S. real GDP by roughly 1.2%, including retaliation by Mexico and China in the form of higher tariffs on U.S. exports (see Box I-1 for more details). The negative shock would likely be stretched over a couple of years.5 Box 1 Importantly, not all of any tariff increase would be "passed-through" to U.S. businesses and households. Studies show that, historically, the pass-through of tariff increases into U.S. prices was actually quite low, at about 0.5. A large portion of previous tariff hikes have been absorbed by foreign producers as they endeavored to protect market share. This means that a 35% tariff on Mexican imports would result in a roughly 17½% rise in import prices from Mexico. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would result in a 22½% rise in import prices from China. Moreover, the import price elasticity of U.S. demand, or the sensitivity of U.S. demand to a change in the price of imported goods, is estimated to be about 1. That is, a 22½% rise in import prices from China leads to a 22½% drop in import volumes from that country. Roughly one-half of the drop in imports is replaced by purchases from other countries and one-half from U.S. sources. This so-called "expenditure switching" effect actually boosts U.S. real GDP on its own. Of course, this lift is more than offset by the fact that households and businesses suffer a loss of purchasing power due to higher import prices. Chinese and Mexican imports represent 2.7% and 1.7%, respectively, of U.S. GDP. With these figures and the elasticities discussed above, we can calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the impact of the Trump tariffs. The expenditure switching effect would boost U.S. real GDP by about 0.4%. This is offset by the purchasing power effect of -0.7% (including a multiplier of 1.5), leaving a net loss of only 0.3%. Of course, China and Mexico will retaliate by imposing higher tariffs on U.S. exports. This has a larger negative impact on the U.S. because American export volumes decline and there is no offsetting expenditure-switching effect. We estimate that retaliation with equal tariffs on U.S. exports would reduce U.S. GDP by about 1% using reasonable elasticities. Adding it all up, the proposed Trump tariffs on China and Mexico would result in a roughly 1.2% hit to U.S. real GDP. This could overstate the negative shock to the extent that the tariff revenues are spent by the U.S. government.6 Moreover, some studies of the Trump agenda assume that business spending would wither under a stronger dollar, waning business confidence and higher interest rates. We are not so pessimistic. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. Moreover, U.S. corporate capital spending has been lackluster since the Great Recession due to "offshoring". Higher tariffs would promote "onshoring", helping to lift capital spending within the U.S. economy. We are not arguing that trade protectionism will be good for the U.S. economy. We are merely pointing out that there are positive offsets to the negative aspects of protectionism, and that many studies are overly pessimistic on the impact on growth. That said, all bets are off if Trump does the unthinkable and cancels NAFTA outright and/or takes the U.S. out of the WTO. The Fed's Reaction The economic and financial market dynamics over the next couple of years depend importantly on how the Fed responds to the Trump policy mix. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked the Fed Chair and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that an investigation will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Some have raised concerns that Trump could stack the FOMC with hawks when he fills the openings next year. More likely, he will opt for doves because he will not want a hawkish Fed prematurely shutting down the expansion. The studies that warn of a major U.S. recession under Trump's policies assume that the Fed tightens aggressively as fiscal stimulus lifts the economy's growth rate. For example, the Moodys' report assumes that the fed funds rate rises to 6½% by 2018!7 No wonder Moodys' foresees a downturn that is longer than the Great Recession. No doubt, it would have been better if fiscal stimulus arrived years ago when there was a substantial amount of economic slack. With the economy close to full employment today, aggressive government pump-priming could set the U.S. up for a typical end to the business cycle; overheating followed by a Fed-induced recession. Indeed, many investors are wondering if the U.S. is overdue for a recession anyway. The current expansion phase is indeed looking long-in-the-tooth by historical standards. However, the old adage is apt: "expansions don't die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed". In Charts I-2A, Chart I-2B and Chart I-2C, we split the U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from the medium and long expansions is the speed by which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerate, and the time it takes for the unemployment rate to reach a full employment level. Long expansion phases were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession (Chart I-2C). Chart I-2ALong Chart I-2BMedium Expansions Chart I-2CA Short Expansion Of course, the Fed did not begin to tighten policy immediately upon reaching full employment in the past. The Fed began hiking rates an average of 13 months after reaching full employment in the short cycles, 30 months for medium cycles, and more than 60 months in the "slow burn" expansions (Table I-2). Even if we exclude the 1960s expansion, when the Fed delayed for too long and fell behind the inflation curve, the Fed has waited an average of 45 months before lifting rates in the other long expansions (beginning in 1982 and 1991). The longer delay compared to the shorter expansions reflected the slow pace at which inflationary pressures accumulated. During these periods, inflation-adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) expanded by an average of 25% and the real value of the S&P 500 index increased by 28%. Table I-1U.S. Expansions Can Last Long After Full Employment Is Reached The lesson is that risk assets can still perform well for a long time after the economy reaches full employment. Admittedly, however, equity valuation is more stretched today than was the case at similar points in past long cycles. Before the U.S. election, the current expansion appeared to be heading for a similar long, drawn-out conclusion. Inflationary pressures are beginning to emerge, but only slowly, and from a low starting point. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Phillips curve8 is quite flat at low levels of inflation. This implies that the Fed has plenty of time to normalize interest rates because inflation is unlikely to surge. However, a sea change in trade and fiscal policy could change the calculus. To the extent that fiscal stimulus is front-loaded relative to trade protection, and that any trade restrictions add to inflation, Trump's policy agenda could force the Fed to normalize rates more quickly. The FOMC Will Wait And See Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Yellen's congressional testimony in November revealed that the Fed is not yet preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle. There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its economic forecasts following the election. Similarly, the Fed is not making any upward revisions to its estimate of the long-run neutral rate, which remains "quite low by historical standards." The implication is that the Fed will raise rates in December, but it will keep its "dot" forecast unchanged. The FOMC is prudently awaiting the details of the fiscal package before changing its economic and interest rate projections. We doubt that the Fed will be aggressive in offsetting the fiscal stimulus. We have argued in the past that the consensus on the FOMC would not follow the Bank of Japan and officially target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, most Fed officials would not be upset if, with hindsight, they tighten too slowly and inflation overshoots modestly. The inflation target is supposed to be symmetric, which means that 2% is not meant to be a hard ceiling. Moreover, the Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have surged in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart I-3).9 Investors should continue to hold inflation protection in the bond market. A window may open sometime in 2017 in which improving economic growth is met with a cautious Fed. In this environment, we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and risk assets to outperform. The window will likely close once inflation moves up and inflation expectations converge at a level consistent with the 2% target. Bond Strategy The implications of Trump's policy agenda are clearly bond bearish, although yields have shifted a long way in a short time. The gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart I-4). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.1%, only 82 bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. The U.S. 10-year yield has already converged with two measures of fair value, although yields remain well below fair value in the other major countries according to estimates of nominal potential output growth (Charts I-5 and I-6). The fact that the gap between the Fed's dots and market expectations has almost closed, means that a lot of bond-bearish news has been discounted in the U.S. We would not be surprised to see a partial retracement of the recent bond selloff. Investors will want to see concrete plans for substantial fiscal stimulus before the next leg of the bond bear market takes place. Speculators may wish to take profits on short bond plays, but investors with a 6-12 month horizon should remain short of duration benchmarks. Chart I-4Market Expectations Converging With Dots Chart I-5Bond Fair Value Method (I) Chart I-6Bond Fair Value Method (II) On a long-term horizon, the Trump agenda reinforces our view that the secular bull market in bonds is over. Larry Summers' Secular Stagnation thesis will be challenged and investors will come to question the need for ultra-low real interest rates in the U.S. well into the next decade. A blowout in the U.S. budget deficit will temper the excess global savings story to some extent. Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, full expensing of capital goods and reduced regulation may also boost the long-run potential growth rate in the U.S. All of this suggests that equilibrium interest rates and bond yields will shift higher. Nonetheless, poor demographic trends and other impediments to both the supply- and demand-sides of the U.S. and global economies have not disappeared. The ECB is likely to extend its bond purchase program beyond next March, while the Bank of Japan has capped the 10-year JGB yield at close to zero, both of which should limit the amount by which yields in the other developed markets can rise. We could even see global yields fall back to near previous lows if the Fed winds up tightening too aggressively and sparks the next recession. Is Trump Bullish For Stocks? Chart I-7Equity Market Breakouts Developed country stock markets cheered the U.S. election outcome, presumably betting that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The main indexes in the U.S. and Japan have broken out of their trading ranges (Chart I-7). Bourses in Europe have also moved higher, but have not yet broken out. On the plus side, deregulation and stronger growth are bullish for U.S. corporate profits. Trump's proposal for a major corporate tax cut is another positive for equities, although the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at multi-decade lows. Cutting the marginal rate will thus not affect the effective rate much for large corporations. Any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises, as well as domestically-oriented S&P 500 corporations. On the negative side, dollar strength will be a headwind given that about a third of S&P 500 earnings are sourced from abroad. This raises the question of which factor will dominate profit growth over the next year; better economic growth or dollar strength? Table I-3 presents a matrix of different scenarios for the dollar and economic growth applied to our U.S. EPS model. Our base-case assumptions, implemented before the election, generated 5-6% earnings growth in 2017. We assumed that real and nominal GDP growth would be on par with the conservative IMF forecast. The bullish case assumes that real GDP growth is about a percentage point stronger, with modestly higher inflation. The opposite is assumed in the bear case. These three cases are combined with various scenarios for the dollar. The key point of Table I-3 is that the growth assumptions dominate the dollar effects. If growth is significantly stronger than the base case, then it would require a massive dollar adjustment to offset the positive impact on earnings. For example, our EPS estimate rises from 5-6% in the base case to almost 13% in the strong growth scenario, even if the dollar appreciates by 5%.10 The elephant in the room is the prospect of a trade war. Anti-globalization polices are negative for equities generally, although the boost for domestically-oriented firms provides some offset. As we argued above, higher tariffs on Mexico and China alone would not fully counteract a major fiscal push next year, especially if the trade impediments are implemented with a lag. Nonetheless, a broader anti-trade initiative that draws retaliation from many of America's trading partners cannot be ruled out. This is the main reason why we remain tactically cautious on equities. Table I-3U.S. Earnings Scenarios Country Equity Allocation In common currency terms, the U.S. equity market has a lot going for it relative to Japan and Europe. There will be spillovers from stronger U.S. growth to other countries, but the U.S. will benefit the most from Trump's fiscal stimulus plan. Continuing policy divergence will prop up the dollar, boosting returns in common-currency terms. The dollar has appreciated by about 4% in trade-weighted terms since we first predicted a 10% rise, suggesting that there is another 6% to go. Chart I-8Eurozone Still Has Lots Of Slack However, it is a tougher call in local currency terms. Monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in both Japan and Europe. As we highlighted in last month's Overview, we still expect Japan to implement a major fiscal stimulus plan. In the context of the Bank of Japan's fixing of the 10-year yield, government spending will amount to a helicopter drop policy that could generate a substantial yen depreciation. The central bank will continue to hold the yield curve down even when growth picks up, to drive real yields lower via rising inflation expectations. In the Eurozone, the ECB is likely to extend its asset purchase program beyond next March because it cannot credibly argue that inflation is on track to meet the target on any reasonable timetable. While the Eurozone economy has been growing well above trend this year, the fact that wage growth is languishing highlights that significant labor market slack persists (Chart I-8). Easy-money policies in Europe and Japan will be bullish for stocks in both markets in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Stocks are also cheaper in Japan and the Eurozone. Earlier this year, we presented a methodology for valuing Eurozone stocks relative to the U.S. from a top-down perspective. The methodology accounted for different sector weightings and the fact that European stocks generally trade at a discount to the U.S. This month's second Special Report, beginning on page 27, applies the same methodology to Japanese/U.S. relative valuation. Combining seven relative valuation measures into a single composite metric, we find that both the Eurozone and Japanese equity markets are about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). History shows that investors would have made substantial (currency hedged) excess returns if they had favored Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. on a six-month or longer investment horizon whenever our composite valuation index reached one standard deviation on the cheap side. Our recommended (hedged) overweight in Europe and Japan has not worked out yet, as tepid global growth has instead flattered the lower-beta U.S. market. That tide should turn, however, if the rise in global bond yields reflects a credibly reflationary growth pulse in the U.S. A stronger dollar would redistribute some of that growth to other countries. Chart I-10 shows that higher beta markets like Europe and Japan can outperform the U.S. when bond yields rise. The financial sectors in both Europe and Japan, so punished relative to the broad market as a result of deleveraging and negative interest rates, would then be poised to outperform as well. Chart I-9Equity Valuation Chart I-10U.S. Equities ##br##Underperform When Yields Rise Investment Conclusions: Hopes are running high that fiscal stimulus and a more business-friendly regulatory framework will stir animal spirits, rekindle business investment and lift the U.S. economy out of its growth funk. The violent reaction in financial markets to the election has probably gone too far in discounting a transformative policy change. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory agenda will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place, such as: the end of the Debt Supercycle; deteriorating demographics; elevated corporate leverage; and nose-bleed levels of government debt. A lot of good (policy) news is already discounted in equity prices, implying that the market is vulnerable to policy or economic disappointments. That said, a window may open next year that would favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Markets will front-run the growth pulse (some of it is admittedly already discounted). Our bias is therefore to upgrade these asset classes, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new administration's policy intentions. Until there is more clarity, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. EM assets appear to us like a lose-lose proposition. A trade war would obviously be disastrous for this asset class. But EM also loses if U.S. protectionism takes a back seat to growth initiatives to the extent that this results in a stronger dollar. EM risk assets have never escaped periods of dollar strength unscathed. The possibility of RMB depreciation versus the U.S. dollar adds to EM vulnerability. Our other investment recommendations include the following: avoid peripheral European government bonds within European bond portfolios due to Italian referendum risk; avoid U.S. municipal bonds, as tax cuts would devalue the tax advantage of muni debt; remain overweight inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues within government bond portfolios, as inflation expectations have more upside potential; we are marginally less bearish on high-yield bonds since better growth will temper defaults. We also see less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event. Nonetheless, concerns about corporate health still justify a slight underweight relative to Treasurys in the U.S. Overweight investment-grade corporates in Europe versus European governments due to ongoing ECB support; overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. within the U.S. equity market, remain overweight small caps since Trump's corporate tax reform will benefit small firms disproportionately. Dollar strength also favors small versus large caps. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst November 24, 2016 Next Report: December 20, 2016 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 3 World Trade Organization. 4 Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "The Payoff to America from Global Integration," Peterson Institute for International Economics. 5 These calculations capture the demand-side effects of the tariffs. There will also be supply-side effects, in terms of reduced productivity, but this will be relatively small and affect the economy largely over the medium term. 6 The elasticities and methodology for these calculations are based on the report; "Trump's Tariffs: A Dissent," J.W. Mason, November 2016. 7 "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr.Trump's Economic Policies," Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 8 The short-term tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. 9 Inflation breakeven rates have historically exceeded 2% because of the presence of risk premia. 10 The impact of dollar appreciation on profits shown in Table 3 may seem too low to some readers given that S&P 500 companies derive a third of their earnings from abroad. However, some of these earnings are hedged, while dollar strength will benefit the earnings of domestically-oriented U.S. companies. II. A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see 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. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu. III. Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap? Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting intechnology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.

Special Report

Highlights A central bank cannot control/target the quantity and price of money simultaneously. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth toward targeting interest rates. As such, the reserve requirements imposed on banks have not and will not be a constraint on Chinese commercial banks' ability to lend and create money if the PBoC continues to supply banks with reserves "on demand." China's banks have created too many RMBs (broad money/deposits) and the PBoC has accommodated them. Such enormous supply of RMBs and mainland households' and companies' desire to get rid of their RMBs will lead to further yuan depreciation. Continue shorting the RMB and Asian currencies versus the U.S. dollar. Re-instate a short Colombian peso trade; this time against an equal-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Feature Following our October 26 Special Report titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses",1 some clients have asked us how our analysis squares with fact that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) conducts its monetary policy using a reserve requirement ratio. The relevant question being, why would the PBoC's reserve requirements not limit commercial banks' ability to create money/credit? In that Special Report, we wrote: "A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks "on demand." Given PBoC lending to banks has surged 5.5-fold over last three years (Chart I-1), we concluded that the reserve requirement ratio had, for all intents and purposes, lost its meaning in China. In this week's report we elaborate on this issue in detail. The main implication of our analysis today reinforces our conclusion from the previous report: namely, China's commercial banks have expanded credit enormously, and the PBoC has accommodated it. With respect to financial market implications, there are simply too many RMBs (broad money/deposits) in the system (Chart I-2). Chinese households and companies can instinctively sense this, and are opting to move their wealth into real assets, such as real estate, or foreign currencies. Hence, the oversupply of RMBs will continue to weigh on China's exchange rate, which will depreciate much further. We expect the US$/CNY to reach 7.8-8 over the next 12 months. Chart I-1The PBoC Has Provided Banks With Liquidity 'On Demand' Chart I-2There Are Too Many RMBs Floating Around Targeting Either The Quantity Or The Price Of Money Any central bank can target and control either the quantity of money or the price of money, but not both simultaneously. This holds true for any monopolist supplier of any good/service that does not have control over the demand curve. A demand curve for money is the function that ties the quantity demanded at various price points (the price being interest rates). Central banks - being monopolist suppliers of money, but unable to control money demand - must choose between controlling either the quantity of money or the price of money. The system of required reserves (RR) is a tool to control money supply (the quantity of money). When central banks reinforce the RR ratio, interbank interest rates typically swing enormously and often deviate considerably from the target policy rate (Chart 1). For example, when commercial banks expand loans too much and lack sufficient reserves at the central bank, they must borrow from the interbank market and thereby bid up interbank rates- i.e., short-term interest rates rise. This in turn restrains credit demand or the willingness to lend, and eventually reduces money growth. The opposite also holds true. When a central bank wants to target interest rates (the price of money), it cannot control money supply. To ensure that interbank/money market rates stay close to the policy rate - i.e., to reinforce its interest rate target - a central bank should provide the banking system with reserves "on demand." In other words, when interbank rates rise above the target policy rate, a central bank should inject sufficient liquidity into the system to bring interest rates down. Similarly, when interbank rates fall below the target policy rate, a central bank should withdraw enough liquidity from the banking system to assure interbank rates rise converging to its target policy rate. By supplying commercial banks with reserves (high powered money) "on demand" - i.e., providing as much reserves as they need - a central bank is de facto failing to enforce reserve requirements. As such, the central bank is giving up control over money creation. By and large, RRs lose their effectiveness if a central bank provides commercial banks with as much reserves as they request. In short, when a central bank opts for targeting interest rates, it cannot steer monetary aggregates - i.e., RRs and RR ratios lose their meaning. In the 1970s and 1980s, most central banks in advanced countries targeted money supply to achieve their policy goals such as inflation and sustainable economic growth. However, starting in the early 1990s, developed nations' central banks (the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the Swiss National Bank and others) began to move away from controlling money supply (monetary aggregates) and toward targeting interest rates. Individual banks' limitations to borrow from the central bank often rests with the availability of collateral. So long as a commercial bank has eligible collateral (often government bonds), it can access central bank funding. This is true for Chinese commercial banks too. Bottom Line: Monetary authorities cannot control/target the quantity and price of money simultaneously. The Money Multiplier In An Interest Rate Targeting System When a central bank opts for targeting interest rates, commercial banks can originate an unlimited amount of loans and demand the central bank provide additional reserves, as long as they have eligible collateral. This corroborates our point from our previous report that a commercial bank's loan origination is not constrained by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) "on demand." In a fractional reserve system, the ability of commercial banks to create loans/money is defined by a money multiplier. A potential ceiling for a money multiplier (MM) is calculated as: MM = (1 / RR ratio) For example, when the RR ratio is 10%: The money multiplier MM = (1 / 0.1) = 10 In effect, the banking system can create up to 10 times more money/loans/deposits per one dollar of reserves. Under the current system of interest rate targeting – which has prevailed among most developed countries since the early 1990s and more recently in China (more on China below) – we can think of the RR ratio as heading towards zero because central banks provide banks with almost unlimited liquidity (reserves). The RR ratio is not zero because there are still limitations on banks' ability to borrow from central banks due the availability (or lack thereof) of eligible collateral or compliance with Basel III requirements. Yet as the RR ratio gets smaller in size, its reciprocal (1 / RR ratio) becomes very large (not infinite, but a plausibly very large number). Overall, when a central bank targets interest rates, the ceiling of the money multiplier is not set by the central bank. Rather, the money multiplier is de facto determined by commercial banks' willingness to originate loans. Thus, the money multiplier can potentially be very high when animal spirits among bankers and borrowers run wild. Consequently, the points discussed in our Special Report titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses"2 - namely that commercial banks create loans/money/deposits out of thin air - holds, and is relevant in a system where central banks target/control interest rates. Bottom Line: When central banks opt to control short-term interest rates, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. In such a case, RRs and the RR ratio become almost irrelevant. Therefore, in an interest rate targeting system, banks' ability to originate loans/create money and deposits is not contingent on their reserves at the central bank. This point is greatly relevant to China. The PBoC: Shifting From Money To Interest Rate Targeting For the past few years, China’s central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth to targeting interest rates. As a result, nowadays the PBoC has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks or the money multiplier. It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. Chart I-3SHIBOR Crises In 2013 Forced PBoC ##br##To Start Targeting Interest Rates We suspect this shift in China's monetary policy management has been occurring since early 2014 on the heels of the so-called SHIBOR crisis, which erupted in June 2013 when interbank rates surged and was followed by another spike in interbank rates in December 2013 (Chart I-3). During these episodes, the PBoC enforced reserve requirements and thus did not provide liquidity to banks that were running short on it. In essence, it did whatever a central bank targeting money growth via control over RR would do. However, as interbank rates surged and banks complained, policymakers backed off, and provided banks with as much liquidity as they demanded. This stabilized interbank rates and, importantly, appears to have marked the PBoC's shift toward interest rate targeting. Thus, by de facto moving to a monetary system of targeting interest rates, the PBoC cannot effectively reinforce reserve requirements because it must supply any amount of reserves that commercial banks require to preclude a major spike in interbank rates. A few points illustrate that in fact the PBoC has been targeting short-term money market rates, and banks have expanded loans enormously despite their excess reserves being flat: Volatility in interbank rates has dropped substantially (Chart I-4), as the PBoC's claims on commercial banks has exploded 5.5-fold since the early 2014. Even though commercial banks' excess reserves have been flat, their lending has been booming - i.e., the money/credit multiplier has been rising (Chart I-5). This is only possible when the PBoC has been supplying reserves "on demand" or when it cuts the RR ratio. Since the RR ratio has not been cut over the past two years, it means that the former is true. Chart I-4Interbank Rate Volatility Has Fallen As ##br##PBoC Injected A Lot Of Liquidity Chart I-5China's Money/Credit Multiplier##br## Has Been Rising Just like central banks in advanced economies, the only way the PBoC can alter money/credit growth is if it lifts or cuts its interest rate target. Barring any changes to its policy rate, commercial banks, not the PBoC, determine money/loan/deposit creation in China. As to other factors that determine the amount of credit/money creation by commercial banks in China, we elaborated on these in the above-mentioned report. Bottom Line: It appears the PBoC has shifted toward targeting interest rates. Consequently, the PBoC cannot pretend to control money/credit origination unless it changes its interest rate target. Moreover, we reiterate that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative behavior among Chinese banks and borrowers, and not the natural result of the country's high savings rate. Oversupply Of RMBs = A Lower Currency As China's central bank has been printing RMBs and commercial banks have been "multiplying" them at a high rate (by originating loans), the supply of RMBs has continued to explode. Such an oversupply of local currency will continue to depress the value of the nation's exchange rate. The PBoC's liquidity injections have exploded in recent years (Chart I-6). The central bank has not only been offsetting the liquidity withdrawal due to its currency foreign exchange market interventions, but it has also been providing banks with as much liquidity as they require. The objective seems to have been to avoid a rise in interbank rates when corporate leverage is extremely high and banks are overextended. Since February 2015, the PBoC's international reserves have dropped by US$0.9 trillion, or 4.2 trillion RMB (Chart I-7). This means that the PBoC has withdrawn 4.2 trillion RMBs from the system. If the central bank did not re-inject these RMBs into the financial system, interbank rates would have skyrocketed. As the PBoC has injected RMBs into the system, it has effectively undone its RMB defense. The whole point of defending the exchange rate from falling or depreciating too fast is to shrink local currency liquidity. Yet, naturally, that would also lead to higher interbank rates. If the central bank chooses not to tolerate higher interest rates and continues to inject local currency into circulation, the RMB's depreciation will likely continue and accelerate. By injecting RMBs into the system, the monetary authorities have allowed banks to continue to lend, thereby creating enormous amounts of money and deposits. Banks create deposits when they lend. The Chinese banking system has a lot of deposits partially because commercial banks have lent too much. In short, the supply or quantity of money (RMBs) has continued to explode, despite massive capital outflows. Notably, if the PBoC did not lend RMBs to commercial banks, the latter's excess reserves would have plunged by 4 trillion RMB (Chart I-8) and banks would have been forced to pull-back their lending. Chart I-6PBoC's Liquidity Injections Have ##br##Exploded Since Early 2014 Chart I-7China: Foreign Exchange##br## Reserve Depletion Chart I-8China: What Would Have Banks' Excess Reserves##br## Been Without Borrowing From PBoC? Overall, in the current fiat money system, when a central bank targets interest rates, the monetary authorities can print unlimited high-powered money (bank reserves) and commercial banks can multiply it by creating enormous amounts of loans/deposits.3 However, there is no free lunch - no country can print its way to prosperity (otherwise all countries would have been very rich already). The negative ramifications of unlimited money creation are numerous, but this report focuses on the exchange rate implications. The growing supply of RMBs will lead to a much further drop in China's exchange rate. It seems Chinese retail investors and companies intuitively sense this, and are eager to get rid of their RMBs. This also explains Chinese investors' desire to overpay for any real or financial asset, domestically or abroad. We expect growing downward pressure on the RMB as capital outflows accelerate anew. Although China’s foreign exchange reserves are enormous in absolute U.S. dollar terms, they are low relative to money supply (Chart 9). The ratio of the central bank’s international reserves-to-broad money is 15% in China and it is relatively low compared with other countries (Chart 10). Chart I-9China: International Reserves Are Not##br## High Relative To Broad Money Chart I-10International Reserves-To-Broad##br## Money Ratio As a final note, the oversupply of local currency has not created inflation in the real economy because of massive overcapacity following years of booming capital spending. However, continued money creation will eventually lead to higher inflation. This does not seem imminent but we will be monitoring these dynamics carefully going forward. Bottom Line: China's banks have created too much RMBs and the PBoC has accommodated them. Such enormous supply of RMBs and mainland households' and companies' desire to get rid of their RMBs will lead to further yuan depreciation. Investment Implications: A Free-Fall For RMB And Asian Currencies The RMB's value versus the U.S. dollar will drop much further. Our new target range for US$/CNY is 7.8-8 over the next 12 months, or 11-14% below today's level. The forward market is discounting only 2.8% depreciation in the next 12 months (Chart I-11). We maintain our short RMB / long U.S. dollar trade (via 12-month NDF). A persistent relapse in the RMB's value will drag down other Asian currencies. In particular, the Korean won and the Taiwanese dollar have failed to break above important technical levels (their long-term moving averages), and have lately relapsed (Chart I-12). Chart I-11RMB Will Depreciate Much More##br## Than Priced In By Forwards Chart I-12Asian Currencies:##br##More Downside Ahead For the Korean won, we believe there is considerable downside from current levels. Consistently, we recommended shorting the KRW versus the THB trade on October 19.4 Chart I-13EM ex-China Currencies Total Return##br## (Including Carry): Is The Rally Over? Traders who believe in continued U.S. dollar strength, like we do, should consider shorting the KRW versus the U.S. dollar outright. For DM currencies, this means that the drop in the JPY has further to go. In emerging Asia, we are also shorting the MYR and the IDR versus the U.S. dollar and also versus Eastern European currencies such as the ruble and the HUF, respectively. As emerging Asian currencies depreciate versus the U.S. dollar, other EM currencies will likely follow. It is hard to see the RMB and other Asian currencies plunging and the rest of EM doing well. The total return (including the carry) of the aggregate EM ex-China exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar (equity market-cap weighted index) has failed to break above a critical long-term technical resistance, and has rolled over (Chart I-13). This is a bearish technical signal, implying considerable downside from these levels. As such, we maintain our core short positions in the following EM currencies outside Asia: TRY, ZAR, BRL and CLP and add COP to this list today. This is based on an assumption of diminished foreign inflows to EM and lower commodities prices. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Colombia: Headed Toward Recession In our May 4 Special Report on Colombia,5 we argued that despite a bright structural backdrop this Andean economy was headed for a growth recession (i.e. very weak but still positive growth). Domestic demand has buckled and now we believe the nation could be on the verge of its first genuine recession in two decades (Chart II-1). Colombia's Achilles heel is its low domestic savings rate, reflected by a still large current account deficit financed by FDI and portfolio capital inflows (Chart II-2). As a result, low oil prices and rising global interest rates have exposed the nation's main cyclical vulnerability. Given the trade deficit is still large (Chart II-3) and our bias is that oil prices will be flat-to-down, a further retrenchment in domestic demand is unavoidable. Chart II-1Colombia's First Recession##br## In 20 Years? Chart II-2Colombia's Lingering Balance Of ##br##Payments Vulnerability Chart II-3A Weaker COP Will Force The ##br##Necessary Adjustment Going forward, the external funding constraint will continue to bite. Moreover, policymakers are trapped and will be unable to prevent growth from contracting. The central bank is stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Cutting interest rates will undermine the appeal of the peso to foreign investors. Raising rates to prop up the currency, however, will exacerbate the economy's downward momentum. In the end, downward pressure on the exchange rate and still high inflation mean the central bank will not cut rates soon (Chart II-4). Tight monetary policy in turn means that private sector credit will decelerate much more (Chart II-5). Chart II-4High (Well Above Target) Inflation Limits##br## Central Bank's Ability To Ease Chart II-5Colombia: Credit Growth Is ##br##Headed Much Lower Our marginal propensity to consume proxy, an excellent leading indicator for household spending, signals consumption is set to weaken even further (Chart II-6). Facing weakening demand, investment is set to continue contracting (Chart II-7) and, ultimately, unemployment will be much higher, reinforcing the downtrend in consumer expenditures. Chart II-6Colombian Domestic Demand##br## To Retrench Further Chart II-7Contracting Investment Bodes ##br##Poorly For Employment Meanwhile, fiscal policy will remain tight as Colombia's orthodox policymakers struggle to adjust the fiscal accounts to the structurally negative terms-of-trade shock in this oil-dependent economy. The current fiscal reform effort is very positive for sustainable long-run dynamics, as influential central bank board members have highlighted.6 Yet particular parts of the reform, such as raising VAT taxes from 16% to 19%, will almost inevitably lead to a drop in consumer demand. Furthermore, nominal government revenues are already contracting and a slumping economy means that the total fiscal effort will need to be greater than currently envisioned. Overall, with monetary and fiscal policy stimulus hamstrung by the nation's low domestic savings rate (i.e. large current account deficit), a mild recession seems very likely. And while a lot of weakness has already been priced into the nation's financial markets, we think there is still more downside ahead. For instance, the Colombian peso may be cheap in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, but it is highly vulnerable due to the nation's still wide current account deficit. This week we recommend re-instating a short position in the peso; this time against an equal-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble.7 Turning to equities, Colombian stocks have fallen sharply since 2014, mostly a reflection of the collapse of the nation's energy plays. At present bank stocks account for 60% this nation's MSCI market cap, and though we believe they will fare better than many other EM banking systems,8 they will not go unscathed by a recession. Still, orthodox policymaking should limit the downside in the performance of this bourse and sovereign credit (U.S. dollar bonds) relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Meanwhile, fixed-income investors should continue to bet on yield curve flattening by paying 1-year/ receiving 10-year interest rate swaps, a trade we have recommended since September 16, 2015.9 The recent steepening in the yield curve will prove unsustainable as the economy tanks. Bottom Line: Colombia is probably headed toward recession and policymakers are straightjacketed and cannot ease monetary and fiscal policies to prevent it. As such, the currency will be the main release valve and it will depreciate further. Go short the COP versus an equal-weighted basket the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Dedicated EM equity and credit investors should maintain a neutral allocation to Colombia within their respective EM benchmarks. Continue to bet on flattening in the yield curve by paying 1-year/ receiving 10-year interest rate swaps. Santiago E. Gomez Associate Vice President santiago@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses", dated October 26, 2016. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016. 3 As we argued in Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses", dated October 26, 2016, it is new loans that create new deposits and vice versa. 4 Please refer to the section on Thailand in our Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled " The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Special Report titled, "Colombia: A Cyclical Downturn Amid Structural Strength," dated May 4, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Cano, Carlos Gustavo "Monetary Policy in Colombia: Main Challenges 2016 -2017" Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Small Talks Symposium, October 7, 2016, Washington DC http://www.banrep.gov.co/sites/default/files/publicaciones/archivos/cgc_oct_2016.pdf 7 For more on the ruble please refer to the section on Russia in our Emerging Markets Weekly Report, dated November 16, 2016, titled, "Russia: Overweight Equities; Reinstate Long RUB / Short MYR Trade". 8 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Special Report titled, "Colombia: A Cyclical Downturn Amid Structural Strength" dated May 4, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 9 Please refer to the section on Colombia in our Emerging Markets Weekly Report, dated September 15, 2015, titled "Colombia: An Incomplete Adjustment", available at ems.bcareseach.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations