Correlations

Highlights Will inflation return in Europe & Japan? Can Trumponomics successfully boost U.S. economic growth? Will global market volatility remain this low? Can China avert a crisis and still be the engine of global growth? Feature With a New Year now upon us, fixed income investors are trying to determine what the next move is for global bond yields after the rapid rise at the end of 2016. While much has been made of the impact of the 2016 U.S. election result on the global bond rout, many other important factors will drive fixed income markets this year (Chart of the Week). In our first Weekly Report of the New Year, we present our list of the most important questions for global bond markets in 2017. Chart 1The Big Questions For 2017 Chart 2Taper Tantrum 2.0? Will Inflation Return In Europe & Japan? Extremely low inflation in the Euro Area and Japan over the past few years has forced both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) to pursue exceptionally accommodative monetary policies like negative interest rates and large scale quantitative easing (QE) programs - the latter acting to depress bond term premia among the major developed markets. Much of this decline in headline inflation in both regions was due to the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices and the previous strength in both the euro and yen (Chart 2), but core inflation and wage growth have also been subdued. If headline inflation were to move higher in either Europe or Japan, it could call into question the central banks' commitment to continue hyper-easy monetary stimulus programs. This could raise the threat of another "taper tantrum" in developed bond markets later in 2017. The recovery in global energy prices in 2016, combined with significant currency depreciations related to ECB/BoJ QE, have boosted the annual growth in the local currency price of oil to 72% in the Euro Area and 63% in Japan. Already, headline inflation measures have begun to move higher in response and, judging by past relationships, a move up to 2% headline inflation in both regions by year-end is possible. In Chart 3 & Chart 4, we present simulations for headline inflation in both the Euro Area and Japan assuming the only changes come from movements in oil prices, the euro and the yen. We show two scenarios where the Brent oil price rises to $65/bbl (the high end of the range expected by our commodity strategists in 2017) and $75/bbl (an extreme scenario). In both simulations, the euro and yen continue to weaken versus the U.S. dollar until mid-2017 before recovering to near current levels by year-end. Chart 3Euro Area Inflation Simulation Chart 4Japan Inflation Simulation Our simulations show that headline inflation in both the Euro Area and Japan could rise to at least the 2% level, and perhaps even higher, if oil prices continue to climb and both the yen and Euro weaken towards 125 and parity versus the U.S. dollar, respectively. Given our views on the likely path of interest rates in the U.S. - higher, as the Fed continues hiking rates - the U.S. dollar is likely to strengthen more in 2017. The oil price moves incorporated in our simulations are somewhat more bullish than our base case expectation, but not extraordinarily so. If there are any upside surprises to global growth this year, oil prices could show surprising strength given the production cutbacks occurring in many of the major oil exporting nations. Higher inflation would be welcome by both the ECB and BoJ, especially if it were accompanied by a rise in inflation expectations. Both central banks have acknowledged the role played by low realized inflation in recent years in depressing expected inflation, but the latter could move up surprisingly fast if the markets believe that either central bank will be slow to respond to the rise in realized inflation. That seems like more of a risk in Japan, where the BoJ is aiming for an overshoot of its 2% inflation target and is promising to keep the Japanese government bond (JGB) curve at current levels until that point is reached. The ECB would be much more likely to make the decision to begin tapering their bond purchases if Euro Area inflation approaches 2%. We see this as the biggest potential threat to global bond markets in 2017 - even more than the expected Fed rate hikes, which are already largely priced into the U.S. yield curve. The ECB was able to successfully kick the tapering can down the road last month by choosing to extend its QE program to the end of 2017, but a decision to defer tapering again will be much harder to make if Euro Area inflation is closer to 2%. If the ECB were to announce a taper later in 2017, this would be very damaging for the long ends of yield curves in the developed markets as bond term premia would begin to normalize - perhaps very rapidly. There is more room for adjustment for term premia in core Euro Area government bonds relative to U.S. Treasuries. An ECB taper announcement, or even just expectations of it, would mark the peak in the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds which is now at the highest levels in a quarter century. Given the busy upcoming election calendar in the Euro Area, the ECB will not want to even mention the word "taper" until later in the year. Until then, owning inflation protection in Europe, and Japan as well, is the best way to position for upside surprises in inflation in those regions. Bottom Line: Rising inflation in the Euro Area and Japan in 2017 will prompt a rethink of the hyper-easy monetary policies of both the ECB and BoJ, but only the former is likely to consider a taper of its bond purchase program this year. That decision would push global bond yields higher via wider term premia and cause Euro Area government bond markets to underperform U.S. Treasuries, but not until later in the year. Can Trumponomics Successfully Boost U.S. Economic Growth? After a long and divisive U.S. election campaign, the curtain is about to officially be raised on the Trump era on January 20. In anticipation of a more pro-growth agenda from the new president, investors have already bid up the valuations of assets sensitive to U.S. economic growth, like equities and corporate bonds, while also driving up both U.S. Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar. Chart 5Time To Spruce Up U.S. Infrastructure Markets are now discounting a fairly rosy scenario for a solid "Trump bump" to U.S. economic growth in 2017. This is to be expected, given that the president-elect won the White House on a platform full of promises to, among other things, boost government infrastructure spending, cut corporate taxes, tear down excess regulations on U.S. companies and adopt a more protectionist U.S. trade policy. In terms of a direct impact to U.S. GDP growth, there are three obvious places where the economic plan of Candidate Trump could turn into stronger growth this year for President Trump: government fixed investment, net exports and private capital expenditure. Trump's infrastructure plans have received much of the attention from those bullish on U.S. growth in 2017; unsurprising given the proposed size of the proposals ($550 billion). This stimulus would appear to be a source of low-hanging fruit to boost U.S. economic growth, as years of underinvestment has left America with an aging government infrastructure in need of an upgrade (Chart 5). Yet the boost to growth from government investment spending has historically not been large, adding between 0.25% and 0.5%, at most, over the past 40 years (bottom panel). Trump's proposed figure of $550 billion would fit right in with that experience, as it would represent 0.3% of the current $18.6 trillion U.S. economy. That assumes that all the proposed infrastructure spending occurs in a single year. Given the usual long lead times for big government infrastructure projects, and the discussions between the White House and the U.S. Congress over the scope and funding of any major government spending initiative, it is highly unlikely that the direct effect of more infrastructure spending will provide much of a boost to U.S. growth in 2017. That impact is more likely to be seen in 2018. A boost to growth from trade is also possible given Trump's fiery protectionist election rhetoric and his decision to nominate China hawks for major cabinet positions. It is unclear if Trump is willing to risk entering a trade war with China (or even Mexico) by raising import tariffs soon after taking office. It is even more uncertain if this will provide much of an immediate lift to U.S. net exports, if tariffs merely raise the cost of imports without any material substitution to domestically produced goods and services. Even if it did, trade has rarely contributed positively to real U.S. GDP growth outside of recessions since 1960. That leaves private fixed investment as the biggest potential source of new growth in the U.S. in 2017. Trump is proposing a cut in the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, while the Republican plan already set out by House Speaker Paul Ryan is calling for a cut to 25%. Both sides also are in favor of a lower "repatriation tax" on corporate profits held abroad, at a rate of 10-15%. So with all parts of the U.S. government in agreement, a move to cut corporate taxes appears to be a near certainty. In the past, efforts to initiate comprehensive tax reform have been not been done quickly in Washington. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, however, believe that a deal between the White House and Congress could happen in the first half of 2017. The details of the other major policy initiatives that Trump wants done early in his first term - repealing and replacing Obamacare, and the infrastructure spending program - will be much harder to iron out than a tax cut on which both Trump and the Republican Congress agree. Doing the tax reform first will be the easier choice for a new president.1 Cutting corporate taxes seems like a move that should help boost U.S. private investment spending, as it would raise the after-tax return on capital. However, investment spending has already been underperforming relative to after-tax cash flows since the 2008 Financial Crisis, and the effective tax rate paid by the U.S. corporate sector is already much lower than the 35% marginal tax rate (Chart 6). Something else besides tax levels has been weighing on U.S. corporate sentiment with regards to capital spending intentions. It may be that the burden of excess government regulations, which has soared during the years of the Obama administration (bottom panel), has dampened animal spirits in the U.S. corporate sector. On that front, Trump's proposals to slash regulations - none bigger than repealing Obamacare - could help boost business confidence and fuel an upturn in capital spending. Chart 6A Regulatory Burden, Not A Tax Burden Chart 7Making Corporate America Happy Again Some rebound in capex was likely to occur, Trump or no Trump, given the recent improvement in U.S. corporate profits (Chart 7, top panel). This is especially true in the Energy sector which generated the biggest drag on U.S. corporate investment spending after the collapse in oil prices in 2014/15. Since the election, however, there has been a noticeable improvement in confidence within the "C-suite" for American companies. The Duke University/CFO Magazine measure of optimism on the U.S. economy hit the highest level in over a decade (middle panel), while the Conference Board index of CEO optimism soared to the highest level in three years, at the end of 2016. Executive confidence at those levels would be consistent with a pace of capital spending that could add up to 1 full percentage point to U.S. real GDP growth, based on past relationships - (bottom panel). For both of these surveys, executives cited a more positive outlook on future growth after the U.S. election as a major reason for the increase in optimism. In sum, the biggest potential lift to U.S. economic growth in 2017 from Trumponomics will come from business investment and not government spending or exports, and likely by enough to boost overall U.S. GDP growth to an above-trend pace that will prompt the Fed to deliver at least 2-3 rate hikes by year-end. Bottom Line: A major boost to U.S. economic growth from government investment spending and net exports is unlikely in 2017. A pickup in corporate investment, however, seems far more likely given the boost to longer-term business confidence seen after the U.S. elections, coming at a time of improving global economic growth. Will Market Volatility Stay This Low? Given all the uncertainties over the latter half of 2016, from Brexit to Trump to Italy, it is surprising how low market volatility has been. Measures of implied volatility like the VIX index for U.S. equities have remained incredibly subdued, while even the uptick in MOVE index has been relatively modest considering the year-end carnage in the Treasury market (Chart 8). The fact that global risk assets can remain so relatively well-behaved, even after a surprising U.S election result and a Fed rate hike that has boosted the U.S. dollar, is a sign that the "Fed Policy Loop" - where a more hawkish U.S. monetary stance causes an unwanted surge in the U.S. dollar and a selloff in equity and credit markets - has been broken. As we discussed in our 2017 Outlook report, the Fed Policy Loop framework would not apply in an environment where non-U.S. economic growth was improving, as is the currently the case.2 This may be the most obvious explanation for why market volatilities are low, with developed market equities hitting cyclical highs and corporate credit spreads staying at cyclical lows. In other words, volatility is low because growth is accelerating and global central banks (most notably, the Fed) are not slamming on the brakes. Chart 8The Death Of The Fed Policy Loop? Chart 9U.S. Dollar Strength Will Persist In 2017 The strength of the U.S. dollar has been a function of the widening real interest rate differential between the U.S. and the rest of the world (Chart 9), which is likely to continue this year as the Fed delivers a few more rate hikes while U.S. inflation grinds slowly higher. We do not expect the Fed to be forced to shift to a more aggressive pace of tightening than currently implied by the FOMC forecasts. On the margin, this will help keep market volatility at subdued levels. A predictable Fed slowly tightening into an improving economy is not overly problematic for financial markets. That logic would be turned upside down if non-U.S. growth were to begin to slow sharply (not our base case) or if there were some non-U.S. source of uncertainty that could make markets jittery. Last year, political surprises ended up being the biggest shock for financial markets. Given the busy upcoming election schedule in Europe (Table 1), there is concern that a similar story could play out in 2017. Table 1Europe In 2017 Will Be A Headline Risk The shock of Brexit and Trump have investors asking "where will the next populist uprising be?" France seems like the most obvious possibility, with the well-known right-wing (and anti-EU) populist Marine Le Pen running in this year's presidential election. French government debt has already priced in some modestly higher risk premium in recent months (Chart 10). Even in the bastion of stability, Germany, the rise of anti-immigration parties has some forecasting a difficult re-election campaign for Chancellor Angela Merkel later in the year. Our geopolitical strategists have long argued that there is not enough support for populist, anti-EU, anti-immigration parties in either Germany, France or the Netherlands (who also have an election this year) to win an election.3 The recent polling data strongly supports that view, with Le Pen's popularity on the decline for the past three years and with Merkel's popularity holding steady over the past year (Chart 11) - even as horrific terror incidents committed by "foreigners" have occurred on both French and German soil. Chart 10Not Worried About European Populism... Chart 11...For Good Reasons BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic, believes that Italy remains the greatest political risk in Europe in 2017, with elections possible as early as the spring. With the Senate reforms defeated in the December referendum, the country needs to re-write its already complicated electoral laws. This will likely take time, pushing the potential election date to late spring or early summer. If an early election is not called, a new vote must be held by the expiry of the government's mandate in May 2018. Chart 12Italy Is The Biggest Political Risk In Europ Chart 13A Managed Renminbi Depreciation Given the lower support for the euro in Italy than the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 12), and given the strong showing in the polls for the anti-establishment, anti-EU Five Star Movement led by Beppe Grillo, an early Italian election could be the biggest potential political shock for markets in 2017. This likely will not be enough to cause a major flare-up of global market volatility, but it does suggest that investors should remain underweight Italian government debt. Bottom Line: Improving global growth will continue to support low market volatility during 2017, even with the Fed remaining in a tightening cycle. European political risk should not be a Brexit/Trump-type source of concern for investors outside of Italy. Can China Avert A Crisis And Still Be The Engine Of Global Growth? This is a question that we may be asking every year for the next decade, given China's high debt levels and decelerating potential economic growth. Periodic episodes of uncertainty over Chinese currency policy are always a threat to trigger capital outflows, as has occurred over the past year and half (Chart 13). The Chinese authorities have chosen to allow currency depreciation versus the U.S. dollar to help manage the pace of that outflow, particularly during the past year when interest rate differentials have moved in a more dollar-positive direction. With over US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves at the government's disposal, the odds remain low that a true economic crisis can unfold in China. Additional renminbi weakness versus the U.S. dollar is likely in 2017, but the recent actions to sharply raise offshore renminbi interest rates is an indication that Chinese authorities will not tolerate a rapidly weakening currency. The incoming Trump administration is obviously an unforecastable wild card here, and China could respond to a new trade war with the U.S. by allowing a more rapid pace of currency weakness versus the dollar. Having said that - if China-U.S. relations don't boil over, then the underlying story for China will be one of improving economic growth in 2017. The underlying growth indicators in our "China Checklist" unveiled late last year (Table 2) continue to improve (Chart 14), and we continue to see China as being a positive contributor to the global economic cycle in 2017 (Donald Trump and his band of China hawks notwithstanding). This is important, as the global upturn seen in 2016 began in China early in the year. This fed through into many other countries either directly via exports to China or indirectly through an improvement in the pricing power for commodity exporters that benefitted from faster Chinese demand. Table 2The GFIS China Checklist Chart 14Chinese Growth Still Improving Bottom Line: China will likely remain a positive driver of the global economic upturn in 2017, with the biggest risk coming from increased tensions with the incoming Trump administration, not accelerating domestic capital outflows. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency", dated November 20th 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "How To Think About Global Bond Investing In 2017", dated December 20th 2016, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook 2017, "5 Themes For 2017", dated December 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The economy is near full employment, but betting on significant inflation is premature. Market-based inflation expectations have risen substantially in recent weeks but these moves are not corroborated by survey measures of inflation expectations. Consumer inflation expectations are very well anchored due to ongoing deflation in many frequently purchased goods and services. We are on high alert for a near-term equity pullback, with Chinese liquidity tightening as a potential catalyst. Feature Chart 1Market-Based Inflation ##br##Expectations Breaking Out After years of focusing on deflation, the possibility of inflation has made a comeback on investors' radars. The shift makes sense, given that the labor market is now operating near full employment. The December payroll report showed that payrolls increased by 156,000, slightly lower than the 3-month average of 165,000. But, average hourly earnings increased by 0.4%, suggesting that slightly weaker employment growth is not due to sluggish demand, and reflects a smaller available pool of workers. However, as we explain below, the potential for a major inflation surge is low in 2017 and is premature as an investment theme. We are on high alert for a near-term pullback to the equity bull market, given that valuation and sentiment are stretched. But as we outline, the threat to the equity market is less likely to be domestic inflation than an external event, such as the fallout from tightening liquidity in China (similar to what occurred in mid-2015 and early 2016). In the past few weeks, one-year inflation expectations have moved to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110/bbl. Long-run inflation expectations have also spiked since the U.S. election (Chart 1). The extent to which this trend is judged sustainable, and provides an accurate forecast for general inflation, has important investment implications. Our view is that, although TIPS could move a bit higher, the market move should not be interpreted as a harbinger for a broad-based inflation acceleration. Policymakers consider a range of inflation expectations measures, but in recent years, market-based measures have garnered a lot of attention. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate in particular is often viewed as the market's assessment of whether the Fed can successfully achieve its inflation target. According to the Minutes of the December FOMC meeting, the recent rise in market-based inflation expectations was discussed at length. On this basis, the rise in TIPS is important as it could have a significant role in setting monetary policy. Beyond that, we have argued for some time that a major challenge for firms this cycle will be to raise selling prices, i.e. a lack of pricing power will restrain profit margins and, ultimately, earnings growth. If the recent pick-up in market-based inflation expectations heralds a more robust rise in actual inflation, then profits could positively surprise this year. The Rise In TIPS Is Partially Energy-Driven... Since 2010, there has been a strong correlation between oil prices and TIPS (Chart 2). The correlation has somewhat confounded policymakers.1 In theory, any oil price shock, even if it is considered to be permanent, should not exert any lasting impact on long-dated forward measures of inflation expectations. The reason is that as long as the Fed is committed to its 2% inflation target, then the market should expect that monetary policy will prevent a one-time shock to oil prices from having any permanent effect on the overall inflation rate. This is why, in theory, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is a good indicator for policymakers. Chart 2Oil Prices And Breakevens As our fixed income team explained in a report last year,2 the main reason for the tight correlation between TIPS and oil prices stems from the market perception that monetary policy has been constrained. Prior to the financial crisis, oil prices rose from below $40 in 2003 to $140 in 2008. During that time, long-dated breakevens remained stable. One possible explanation for this lack of correlation is that the Fed tightened policy during this period, offsetting the inflationary impact from higher oil prices. But in 2015-2016, when oil prices fell from above $100 to below $40, breakevens plunged alongside. If the market perceives monetary policy to be constrained by the zero lower bound, then it could be the case that the cost of inflation compensation is highly sensitive to falling oil prices because the market perceives that the Fed has no ability to offset the deflationary shock. In other words, the 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven rate has fallen because the zero lower bound is challenging the credibility of the Fed's inflation target. Our U.S. fixed income team forecasted that breakevens will head higher once oil prices move up and that the correlation between oil prices and breakevens will eventually weaken as the fed funds rate moves further away from the zero lower bound. The bottom line is that TIPS are most likely being unduly affected by energy price movements. ..And Only Thinly Corroborated By Alternative Inflation Indicators Despite our bias that the recent moves in market-based inflation expectations are exaggerated, TIPS are not the only gauge sending a more inflationary signal. This week's ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys both reported an uptick in prices paid (Chart 3). According to the manufacturing survey, 18 out of 21 recorded inputs were up in price over the past month. However, the bulk of these are commodities that have gone up in price alongside other financial market prices, and it is not clear the extent that the price rise is physical demand-driven, or financial demand-driven. In the non-manufacturing survey, the price rise was not quite as broad-based, but is nonetheless suggestive of upward price pressure. The NFIB small business survey also hinted at higher prices, although much more modestly than the ISM surveys (Chart 3). The Atlanta Fed's Business Inflation Expectations Survey has not broken out of the range that has held since 2011. There was no change in inflation expectations from the most recent survey of professional forecasters. Meanwhile, as we noted last week, consumers are not at all worried about inflation. In fact, according to the Conference Board survey, consumer inflation expectations are at a new cyclical low! At least part of the reason that consumers do not expect more inflation is likely due to their experience with frequently-purchased items. Table 1 shows inflation rates for selected high-frequency spending items, which account for about 30% of the total CPI basket. The table makes it easy to understand why perceptions about inflation are low: almost half of the items in the table are in deflation and only two are above the Fed's target of 2%. It may not matter that a good or service accounts for a small share of spending: if its price is going up/down at a steady pace, then there will be an impact on perceptions about inflation. Currently, very low or negative rates of inflation among frequently purchased items are likely pulling down consumers' perceptions of broad-based inflation. In this sense, one could argue that inflation expectations are very well-anchored. Chart 3Survey-Based Inflation ##br##Expectations More Mixed Table 1Inflation Rates For Selected ##br## High-Frequency Spending Items Actual Inflation Will Stay Subdued In 2017... Chart 4Only Mild Uptrend Likely In 2017 For many years, we have deconstructed core CPI and core PCE into their three major components to better understand and forecast the trend in consumer price inflation (Chart 4). Performing this exercise today continues to give a fairly benign forecast for inflation. Shelter, the largest component of core CPI, is mostly determined by rental vacancies which appear to be stabilizing just as market rents are rolling over. Our model suggests that shelter will not drive inflation higher in 2017. Core goods inflation (25% of core CPI) will also remain very low and possibly stay in deflationary territory. This component of inflation is most tightly correlated with the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 4, panel 3), and so will stay depressed as long as the bull market in the dollar remains intact. Wage growth is most tightly correlated with service sector inflation excluding shelter and medical care (Chart 4, bottom panel). This component, which accounts for 25% of core CPI, is the most likely source of inflation pressure now that wages are beginning to rise. But as we wrote in a Special Report on November 28, 2016, any wage inflation and pass-through is likely to be very gradual based on several structural headwinds at play this cycle. All in all, core PCE may converge on the Fed's target of 2% in the second half of 2017, but an inflation overshoot should not be a major driver of investment decision-making over the next six - twelve months. ...And Don't Blame Government Spending For Higher Inflation When It Does Come One missing ingredient from the above analysis is the likelihood that the political environment will become inflationary. This subject has been thoroughly covered by the financial press. Our own view has been that upcoming policies may not turn out to be particularly inflationary, at least not this year. For example, Trump's fiscal package may not boost aggregate demand by as much as the more optimistic estimates suggest. There simply are not enough marquee "shovel-ready" projects around that can make use of the public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions in 2017. As for proposed personal tax cuts, the impact is likely to be modest, given that the benefits are tilted towards higher income groups that tend to save much of their earnings. Likewise, corporate tax cuts will have only an incremental effect on business capex, given that many companies are already flush with cash and effective tax rates are well below statutory levels. Our benign view about the impact of government spending on inflation is shared by researchers at the St Louis Federal Reserve. In a recent paper,3 researchers looked at periods when the central bank was not working to offset the potentially inflationary effects of fiscal policy, e.g. between 1959 and 1979, when the Fed followed a policy in which it accommodated increases in inflation. They found almost no effect of government spending on inflation. For example, a 10 percent increase in government spending during that period led to an 8 basis point decline in inflation. Note that this period covers years of when the economy was operating at full employment and below. As the researchers point out, this does not imply that countercyclical government spending is ineffective at boosting output, but it simply demonstrates that empirical evidence of inflation related to government spending is thin. The bottom line is that we view the likelihood of significant inflation pressure as low in 2017. The implication is that under this scenario, the Fed can afford to adjust their "dots" gradually, diminishing the risk for stocks and bonds of an aggressive adjustment to the policy backdrop. Equity Correction: Will China Be A Contributing Factor? Chart 5Is China Liquidity Tightening##br## A Repeat Threat To U.S. Equities? Over the past few weeks, we have argued that the odds of a meaningful equity correction are running high, given the aggressive rise in bond yields and exaggerated move in sentiment relative to only minor upside surprises in economic and earnings growth. We are still on high alert for this outcome and believe that one possible trigger is tighter liquidity conditions in China, which are aimed at supporting the renminbi. Indeed, just like the start of 2016, the Chinese renminbi is kicking off 2017 on a weak note. Chinese policymakers are again tightening rules to limit capital outflows: earlier this week, they adjusted the FX basket used to set the CNY's official daily fix. The new FX basket will include 24 currencies (up from 13). Consequently, the weight of the U.S. dollar drops from 26.4% to 22.4%. This will make it easier for the authorities to target a relatively stable renminbi versus the basket even as USD/CNY pushes higher. These attempts to support the renminbi is leading to tighter liquidity conditions and higher interbank interest rates. In Hong Kong, 3-month CNH Hibor has spiked to 10%. In the past, a combination of a weaker renminbi and rising interbank rates has spelled trouble for U.S. and global equities (Chart 5). There is no guarantee that history will repeat itself and one big difference with the sharp market sell-offs in mid-2015 and early 2016 is that the Chinese economy is not as weak as it was then. The PMIs released this week were generally firm. Overall, we are positive on equities and negative on bonds on a 12-month horizon but still see the risk of a correction to the Trump trade as elevated. Thus, investors should continue to stick close to benchmark tactically, looking to implement positions after a pullback in stock prices. Like in 2015 and early 2016, China could provide the trigger to that pullback if the authorities give up on capital controls and allow a sharp depreciation of the RMB. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/Bullard/remarks/Bullard-N… 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "A Tale Of Two Rallies", dated March 29, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/how-does-government-…

Special Report

Feature Dear Client, For the last publication of 2016, we have opted to do something a little different. 2016 was a year were political shocks took pre-eminence. Whether we are talking Brexit, Trump, Italian referendum, Japanese upper-house elections, or Rousseff's impeachment; it often felt like economics took the back seat to political events. While this kind of regime shift toward more politically-driven markets can feel jarring, it is not new. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, a similar event occurred. Populations in Western democracies - the U.S. and the U.K. in particular - exhausted by a decade of elevated inflation, created one of these shifts by putting Thatcher and Reagan in power. With the benefit of insight, we know how the story ended: with great economic successes in both the U.K. and the U.S. However, when Thatcher and Reagan actually took power, it was far from obvious that Western economies were about to leave stagflation and begin a low inflation boom. Today, we do not know how the Trump experiment will end. It is a similarly radical shift that politician wants to implement. Trump and his team want to beat deflation, especially wage deflation for the middle class. This is easier said than done. While we cannot claim to know how a Trump presidency will unfold, BCA has tried to provide some clarity among the noise by focusing on the implications and risks created by the various policies proposed, as well as the threat to the actual implementation of the policies. To finish the year, we would like to provide our client with some perspective. We are sending you the "Mr X" BCA Outlook published in December 1980, when Reagan was the President-elect. What is striking is that then as today, BCA was trying to make a balanced assessment of the potential for positive or disastrous changes that were about to affect the U.S. and global economy. The worries were very pronounced but ultimately proved to be unfounded. We are not saying that worries regarding Trump's proposed policies are unwarranted, but it is important to remember that investors need to remain very nimble when such shifts are emerging. Ultimately, the final direction and effect of the shifts Trump wants to implement will take years to materialize. Looking at historical reactions to similar political sea-changes is a comforting way to put things into perspective. After all, according to Zhou Enlai, it is still too early to judge the effect of the French Revolution.1 Have a great holiday period and a happy and prosperous new year. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President

Highlights The U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate while the RMB will depreciate further. This is a bad omen for EM risk assets, commodities, and global late cyclical equity sectors. Gold often leads oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. EM credit spreads have become detached from fundamentals and are unreasonably tight. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity trade: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Feature There are several major discrepancies in financial markets that in our view are unsustainable. 1. The gap between EM equity breadth, USD, RMB and EM share prices One way to measure equity market breadth is to compare performance of equal-weighted versus market cap-weighted stock price indexes. Based on this measure, EM stock market breadth has been deteriorating. Poor breadth often heralds a major selloff (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Remarkably, the same measure for the U.S. stock market shows improving breadth. The relative performance of equally-weighted EM stocks against U.S. equity indexes - a measure of breadth in relative performance - can also be a reliable marker for the relative performance of market cap-weighted indexes. It has plummeted to a new low pointing to new lows in EM versus U.S. relative share prices. In addition, a surging U.S. dollar has historically meant lower EM share prices (Chart I-2). We doubt this time is different. Finally, EM risk assets have decoupled from the RMB/USD exchange rate as well. The RMB has been depreciating and China's domestic corporate and government bond yields have spiked. As a result, the on-shore bond prices in RMB terms have plummeted (Chart I-3). Chart I-2A Rising U.S. Dollar Is ##br##A Bad Omen For EM Chart I-3China's On-Shore Corporate Bond##br## Prices Have Crashed Experiencing considerable losses on their favorite financial investment of the past year, bonds, Chinese investors, as well as households and companies, could opt to switch into U.S. dollars. The stampede into the U.S. dollar could start as early as January when the annual US$ 50,000 quota per person becomes available. It is hard to see what the government will do to preclude this rush and massive flight towards U.S. dollars. In China, households' and corporates' RMB deposits in the banking system amount to RMB 122 tn or US$17.5 tn. Hence, the PBoC's foreign exchange reserves including gold at US$ 3.2 tn are only equal to 18.5% of these deposits at the current exchange rate. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar will appreciate and the RMB will depreciate. This is a bad omen for EM share prices and other risk assets. 2. Oil and copper prices deviating from gold prices Historically, when gold and oil prices have diverged, gold in most cases has proven more forward looking, with oil prices ultimately converging toward gold prices. Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B illustrate past episodes of gold and oil decoupling (in the 1980, 1990s and 2008), each of which were resolved via oil prices gravitating toward gold prices. Chart I-4AGold Led Oil Prices Chart I-4BGold Led Oil Prices In short, if history is any guide, the current gap between gold and oil prices will likely close via lower oil prices (Chart I-5, top panel). The same holds true for the recent divergence between gold and copper prices (Chart 5, bottom panel). We identified four historical periods when gold and copper prices diverged. In each case, it was copper prices that amended their trajectory and aligned with the direction of gold prices (Chart I-6A and 6B). Chart I-5Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Chart I-6AGold Led Copper Prices Too Chart I-6BGold Led Copper Prices Too In sum, historically there have been a number of episodes when gold has led both oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. Chart I-7China: Dichotomies The underlying rationale could be that gold responds to monetary/liquidity conditions (gold is very sensitive to U.S. TIPS (real) yields) while oil and copper are more sensitive to growth conditions. Tightening in monetary/liquidity conditions often precedes a growth relapse. This could be the reason why gold has led oil and copper prices on several occasions in the past. 3. Dichotomies in China's industrial economy There are two types of dichotomies underway within China's industrial economy: The first is between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices. Commodities prices have surged, but the pace of manufacturing production has not improved at all (Chart I-7). There have been major discrepancies among various segments of China's industrial economy, with utilities surging and the technology sector remaining robust, and many others stagnating. The decoupling between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices can be explained by financial speculation and supply cutbacks. The former is unsustainable, while the latter is reversing as the government is gradually lifting restrictions on supply for coal and steel. The second is between the private- and state-owned parts of the industrial sector. The state-owned segment has experienced a meaningful improvement in output, while private companies in the industrial sector have seen their output growth weaken, albeit the growth rate is higher than in the SOE sector. (Chart I-7, bottom panel). As China's fiscal and credit impulses wane,1 activity in the state-owned industrial segment will relapse anew. 4. EM credit spreads diverging from EM currencies and credit fundamentals EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads (credit markets) are once again proving very resilient, despite the renewed selloff in EM currencies (Chart I-8). EM credit markets have defied deteriorating EM credit fundamentals in the past several years. Below we identify several divergences and anomalies within the EM credit space that give us confidence that EM credit markets have become detached from fundamentals, and that their risk-reward profile is poor. Chart I-8EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies:##br## A Widening Dichotomy Chart I-9EM Corporate Financial Health:##br## Not Much Improvement The EM Corporate Financial Health (CFH) Indicator has stabilized, but remains at a very depressed level (Chart I-9, top panel). This amelioration is largely due to the profit margin component. The other three components have not improved (Chart I-9, second panel). The valuation model based on the EM CFH indicator shows that EM corporate spreads are far too tight (Chart I-10). Chart I-10EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive The strong performance of EM credit markets in recent years has been justified by the persistence of low bond yields in developed markets (DM). Yet the latest spike in DM bond yields has so far not caused EM credit spreads to widen. We expect U.S./DM government bond yields to rise further, and the U.S. dollar to continue to strengthen. This, along with potential broad-based declines in commodities prices, should lead to material widening in EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads in early 2017. With respect to unsustainable discrepancies, the case in point is Brazil. The country's sovereign and corporate spreads have tightened a lot this year, even though economic activity continues to shrink. The country has had numerous boom-bust cycles in the past 100 years, yet this depression is the worst on record. In fact, the nation's economic growth and public debt dynamics are worse than at any time during the past 20 years. Yet, at 300 basis points, sovereign spreads are well below the 1000-2500 basis point trading range that prevailed in the second half of 1990s and early 2000s (Chart I-11). Remarkably, the economy's pace of contraction has lately intensified (Chart I-12). This will likely worsen government revenues and lead to further widening in the fiscal deficit - making debt dynamics unsustainable. Another absurd credit market divergence is between China's sovereign CDS and Chinese offshore corporate spreads. Sovereign CDS spreads have been widening, but corporate credit spreads remain very tight (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign ##br##Spreads And Fundamentals Chart I-12Brazil's Economy: ##br##No Improvement At All Chart I-13Chinese Sovereign CDS And ##br##Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Yet there is much more risk in Chinese corporates than in government debt. The corporate sector commands record leverage of 165% of national GDP, while public debt stands at 46% of GDP. Besides, the central government in China will always have immediate access to domestic or foreign debt markets, while some corporations could lose access to financing if creditors question their creditworthiness and decide to tighten credit. There is no rational case to support the rise in sovereign CDS when corporate spreads are tame. The only feasible explanation is that investors - who are invested in Chinese corporate bonds, and are not interested in selling them - are buying sovereign CDS to tactically hedge their credit exposure. If and when market sentiment sours sufficiently, and credit spread widening is perceived durable and lasting, real money will sell corporate bonds, resulting in a major spike in corporate spreads. 5. Divergence between global late cyclicals and the U.S. dollar Another area where we detect that financial markets have lately become overly optimistic is in global late cyclicals - materials, machinery and energy stocks. Typically, the absolute share prices in these sectors correlate with the U.S. dollar exchange rate but they have lately diverged (Chart I-14). Furthermore, global machinery stocks in general, and Caterpillar's share price in particular, have lately staged significant gains, while their EPS and sales continue to plunge (Chart I-15). Notably, Caterpillar's sales have not improved, even on a rate-of-change basis. Chart I-14Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: ##br##Unsustainable Decoupling Chart I-15Global Machinery Sales And##br## Profits Continue Plunging EM including China capital spending in real terms is as large as the U.S. and EU capital spending combined (Chart I-16). If the EM and China capex cycle does not post a recovery, which is our baseline view, it will be hard for global late cyclical stocks to continue rallying based solely on the positive outlook for U.S. infrastructure spending and potential U.S. tax reforms. In short, global late cyclicals such as machinery, materials and energy stocks that performed quite well in 2016 are vulnerable to a major pullback as EM/Chinese capital spending disappoints on the back of credit growth deceleration. Notably, these global equity sectors have reached a major technical resistance that will likely become a ceiling for their share prices (Chart I-17). Chart I-16EM/China's Capex Is As Large As ##br##U.S. And Euro Area Combined Chart I-17Global Late Cyclicals Are ##br##Facing Technical Resistance 6. Decoupling between the South African rand and precious metals prices The South African rand's recent resilience - despite the considerable drop in precious metal prices - is unprecedented (Chart I-18, top panel). Similarly, the rand has also decoupled from the exchange rate of another major metals producer: Australia (Chart I-18, bottom panel). We cannot think of any reason why these discrepancies can or should persist. Rising global bond yields and a broadening selloff in commodities prices should hurt the rand. In fact, the trade-weighted rand is facing a major technical resistance (Chart I-19) and will likely relapse sooner than later. Chart I-18Rand, AUD And ##br##Precious Metals Chart I-19Trade-Weighted Rand Is ##br##Facing Technical Resistance We reiterate our structural short position in the rand versus the U.S. dollar, and on October 12, 2016 initiated a short ZAR / long MXN trade. Traders should consider putting on these trades. Investment Strategy Chart I-20EM Relative Equity Performance ##br##Is Heading To New Lows Emerging markets share prices and currencies have been doing poorly since October, despite U.S. equity shares breaking out to new highs. In fact, almost all relative outperformance has been wiped out (Chart I-20). BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team expects further declines in EM share prices and currencies, as well as a selloff in domestic bonds and a widening of sovereign and corporate spreads. Absolute return investors should stay put, while asset allocators should maintain underweight positions in EM risk assets within respective global portfolios. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com India: Demonetization And Opportunities In Equities On November 8, India launched a demonetization program with the goal of removing the two most used banknotes - the 500 INR and 1000 INR banknotes - from circulation. Both banknotes accounted for roughly 85% of currency in circulation, which itself accounts for 13% of India's broad money supply. Moreover, almost 90%2 of retail transactions in India are cash-reliant. While around INR 13 trillion of notes (US$ 190 billion) have been deposited in the banking system as of December 10, only INR 5 trillion of new notes have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). India is unlikely to turn cashless overnight. According to a Harvard Business Review article,3 less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment instruments. Likewise, less than 2% of Indians have used a cellular phone to receive a payment. This implies cash shortages could persist for a while and will have a significant impact on short-term economic activity. There are numerous reports that layoffs and business shutdowns have ensued in several industries, particularly in the informal economy (Chart II-1). The service sector PMI already dipped below 50 in November and the manufacturing PMI fell as well (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Very Weak Employment Outlook Chart II-2Indian PMIs Are Sinking Having boomed over the past year, motorcycle sales growth is now waning. Similarly, passenger and commercial vehicle sales - that have been anemic - will now dip. However, the consumption slowdown should not continue beyond the next couple of months. As more currency is supplied by the RBI, economic activity will rebound - particularly household spending. Pent-up demand will be unleashed as money circulation is restored. Nevertheless, investment expenditures are the key factors for improving productivity and, hence, as non-inflationary growth potential. Capital spending had been anemic in India well before the demonetization program was announced (Chart II-3). The reason for such lackluster investment expenditure lies in the fact that past investment projects taken on by highly leveraged Indian conglomerates have delivered poor performance. This translated into ever rising non-performing loans (NPLs) at state banks. Without debt restructuring and public bank recapitalization, a new capex cycle is unlikely in India. Consistently, credit to large industries is now contracting (Chart II-4) and foreign lending to Indian companies is declining. Chart II-3Indian Capex Is Anemic Chart II-4Banks Prefer Consumers We expect the demonetization program to hurt capital spending only mildly in the coming months, but do not expect a material bounce in investment afterward, unlike the one slated for household consumption. Indian share prices have more downside in absolute terms, as the market is still expensive and growth is slumping. Nevertheless, India will likely outperform the EM equity benchmark going forward (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge The rationale for our overweight on Indian equities within the EM stock universe is due to the nation's much better macro fundamentals relative to those in many other EM. In particular, deleveraging and NPL write-offs are more advanced, the current account deficit is small, and India will benefit from potentially lower commodities prices. Within the Indian bourse, we recommend overweighting software stocks that will benefit from a revival in advanced economies' growth and a weaker currency. Besides, Indian software stocks are not exposed to the currently weak domestic consumption cycle and in fact might benefit from the push toward digitalization in banking. Bottom Line: Indian consumption will weaken in the coming three months or so, but will rebound thereafter. The capex cycle is weak and will remain subdued. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity recommendation: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst aymank@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Key EM Issues Going Into 2017," dated December 14, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Chakravorti, B., Mazzotta, B., Bijapurkar, R., Shukla, R., Ramesha, K., Bapat, D., &Roy, D. (2013). The cost of cash in India. Institute of Business in the Global Context, Fletcher School, Tufts University. 3 Chakravorti, B. (2016, December 14). India's Botched War on Cash. Retrieved from https://hbr.org Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Dear Clients, Please note that this will be our final Weekly Report for the year. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 3, 2017. The U.S. Investment Strategy team wishes you a restful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Chart 1Trump + Yellen Recent bond market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market, when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. There are mitigating factors that mean the current bond selloff will not be as violent. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. Even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Feature It was no surprise that the FOMC raised the Fed funds rate by 25bps at last week's meeting. But investors were caught off-guard by the move higher in the Fed's "dot" forecast. Instead of two more hikes next year, the Fed now expects to raise rates three times. Moreover, the Fed inched up its estimate of the terminal interest rate to 3.0% from 2.875%. These revisions to the path of interest rates did not occur with any material changes to the Fed's economic projections. During the post-meeting press conference, Fed Chair Janet Yellen downplayed the "dot" revisions, by noting that the median projections moved due to changes by only some Fed participants. But despite Yellen's soothing remarks, the financial markets did not interpret the revisions to be minor. The dollar strengthened by nearly 2%, and 10-year bond yields spiked by 20bps (Chart 1). These market moves are soft echoes of the 1994 bond bear market - when investors suddenly began to price in a much less benign outlook for the Fed. Investors will note that in that cycle, the Fed's extended on hold period in 1993 had lulled bond investors into a false sense of complacency; investors were almost completely caught off-guard when tightening began in early February 1994 (Chart 2 and Chart 3). At the end of 1993, the market projected that the 3-month rate, the 10-year and the 30-year yield would be 4.3%, 6.2% and 6.5%, respectively, by the end of 1994. The actual yields at the end of 1994 turned out to be more than 130 basis points higher at 5.6%, 7.8% and 7.85%. From the trough in yields in September 1993 to the peak in November 1994, the Treasury index lost 5%. High-grade spread product, such as Agencies, MBS and investment-grade corporate bonds also suffered losses. The S&P 500 fell by about 9% in early 1994. Economic improvement was the main factor for the re-pricing of the Fed funds rate in 1994 (Chart 4). In the first half of the year, the unemployment rate declined 0.5% (from 6.6% to 6.1%) and monthly average payrolls were above 320,000! As the economy gained self-feeding momentum, the Fed steadily hiked interest rates, causing Treasuries and spread product to buckle. In fact, inflation did not go up but bond yields kept rising and the U.S. economy remained robust. The Mexican financial crisis in late 1994/early 1995, directly stemming from Fed tightening, marked the end of the Treasury bear and Fed restraint. Chart 21993 Complacency, 1994 Panic Chart 3Bond Market Is Still Behind Chart 41994 Economic Acceleration Fueled The Bond Bear All of this bears some resemblance to current conditions, albeit the level of growth today is much lower. Like early 1994, the economy now appears on the cusp of full employment (Chart 5). Most forecasters (including BCA) expect that growth will shift to an above-trend pace for at least a few quarters. And indeed, the debate has already shifted from deflation to the potential for inflation. To be sure, as we wrote last week, it takes a long time to change a prevailing mindset about inflation or deflation and it is unlikely that the Fed will find itself in a position to aggressively tighten against an inflation breakout over the next twelve months. But if GDP growth bucks the pattern of recent years in which first quarter growth disappointed expectations, then bond investors could begin to look for the exits more fervently. What is different this cycle than in 1994? For one thing, the Fed's communication strategy has drastically changed. Since 2012, the Fed has been publishing the "dot plot," a set of FOMC projections for inflation, GDP and the projected policy path. These projections serve as forward guidance about policy intent and in theory, should help smooth out any changes in market participants' expectations about the Fed's policy path and reduce the likelihood of overshoots in expectations. In addition, it seems likely that bonds are now more concentrated in "strong hands." One of the major concerns in 1994 was that retail investors, i.e. the household sector, piled into bonds at precisely the wrong time: throughout the 1980s, bond returns only marginally trailed that of equities and with far less volatility, lulling retail investors into believe bonds couldn't lose them money. Today, according to the BIS,2 around 40% of U.S. Treasuries are owned by the Federal Reserve and the foreign official sector. In addition, the BIS also posits that it is possible that pension funds (the third largest holders of Treasuries) and insurance companies may even benefit from rising rates in the medium term, as a normalized yield environment would allow them to more easily meet promised returns. This composition of ownership, in particular the Fed and foreign official investors - who are non-profit seeking entities, will not be forced to sell into a bear market. Chart 5On The Cusp Of Full Employment True, corporate bonds are now more heavily concentrated in the hands of private investors who seek yield and total return. The prospective price volatility of these securities may be much higher than an entire generation of fixed income investors' experience has taught them to expect. Finally, the U.S. dollar traded sideways from 1990-1993, and fell throughout 1994, which is very different from today. Currently, the policy feedback loop limits the degree to which the Fed can ultimately raise interest rates. This loop has been in place since last year: each hawkish move from the Fed has been met by a sharp upward adjustment in the trade-weighted dollar and a selloff in equities and credit spreads. Tighter-than-expected financial conditions have then forced the Fed to lower its outlook for future economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. A more dovish Fed then caused financial conditions to ease and the dollar to fall, and this easing eventually emboldened Fed policymakers to move in a more hawkish direction. The loop then repeats. The reason this loop has been in place is because U.S. monetary policy is so far in advance of other central banks. Overall, there are mitigating factors that suggest that the current bond selloff will not be as violent as 1994. But the normalization of policy rates is no longer a challenge for the distant future. As expectations of economic growth improve, a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations will persist. This process was always going to be fraught with risk, given the unprecedented amount of accommodation (conventional and unconventional) employed after the Great Recession. We expect that bond selloffs over the next year will happen in fits and starts, as the feedback loop from the bond market and dollar to policy decisions repeats. The move in Treasury yields since mid-November has proceeded too quickly relative to the improvement in economic fundamentals and will pause in the near term to prevent financial conditions from exerting an excessive drag on growth. However, we believe short duration positions will make money on a 2-3 year horizon. How Will Equities Cope? Apart from the 1994 episode, there have been three other major Fed tightening cycles since 1985 (Chart 6). In each case, the 10-year Treasury suffered an almost 10% or more annual loss, either following or just before short-term rates began their ascent. Investors underestimated the pace and extent of rate hikes every time and equity prices also faltered, at least temporarily. This was the case even when the Fed telegraphed a modest and steady 25 basis point-per-meeting pace of rate hikes from 2003 to 2006. The point is that even a mild version of 1994 could undermine equity returns. Indeed, the risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations due to anticipated fiscal stimulus (that may disappoint) at a time when domestic monetary conditions are tightening. Earnings-per-share growth is significantly lower today than in 1993, and the gap between trailing earnings growth and 12-month forward expectations is wide. This suggests that there is a greater risk of earnings disappointment than was the case in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, valuation is poor (Chart 6, bottom panel). Still, we concede that sentiment and technical indicators continue to favor near-term equity gains (Chart 7). Neither our technical nor our intermediate indicator is signalling danger (although both have rolled over). Only our monetary indicator is flashing a warning. The risk is that the longer the uptrend in stocks continues without interruption, the greater the payback will be should economic performance disappoint. Chart 6Fed Re-Entry Is Historically Tough Chart 7An Expensive And Risky Rally Animal Spirits Revival? In our view, the most notable development for the U.S. economy in recent weeks has been the impressive swing in confidence since the election in November. If sustained, the rise in confidence could propel growth to an above-trend pace as "animal spirits" are unleashed. We take this possibility seriously, since depressed confidence in the outlook was an important force capping the upside in growth earlier in the recovery. Nonetheless, this is not our base case, since we continue to believe that it is perilous to focus solely on the positive aspects of Trump's political agenda, while ignoring the more negative ones. This phenomenon seems to be borne out in the NFIB survey data. Although still low relative to past recoveries, optimism among small business owners improved drastically last month, according to the NFIB survey (Chart 8). The improvement was broad-based, showing gain in sales expectations, expansion plans and hiring intentions. But as the NFIB's chief economist pointed out, this surge in optimism is mainly due to businesses reacting favorably to Trump's platform of tax cuts and less regulation. In any case, the recent improvement in consumer confidence has not noticeably translated to improved consumer spending yet. Nominal retail sales eked out a tiny 0.1% m/m gain in November and the October data were revised lower. As we highlighted in a previous report, massive price discounting continues to be a factor pushing down nominal spending. Indeed, despite the potential for an upturn in inflation on the back of unconfirmed Trump policies, the current pricing environment remains tough. Core CPI rose only 0.2% in November, and the annual growth rate - at 2.1% - is lower than at the start of the year. Our diffusion index is below 50, meaning that more sub-components of the CPI are decelerating than accelerating (Chart 9). Chart 8Optimism Returning Chart 9Consumers Are Confident, Will They Spend? The overall message is that economic data continue to display a "two steps forward, one step backward" pattern. We expect growth momentum to gradually build and the economy can grow above trend next year. However, even once the output gap closes, it can take a long time for inflation pressures to build and for inflation expectations to move higher. Ultimately, this dynamic means that the Fed will have the scope to proceed slowly. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 This week's report is greatly inspired by our Special Report, "Reincarnation And Bond Vigilantes," February 5, 2013. 2 "A Paradigm Shift In Markets?," Bank For International Settlements (BIS), December 11, 2016 http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1612a.htm Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral and in line with our benchmark portfolio recommendation for equities. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with some improvements in the momentum and breadth & trend indicators. The monetary component, though less bullish for equities as it continued to weaken somewhat, is still in favorable territory for equities. However, on the cyclical front, the earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as real operating earnings are at a significant distance from positive economic expectations. Earnings momentum has also further deteriorated, based on an earnings diffusion index which compares nominal earnings growth relative to four economic and monetary variables such as oil prices (WTI), ISM Inventories, 10-year Treasury yields and 3-month T-bill rates. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model. However the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model have weakened, nearing critical levels which would surrender the preference for Treasuries in the near term. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009.

Highlights Dear Client, This week's BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy features our 2017 Outlook for the Gold market. We will address the other precious metals markets early in the New Year. We model gold as a currency. While fundamental data - supply, demand and inventories - are important, they do not drive gold prices. Gold has been our window on market expectations for Fed policy, given it is highly sensitive to the central bank's preferred inflation gauge - the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) core index (ex food and energy prices) - and the evolution of key variables driven by Fed actions: the broad trade-weighted dollar (USD, in our usage), and 5- and 10-year real rates. Gold prices also are highly sensitive to broad macroeconomic variables - e.g., U.S. real wages and EM income growth. In addition to behaving like a currency, gold has continuing appeal to investors as a safe haven, particularly in turbulent markets and especially outside a deflationary context. Our research confirms gold provides an excellent portfolio hedge against inflation - particularly vs. core PCE inflation. Before getting to our gold outlook, a housekeeping note: We are closing our long Dec/17 WTI futures vs. short Dec/18 WTI futures basis Tuesday's mark-to-market value of $0.89/bbl for an indicated profit 493.3% (vs. the $0.15/bbl level at which we opened the position). We put the position on as the market was correcting from its earlier rally, just before the Saudi oil minister made his "whatever it takes" remarks in Vienna on Saturday. We also are closing our long 2017Q1 natural gas position as of Tuesday's mark-to-market close for an indicated profit of 16.3%. We remain bullish the backwardation trade and will look for opportunities to re-set the position on sell-offs in the front of the curve. We also remain bullish U.S. natural gas near-term, we expect U.S. production growth to resume next year. We trust you will find this week's report useful going into the New Year. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Managing Editor Feature Precious Metals: What Is Gold Pricing To? After falling some 16% from its recent high of $1,374/oz, gold appears to have found support just above $1,150/oz as the year winds down. Part of this sell-off no doubt was induced by investors liquidating ETFs and futures ahead of yesterday's FOMC meeting, where the Fed, as expected, raised its overnight rate 25 basis points (Chart 1). Even before the Fed's rate hike yesterday, which markets were pricing in with near 100% certainty (Chart 1, bottom panel), monetary conditions had been tightening going into the FOMC meeting; The broad trade-weighted USD was up some 7% since the bottoming for the year in May, while the St. Louis Fed's 5-year 5-year forward inflation expectation rate was up almost 70 basis points (at 2.09%) since bottoming in June. The other part of gold's price evolution reflects uncertainty surrounding U.S. fiscal and monetary policy, particularly as markets grope for insight on the fiscal policies that will be pursued by the incoming Trump administration. In addition to their direct implications for U.S. economic growth, these policy decisions will profoundly influence EM growth, which is the critical variable for commodity prices generally. Unsurprisingly, the combination of increasing financial stress brought about by contracting monetary conditions, and policy uncertainty emanating from the U.S. has lifted gold volatility (Chart 2). Chart 1Gold Corrects Chart 2Increasing Financial Stress ##br##Pulls Gold Volatility Higher The tightening of financial conditions likely will, over the short-term, induce a slowing in economic growth at the margin going into 2017Q1, which will, all else equal, cause the USD to weaken, according to our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service.1 In addition, it likely will cause U.S. interest rates to retreat, consistent with our House view. Short-term, both of these effects should be bullish gold, which is why we're recommending investors go tactically long if prices retrace to $1,150/oz (see below). Forming A Strategic View On Gold Becomes More Difficult The proximate cause of the heightened risk in financial markets that is showing up in gold volatility is the uncertainty surrounding U.S. monetary and fiscal policy next year in the U.S., and an increasingly fragmented commercial and political backdrop globally. Forming a longer term view on gold is difficult, given the huge amount of incomplete economic information available to markets, much of which will only become clear over the next quarter or two. There are, of course, a host of geopolitical risks - i.e., the types of risk investors typically use gold to hedge against - but we will leave those assessments to our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service.2 The incoming U.S. presidential administration has promised greater fiscal stimulus, which is bullish for growth, and, at the same time, has signaled its hostility to the Fed. On the back of higher growth expectations - overlaid against a labor market in the U.S. that is close to full employment - inflation expectations are rising. This is coloring interest-rate expectations - particularly the path for real rates - and contributing to the strengthening of the USD. Among risk factors, these three - higher inflation, a stronger USD and rising real rates - rank at the top of most investors' hierarchies, regardless of how they allocate. Realistically, it will take time for the incoming Trump administration to draft the legislation that deploys fiscal stimulus - at least six months. It will then take even more time to see this legislation have effect. Given this reality, we agree with the assessment of our colleagues on the FX and bond desks that key U.S. monetary variables - chiefly the USD and real rates - have moved too far too fast, and likely will correct. The increased inflation expectations we've seen in the forward markets, however, probably are warranted. Going Tactically Long, Expecting Higher Inflation Chart 3Fiscal Stimulus Will Lift Real Wages,##br## Then Core PCE Given this expectation, we believe the correction in gold was warranted. We will get tactically long spot gold at tonight's close, with a stop loss of 5%. This will position us for what we believe will be a strategic opportunity to be long gold once U.S. fiscal policy comes into focus. With the U.S. at or close to full employment, we expect the fiscal stimulus introduced next year - tax cuts, deregulation, increased defense spending, and more money for infrastructure - to provide a significant boost to the economy beginning in 2017H2. This will, we believe, result in stronger wage growth, which will lead to higher inflation. All else equal, this will lift core PCE (Chart 3): Our modeling indicates a 1% increase in real U.S. nonfarm wages translates into a 0.62% increase in core PCE.3 As good as this sounds, we have to account for the Fed's likely response. Presently, we expect two rate hikes next year. Depending on how strong growth comes in, we might even get a third hike in the Fed funds rate next year, as Fed Chair Yellen suggested at her press conference yesterday. If, as we expect, the USD corrects over the short term, this would imply another rally in the dollar next year, as markets once again price in a tighter U.S. monetary policy against a backdrop of global monetary accommodation. The big unknown is how far out ahead of the expected inflation increase the Fed will get vis-à-vis its interest-rate policy. If Janet Yellen and her colleagues decide to allow the economy to run hot, and keep monetary policy "behind the curve" - i.e., slowly raise real rates while the economy is expanding and inflation is increasing - that will be bullish for gold. If, on the other hand, the Fed wants to get out "ahead of the curve" - i.e., raise rates in anticipation of higher inflation before it actually materializes - that would be bearish. We believe the Fed will err on the side of allowing the economy to run hot and will keep monetary policy "behind the curve" next year, and most likely in 2018. So, in addition to core PCE picking up, we would expect the USD to rise, but not by as much as it would if the Fed were more aggressive in its policy stance. Most important for commodity markets, we believe real rates will not surge ahead with the Fed continuing to maintain a relatively accommodative policy. This is a bullish backdrop for gold. But it's not enough to compel us to get long strategically. Why We Won't Go All-In On Gold Chart 4A Relatively Accommodative ##br##Fed Will Be Bullish For Gold We believe the Fed will err on the side of continued relative accommodation for two reasons: The U.S. central bank will be restrained by the continued massive accommodation of other systemically important central banks - i.e., it cannot unilaterally tighten policy too aggressively in a world where accommodation reigns: It would send the USD through the roof and kill off whatever expansion the U.S. could muster under the Trump administration's fiscal policy. The Fed's core PCE inflation target is symmetric, with an indicated target level of 2% p.a. change. For the past 20 years, the average p.a. change in core PCE has been 1.7%. The Fed can allow inflation to overshoot for years before the symmetry of its target is violated: Among other things, this would allow the Fed to further distance itself from the zero lower bound on interest rates, which appears to be a goal of many of the central bankers. Our modeling suggests that if the Fed remains behind the curve as inflation is increasing gold prices could appreciate substantially after the expected U.S. fiscal stimulus kicks in. A 1% increase in core PCE translates into an increase in gold prices exceeding 4%. A 1% decrease in real rates implies a 6% increase in gold prices. And a 1% decrease in the USD translates to close to a 3% increase in gold prices (Chart 4).4 We're comfortable with a short-term gold position, but we are not ready to go all-in on gold as a strategic allocation at present because we do not know what to expect from the incoming Trump administration in terms of fiscal policy initiatives. Nor do we know whether the president-elect will assume office openly hostile to the sitting Fed Chair, Dr. Yellen. Trump has indicated dissatisfaction with her leadership of the Fed, and has indicated he will not reappoint her when her term is up, given the accommodation the Fed pursued while she was in charge. If the relationship becomes acrimonious while she continues to run the Fed, the independence of the Fed may come under question, and the coherence of policy might be placed in doubt. An openly hostile relationship between the U.S. chief executive and the head of the country's independent central bank will make it difficult to form macro expectations, particularly around gold prices. Perhaps such uncertainty would improve gold's appeal as a safe-haven, which would keep the metal bid in the event of such an outcome. Of course, the next logical question would be, who would Trump appoint to replace Yellen? If his beef with the central bank was that policy was too accommodative, does that mean he's likely to appoint a more hawkish Chair when Yellen's term is up? If so, this would be decidedly bearish gold and commodities in general. Hence the inability to take a clear position strategically. EM Growth Will React To U.S. Policy, And Affect Gold What happens in Washington doesn't stay in Washington. Fed policy is extremely important for EM growth, which has been picking up recently (Chart 5). The global driver of increasing commodity demand - and U.S. core PCE - has been EM income growth (Chart 6), which we proxy using non-OECD oil consumption and world base metals demand, given 50% of base metals demand comes from China.5 Chart 5EM Growth At Risk ##br##If Fed Gets Aggressive Chart 6EM Oil and Base Metals Demand##br## Highly Correlated With U.S. Core PCE Too aggressive a policy stance by the Fed - e.g., getting too far out "ahead of the curve" - would suffocate EM income growth by encouraging capital flight and increasing the burden of USD-denominated debt in those countries. Bottom Line: We are recommending a tactically long gold position, given our expectation the USD and interest rates will correct after moving too far too fast in anticipation of stronger U.S. economic growth following the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States. Although we do expect significant stimulus from the incoming administration's to-be-announced fiscal policies will stoke inflation going forward - especially with the U.S. economy at or close to full employment - we are uncomfortable going strategically long gold until we gain greater clarity on these policies. In addition, we await a clear signal on the sort of relationship the executive office will have with the Fed. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy "Cyclical And Tactical Divergences," dated December 9, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook "Strategy Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Real nonfarm hourly compensation follows the same long-term trend as core PCE - i.e., these variables are cointegrated. The adjusted-R2 for the cointegrating regression is 0.99. 4 This is a long-term estimate (2000 to present). The adjusted-R2 for the cointegrating regression using these inputs is 0.95. Of course, if the Fed gets out "ahead of the curve" these effects will work in the opposite direction: Increasing real rates, falling core PCE and a stronger USD will militate against any price appreciation. 5 We have noted in previous research that oil and base metals demand frequently are used to approximate EM income growth, given the income elasticity of demand for these commodities approaches 1.0. The OECD notes, "Non-OECD countries are found to have a higher income elasticity of oil demand than OECD countries. On average across countries, a one per cent rise in real GDP pushes up oil demand by half a per cent in OECD countries over the medium to long run, whereas the figure is closer to unity for most non-OECD countries." Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). The evolution of these real EM demand variables shares a common trend with U.S. money supply (M2), real rates in the U.S., and the trade-weighted USD. In addition, these real variables also are highly correlated with EM exchange rates, as is to be expected. Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy "Memo TO Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation," dated August 4, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights This week we elaborate on the issues that we believe will be critical to investors going into 2017: Feature 1. Is China beginning to export inflation? Not yet. As long as the RMB depreciates faster than the rate of domestic inflation, China will be exporting deflation to the rest of the world. 2. Is the selloff in so-called search-for-yield beneficiaries over? Most likely not. There is still meaningful upside in global bond yields as well as downside in prices of bond proxies and search-for-yield beneficiaries. 3. Will China recover or will it have another growth slump in 2017? China's industrial cycle will be topping out in the next couple of months and will relapse thereafter. 4. Will strong U.S./DM growth lift EM economies in 2017? Not really. EM will continue to be driven by its domestic credit cycle and commodities prices. If anything, higher U.S. interest rates and a strong U.S. dollar are bearish for both the EM credit cycle and commodities prices. Overall, we expect EM stocks, currencies, credit markets and domestic bonds to sell off and underperform their U.S./DM peers well into 2017. Is China Beginning To Export Inflation? With various inflation measures in China rising (Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B), the key question is whether China will soon export inflation rather than deflation to the rest of the world. Chart I-1AInflation In RMB Terms, ##br##Deflation In USD Terms Chart I-1BInflation In RMB Terms, ##br##Deflation In USD Terms Investors often confuse domestic inflation in China with China exporting inflation beyond its borders. The missing link is the exchange rate. Because of the yuan's depreciation, China is still exporting deflation, even though its domestic inflation rate is rising. Specifically: Chinese core consumer price inflation, consumer services inflation and ex-factory producer price inflation are all negative in U.S. dollar terms even though they are accelerating in local currency terms (Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B). Importantly, Chinese export prices and U.S. import prices from China are deflating in U.S. dollar terms but rising in RMB terms (Chart I-2). A rise in input costs in China has, so far, not translated into higher U.S. dollar prices of mainland goods shipped overseas. The reason is that the RMB's depreciation has allowed export companies to reduce U.S. dollar prices while receiving more RMBs per a unit. In China, labor compensation and unit labor costs are rising much faster in RMB terms than in U.S. dollar terms due to the currency's depreciation (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Chinese Export Prices ##br##Are Not Rising In USD Terms Chart I-3Chinese Unit Labor Costs ##br##Are Rising In RMB But Not In USD Income per capita (a proxy for employee compensation) is growing at an annual rate of 8% in nominal RMB terms, 6% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms and 2.5% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-4). Hence, the RMB's depreciation over the past year has reduced the pace of labor cost increases to Chinese producers in U.S. dollar terms. This has allowed producers to tolerate lower selling prices in U.S. dollars. Finally, there is thus far no evidence worldwide that tradable manufacturing goods (non-commodities) prices are rising. Specifically, Korean and Taiwanese export prices as well as manufactured export goods prices in Mexico have stabilized but are not yet rising (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Income Growth: ##br##Nominal, Real Terms & In USD Chart I-5Global Manufacturing ##br##Goods Prices: No Inflation Yet Bottom Line: Even though domestic price inflation has risen, China's export prices are still falling in U.S. dollar terms. The exchange rate is the key: As and if the RMB depreciates much further - and we expect it to depreciate 12% versus the greenback and to reach USD/CNH 7.8 by the end of 2017 - China will still be exporting deflation to the rest of the world. Is The Selloff In Search-For-Yield Beneficiaries Over? The selloff in so-called search-for-yield beneficiaries - trades that have in recent years benefited from a low interest rate environment globally - will likely persist in the first few months of 2017. Back in July,1 we argued that U.S./DM bond yields were set to rise considerably. Currently, we still expect bond yields to climb further. We believe there is still prevailing investor complacency about U.S./global bond yields as well as bond proxies elsewhere. U.S. bond yields in general, and inflation-adjusted (TIPS) yields in particular, are still very depressed and could rise meaningfully (Chart I-6). There is no reason why 5- and 10-year TIPS yields cannot reach their late 2015 levels - a move of about 30-50 basis points from current levels. At the moment, the market is pricing only 52 basis points in Federal Reserve rate hikes in 2017. This is not enough as animal spirits are rising in America at a time when the labor market is tight, and wages and unit labor costs are accelerating. All of this combined warrants meaningfully higher U.S. bond yields. Critically, in recent years a lot of money has flown into funds that invest in bonds and bond proxies. As U.S. bond yields rise, it is natural to expect some outflows from these funds. Odds are that these outflows could occur in January when many investors review their portfolios. Bond proxies such U.S. dividend aristocrat stocks, U.S. REITs, utilities and telecom share prices have barely corrected. EM local currency bond yield spreads over duration-matched U.S. Treasurys have not widened at all (Chart I-7, top panel). This does not make sense, as EM local bonds have benefited substantially from the so-called global search-for-yield of the past several years, and thereby should suffer meaningfully as U.S. bond yields are rising. Besides, EM currencies have weakened, and their outlook is worrisome.2 In fact, the EM local currency bond index has massively underperformed duration-matched U.S. Treasurys in common currency terms, and will likely continue to do so in the next six months (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Asian corporate spreads in general, and Chinese offshore corporate spreads in particular, have not widened yet (Chart I-8, top panel). More importantly, Chinese offshore corporate spreads over sovereigns have continued to narrow, and now stand at only 65 basis points (Chart I-8, bottom panel). In sum, there has so far been little setback in Asia/China credit markets. Chart I-6U.S. TIPS ##br##Yields Are Too Low Chart I-7EM Local Currency Bond ##br##Yields To Rise Much Further Chart I-8Asian And Chinese ##br##Corporate Spreads Are Too Low It would be strange if after years of blind search-for-yield there is no meaningful retrenchment in search-for-yield beneficiaries as U.S. bond yields shoot up. Finally, the S&P 500 is making new highs, indicating U.S. bond yields have not yet become restrictive. Odds are that U.S. bond yields will continue to rise until they hurt economic growth or the S&P 500. In other words, bond yields will likely overshoot before rolling over. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for U.S. bond yields remains up. Hence, the current selloff in global bonds, bond proxies and search-for-yield beneficiaries will continue. China: Another Growth Slump In 2017? From our investor meetings on both the east and west coasts of the U.S. over the past month, we got a sense that investor sentiment toward China has improved considerably. While many U.S. investors are not upbeat about China's long-term outlook, the majority have seemingly become complacent on mainland growth for 2017. The common viewpoint is that ahead of Communist party leadership changes at the Party Congress next fall, the authorities will ensure that growth conditions remain very firm. As a result, the reasoning goes that China-related plays will do well in 2017. The missing point, however, is that Chinese policymakers have lately been marginally tightening liquidity/credit conditions amid the lingering credit bubble, and are no longer easing policy. On a rate-of-change basis, this policy stance no longer supports growth acceleration. On the contrary, it warrants a top-out in the nation's industrial cycle in early 2017 and probably a slowdown later in 2017. Chart I-9Interbank Liquidity Tightening In China Not only have Chinese corporate bond yields climbed alongside rising global bond yields, but the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has also tightened liquidity in the interbank market for non-bank financial institutions (Chart I-9). This is intended to limit speculative activities among non-bank financial organizations (shadow banking). This policy move is consistent with PBoC Governor Zhou Xiaochuan's statement this past October at the annual World Bank/IMF meetings in Washington, namely: "With the gradual recovery of the global economy, China will control its credit growth."3 As U.S. and European growth is firming up, Chinese policymakers will be emboldened to moderate unsustainable credit growth and not repeat the massive fiscal push of early this year. In a bid to curb excessive bank credit growth and discourage "window dressing" accounting, the PBoC announced in late October that going forward it will include off-balance-sheet wealth management products (WMPs) in the calculation of banks' quarterly Macro Prudential Assessment ratios, starting from the third quarter.4 The clampdown on WMP accounting will reduce banks' capital adequacy ratios, curbing their ability to originate loans. Finally, property market tightening measures implemented of late are expected to lead to a slowdown in sales and renewed contraction in property starts. This will depress Chinese construction and demand for industrial commodities/materials as well as capital goods. Notably, both credit and fiscal impulses in China have already peaked over (Chart I-10). With no major new fiscal spending initiatives and credit growth gradually moderating, the credit and fiscal impulses will likely diminish. Chart I-11 illustrates that the recovery in industrial electricity consumption (a reliable proxy for industrial activity), industrial profits and manufacturing PMI since early this year has been largely due to combined credit and fiscal impulses. As these impulses wane, the industrial cycle will roll over. Chart I-10China: Credit And Fiscal ##br##Impulses Have Petered Out Chart I-11China: Industrial Sector ##br##Growth To Peter Out In Early 2017 Some clients may wonder why we are placing so much emphasis on the pending rollover of credit and fiscal impulses now, while placing little emphasis on these same indicators in early in 2016 when they were recovering. The rationale is as follows: when there is a credit bubble - as there is in China now - we tend to downplay the importance of policy easing and put more significance on policy tightening. The opposite also holds true: when the credit/banking system is healthy, we tend to downplay the impact of moderate policy tightening and put greater emphasis on policy easing. In a credit bubble, it does not take much tightening to trigger a downtrend/unwind of excesses. Similarly, moderate tightening in a healthy credit system should not be feared. While base metals prices have surged, tracking improvement in China's industrial sector, there is little evidence that the magnitude of this rally is justified by improvement in underlying demand. Chart I-12 demonstrates that China's imports of base metals have been flat since 2010, with all swings due to inventory cycles. The mainland's iron ore consumption has also been mediocre since late 2014 (Chart I-12, bottom panel). The recent rally in copper and other base metals prices is somewhat, though not entirely, due to financial demand. Chart I-13 reveals that commercial firms (producers) have been selling (shorting) copper while financial investors (non-commercial enterprises) have been buying according to data from Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Copper prices are now sitting at their long-term moving average that often marks tops in bear market rallies and bottoms in bull market selloffs (Chart I-13, bottom panel). We expect copper prices to face a major resistance at their current levels, and relapse sooner than later. The U.S. consumes about seven times less copper and other industrial metals compared with China. Therefore, acceleration in U.S. growth and capital spending will be more than offset by a renewed slump in Chinese growth. Several Chinese and China-related financial markets are at a critical juncture (Chart I-14). Their breakdown from current levels will confirm our bias that China's industrial cycle will enter another slump in 2017. Chart I-12China: Net Imports Of Industrial ##br##Metals And Iron Ore Consumption Chart I-13Copper Rally Is Driven ##br##By Financial Demand Chart I-14China Related Plays ##br##Are At A Critical Juncture Bottom Line: China's industrial/capital spending cycle will peter out and will decelerate again in 2017. Will Strong DM Growth Lift EM Economies? Strengthening/robust growth in the U.S. and other developed economies will not be sufficient to lift EM growth. First, in the 1997-98 period, real GDP growth was 4.5% in the U.S. and 3.5% in Europe. In particular, U.S. import volume growth was booming at a double-digit pace (Chart I-15) yet it did not prevent widespread crises throughout the EM during this period. In a nutshell, these 1997-98 crises occurred amid plunging U.S./DM bond yields. Chart I-15The U.S. Growth/Import Boom In 1997-98 Did Not Preclude EM Crises Given the economic boom and falling bond yields in the U.S. and Europe did not prevent the 1997-98 EM financial crises, strong U.S./DM growth now is unlikely to help developing countries much. The importance of U.S. and European economies to EM has declined tremendously since the late 1990s, while the importance of China and intra-EM trade has grown. U.S. import volumes have been weak the past 12 months and will likely recover in 2017, yet this will not be enough to prevent an EM growth slump. The EM crises in 1997-98 were due to poor EM fundamentals and the latter are not much better now. Second, EM growth is primarily driven by the domestic credit cycle and commodities prices. We are bearish on both. Chart I-16 shows EM EPS growth and the aggregate EM credit impulse with projections. Assuming credit growth in each individual EM country converges with its nominal GDP growth in the next 12 months, and in China's case in the next 24 months, the 2017 projected EM credit impulse (equity market cap-weighted) will be negative. Historically, the credit impulse has been a good indicator for EPS (Chart I-16).5 Chart I-16EM EPS Growth To Relapse Again In 2017 In short, EM EPS will improve in the near-term but relapse later in 2017. Share prices are forward looking and their rally early this year is probably already discounting near-term EPS improvement. Thereby, EM share prices are at risk at the moment. Third, real capital spending (inflation-adjusted) in EM ex-China and China is as large as the U.S. and EU (Chart I-17). As the capital spending downturn in China and the rest of EM persists (Chart I-18), this will offset any capex recovery in DM and weigh on commodities, primarily industrial metals, as well as global machinery stocks. Chart I-17Capital Spending By Regions: ##br##EM/China As Large As U.S. And EU Chart I-18EM Ex-China Capex ##br##Has Been Contracting Bottom Line: EM growth will disappoint and EM listed companies' EPS will continue shrinking in 2017, despite the likely profit improvement in the very near term. 2017: The Beginning Of The End Of The EM Bear? Chart I-19 illustrates that this relative equity bear market in EM versus DM is getting late from a duration standpoint. That said, the magnitude of this bear market has been smaller compared with the previous one. Although we do not expect EM stocks to underperform as much as they did in the previous cycle, we still believe there is sizable downside in the months ahead. In short, EM share prices appear very vulnerable technically (Chart I-20), and will likely relapse in absolute terms and also underperform DM markets. Investors should stay short/underweight EM equities versus DM. Chart I-19The EM Bear Market Is Late But Not Over Chart I-20EM Stocks Are Technically Vulnerable For dedicated EM equity investors, our overweights are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. EM bank stocks hold the key, and their underperformance versus DM banks has further to run. Maintain the short EM banks / long U.S. banks equity position. EM currencies will depreciate further (odds of new lows are considerable for many of them) and local currency bonds will sell off. In our November 30 Weekly Report,6 we discussed the outlooks for EM local bond markets and exchange rates at great length, and offered asset allocation recommendations across EM local bond markets. EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads will widen versus U.S. corporate spreads. Stay underweight EM credit markets. Within EM sovereign credit, our overweights are Russia, Mexico and Argentina, Hungary, Peru and other defensive credit. In turn, our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. As usual, the complete list of our equity, fixed-income and currency recommendations is available at the end of each week's report (please refer to pages 16 and 17). Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Reports, dated July 13 and July 27, 2016; available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled " Will The Carnage In EM Local Bonds Persist?," dated November 30, 2016; a link is available on page 18. 3 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3155686/index.html 4 Please see http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3183204/index.html 5 For more details, please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses," dated August 31, 2016; a link is available on page 18. 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled " Will The Carnage In EM Local Bonds Persist?," dated November 30, 2016; a link is available on page 18. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Portfolio Strategy If the Fed is about to begin interest rate re-normalization in earnest, then investors should heed the message from historic sector performance during tightening cycles. The tech sector remains vulnerable to tighter monetary conditions. Downshift communications equipment to neutral and stay clear of software. The OPEC supply agreement reinforces our current energy sector bias, overweight oil services and underweight refiners. Recent Changes S&P Communications Equipment - Reduce to neutral. Table 1 Feature Chart 1Why Is Equity Vol So Low? The equity market has been in a remarkably low volatility uptrend in recent weeks, powered by hopes that political regime shifts will invigorate growth. Signs of economic life have also played a role. The risk is that investors have pulled forward profit growth expectations on the basis of anticipated fiscal stimulus that may disappoint. In the meantime, the tighter domestic monetary conditions get, the less likely equity resilience can persist, especially in the face of rising instability in other financial markets. Volatility has jumped across asset classes, with the bond market leading the charge. The MOVE index of Treasury bond volatility has spiked. Typically, the MOVE leads the VIX index of implied equity market volatility (Chart 1, second panel). Currency and commodity price volatility has also picked up. It would be dangerous to assume that the equity market can remain so sedate. If the economy is about to grow in line with analysts double-digit profit growth expectations and/or what the surge in some cyclical sectors would suggest, then a re-pricing of Fed interest rate hike expectations is likely to persist. Against this backdrop, it is instructive to revisit historic sector performance during past Fed tightening cycles. If one views the next interest rate hike as the start of a sustained trend based on the steep trajectory of expected profit growth embedded in valuations and forecasts, then it is useful to use that as a starting point rather than last year's token 'one and done' interest rate hike. Charts 2 and 3 show the one-year and two-year average sector relative returns after Fed tightening cycles have commenced. A clear pattern is evident: defensive sectors have been the best performers by a wide margin, followed by financials, while cyclical sectors have underperformed over both time horizons. To be sure, every cycle is different, but this is a useful frame of reference for investors that have ramped up growth and cyclical sector earnings expectations in recent months. There has already been considerable tightening based on the Shadow Fed Funds Rate, a bond market-derived fed funds rate not bound by zero percent (Chart 4, shown inverted, top panel). The latter foreshadows a much tougher slog for the broad market. The point is that tighter monetary conditions can overwhelm valuation multiples and growth expectations. Chart 212-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 324-Month Performance After Fed Hikes Chart 4A Blow-Off Top? The violent sub-surface equity rotation has presented a number of rebalancing opportunities. The defensive health care and consumer staples sectors have been shunned in recent weeks, with capital rotating into financials and industrials. As discussed previously, the industrials and materials sectors cannot rise in tandem for long with the U.S. dollar. These sectors should be used as a source of funds to take advantage of value creation in consumer discretionary, staples and health care where value has reappeared. Chart 5It's Not A ''Growth'' Trade Indeed, the abrupt jump in the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio appears to have been driven solely by external forces, i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying operating profit drivers. For instance, emerging market (EM) equities and the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand (Chart 5). The former are pro-cyclical, and outperform when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the U.S. cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debt liabilities, and the lack of EM equity participation reinforces that the recent rise in industrials is not a one way bet. As a result, our preferred cyclical sector exposure lies in the consumer discretionary sector, and not in capital spending-geared deep cyclical sectors. A market weight in financials, utilities and energy is warranted, as discussed below, while the tech sector is vulnerable. A Roundtrip For The Tech Sector? After a semiconductor M&A-driven spurt of strength, the S&P technology sector has stumbled. As a long duration sector, technology has borne a disproportionate share of the backlash from a higher discount rate, similar to the taper-tantrum period in 2013. Then, bond yields soared as the Fed floated trial balloons about tapering QE. Tech stocks did not trough until yields peaked (Chart 6). In addition, a recovery in tech new orders confirmed that the sales outlook had brightened. Now, the capital spending outlook remains shaky, and tech new order growth is nil (Chart 6). Meanwhile, tech pricing power has nosedived (Chart 6). Domestic deflationary pressures are likely to intensify as the U.S. dollar appreciates, particularly against the manufacturing and tech-sensitive emerging Asian currencies. Tech sales growth is already sliding rapidly toward negative territory (Chart 7), with no reprieve in sight based on the contraction in emerging market exports, as well as U.S. consumer and capital goods import prices. Chart 6Tech Doesn't Like Rising Bond Yields Chart 7No Sales Growth True, tech stocks have a solid relative performance track record when the U.S. dollar initially embarks on a long-term bull market (Chart 8). Why? Because tech business models incorporate deflationary conditions, investors have been comfortable bidding up valuations in excess of the negative sales impact from a stronger U.S. dollar. Nevertheless, history shows that this relationship becomes untenable the longer currency appreciation persists. Chart 8 shows that in the final phase of the past two U.S. dollar bull markets, tech stocks have abruptly reversed course, rapidly ceding the previously accrued gains. Apart from a loss of competitiveness from currency strength, the new anti-globalization trend is bad for tech as it has the highest foreign sales exposure. The bottom line is that there is no rush to lift underweight tech sector allocations. In fact, we are further tweaking weightings to reduce exposure. For instance, software companies are worth another look through a bearish lens. Software sales growth is at risk from pricing power slippage amidst cooling final demand (Chart 9). Chart 8Beware Phase II Of Dollar Bull Markets Chart 9Sell Software... The financial sector is an influential technology sector end market. On the margin, financial companies are likely to reduce capital spending on the back of deteriorating credit quality. Chart 9 demonstrates that when financial sector corporate bond ratings start to trend negatively, it is a sign that software investment will stumble. A similar message is emanating from the decline in overall CEO confidence (Chart 10), which mirrors the relentless narrowing in the gap between the return on and cost of capital (Chart 8, bottom panel). Even C&I bank loans, previously an economic bright spot, are signaling that corporate sector demand for external funds and working capital are softening, consistent with slower capital spending. Against a backdrop of fading software M&A activity, we are skeptical that the S&P software index can maintain its premium valuation (Chart 11). Chart 10... Before Sales Erode Chart 11Not Worth A Premium Elsewhere, the communications equipment industry will have trouble sustaining this summer's outperformance. Communications equipment stocks broke out of a long-term downward sloping trend-line on the back of productivity improvement. Chart 12 shows that after a period of intense cost cutting, wage inflation was negative. Our productivity proxy, defined as sales/employment, is growing rapidly. These trends are supportive of profit margins, and at least a modest valuation re-rating from washed out levels. Nevertheless, our confidence that a major bullish trend change has occurred after years of underperformance has been shaken. The budding reacceleration in top-line growth has hit a snag. New orders for communications equipment have rolled over relative to inventories. Investment in communications equipment has dipped (Chart 13). The telecom services sector has scaled back capital spending (Chart 13, third panel), suggesting that final demand will continue to soften. It will be difficult for companies to maintain high productivity if revenue growth stagnates. Chart 12Productivity Strength... Chart 13... May Be Pressured Consequently, the most likely scenario is that relative performance is entering a base-building phase rather than a new bull market, warranting benchmark weightings. Bottom Line: Reduce the S&P communications equipment index (BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, MSI, HRS, JNPR, FFIV) to neutral, in a move to further reduce underweight tech sector exposure. Stay underweight software (BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, ATVI, EA, ADSK, SYMC, RHT, CTXS, CA). Energy Strategy Post-OPEC Production Cut Chart 14Energy Stocks Need Rising Oil Prices The energy sector continues to mark time relative to the broad market, but that has masked furious sub-surface movement. We have maintained a benchmark exposure to the broad sector since the spring, but shifted our sub-industry exposure in October to favor oil field services over producers, while underemphasizing refiners. OPEC's recent agreement to trim flatters this positioning. Whether OPEC's announcement actually feeds through into meaningfully lower production next year and higher oil prices remains to be seen, but at a minimum, supply discipline should put a floor under prices. Rather than expecting the overall energy sector to break out of its lateral move relative to the broad market, we continue to recommend a targeted approach. The energy sector requires sustained higher commodity prices to outperform, and our concern is that a trading range is more likely (Chart 14). OPEC producers suffered considerable pain over the last two years as they overproduced in order to starve marginal producers of the capital needed for reinvestment. U.S. shale producers slashed capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cut capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. Chart 15 shows that only OPEC has been expanding production. That has set the stage for limited global production growth, allowing for demand growth to eat into overstocked crude inventories in the coming years. OPEC's decision to trim output should mitigate downside commodity price risks, providing debt and equity markets with confidence to increase capital availability to the sector. With a lower cost and easier access to capital, producers, especially shale, will be able to accelerate drilling programs. The rig count has already troughed. The growth in OECD oil inventories has crested, which is consistent with a gradual rise in the number of active drilling rigs. As oversupply is absorbed, investment in oil field services will accelerate, unlocking relative value in the energy services space (Chart 16). Chart 15OPEC Cuts Would Help... Chart 16... Erode Excess Oil Supply This overweight position is still high risk, because it will take time to absorb the excesses from the previous drilling cycle. There is still considerable overcapacity in the oil field services industry, as measured by our idle rig proxy. Pricing power does not typically return until the latter rises above 1 (Chart 17). Companies will be eager to put crews to work and better cover overhead, and may accept suboptimal pricing, at least initially. Meanwhile, if EM currencies continue to weaken, confidence in EM oil demand growth may be shaken, eroding valuations. Still, we are willing to accept these risks, but will keep this overweight position on a tight leash and will take profits if OPEC does not follow through with plans to limit production. On the flipside, refiners will not receive any relief in feedstock prices, which should ensure that the gap between Brent and WTI prices remains non-existent (Chart 18). That is a strain on refining margins. Our model warns that there is little profit upside ahead. That is confirmed by both domestic and global trends. Chart 17Risks To A Sustained Rally Chart 18Sell Refiners Chart 19Global Capacity Growth Refiners have continued to produce flat out, even as domestic crude production has dropped (Chart 18). As a result, inventories of gasoline and distillates have surged, despite solid consumption growth. In fact, refined product output is about to eclipse the rate of consumption growth, which implies persistently swelling inventories. There is no export outlet to relieve excess supply. U.S. exports are becoming much less competitive on the back of U.S. dollar strength and the elimination of the gap between WTI and Brent input costs (Chart 19). Moreover, rising capacity abroad has trigged an acceleration of refined product exports in a number of low cost producer countries, including India, China and Saudi Arabia (Chart 19). Increased global refining capacity is a structural trend, and will keep valuation multiples lower than otherwise would be the case. The relative price/sales ratio is testing cyclical peaks, warning that downside risks remain acute. Bottom Line: Maintain a neutral overall sector weighting, with outsized exposure to the oil & gas field services industry (BLBG: S5ENRE - SLB, HAL, BHI, NOV, HP, FTI, RIG), and undersized allocations to the refining group (BLBG: S5OILR - PSX, VLO, MPC, TSO). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights The Chinese authorities have progressively tightened capital account control regulations to staunch capital outflows, which will likely slow the drawdown of the country's official reserves in the near term. Rising yields in China are largely reflective rather than restrictive. Monetary easing through interest rate cuts has likely run its course, but it is highly unlikely that the PBoC will raise rates to protect the RMB. The Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program is yet another step towards China's capital account liberalization. In the near term it could give a boost to Hong Kong-listed shares due to the large valuation gap. The direct impact on the RMB is marginal. Feature The mighty U.S. dollar occupied the cover of this week's Economist magazine - it has also clearly occupied the top spot on our clients' 'worry lists'. We were in China last week talking to clients and conducting some "field research", and the yuan's depreciation was a key focal point of the discussions. Historically, Economist magazine cover stories have mostly turned out to be perfect contrarian signals, and it remains to be seen whether this one will be a blessing or curse for the greenback. What's more certain is that there is a clear consensus among Chinese investors on the one-way descent of the RMB against the dollar going forward, and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) is facing an uphill battle in containing domestic capital outflows. The latest program linking Chinese equities and the overseas market is the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program, which debuted early this week. This suggests the Chinese authorities are still committed to capital account deregulation. In the near term, however, capital control measures have been tightened progressively to preserves official reserves and maintain domestic liquidity. Full-Court Press Heightened concerns over the CNY/USD cross rate of late have ignored the fact that the RMB has remained one of the stronger currencies among a synchronized plunge against the seemingly unstoppable dollar. The trade-weighted RMB has picked up notably in recent weeks, even though it has depreciated against the greenback (Chart 1). Nonetheless, Chinese investors' perception of the currency matters greatly, as it could potentially create a self-fulfilling downward spiral between capital outflows and exchange rate depreciation. It is both naïve and highly risky to expect the RMB to settle down at a "market clearing" level against the dollar without a chaotic undershoot. The "Impossible Trinity" theory in international finance dictates that a country cannot simultaneously control its exchange rate with independent monetary policy and free flow of capital. Among these conditions, free flow of capital has been the least expensive sacrifice for the Chinese authorities.1 In basketball, full-court press refers to a defensive tactic in which members of a team cover their opponents throughout the court, and not just near their own basket. This is what the Chinese authorities appear to be doing in terms of their efforts at staunching capital outflows. Cracking down on underground money smugglers facilitating RMB conversions with other currencies, particularly in regions neighboring Hong Kong. Anecdotal evidence suggests a sharp slowdown in illegal money transfers. Tightening scrutiny on trade invoicing verifications to crack down on "fake" international trades. Chinese imports from Hong Kong, sky-high last year as Chinese local firms fabricated import businesses to move money offshore, have tumbled to a fraction of last year's peak level (Chart 2). Restricting Chinese nationals from purchasing insurance policies issued by Hong Kong insurance firms. The massive boom of Hong Kong insurance sales to mainland residents in recent years will likely see a significant setback (Chart 3). Chart 1The RMB's Depreciation In Perspective Chart 2Blocking Capital Leakage In Trade... Chart 3...Services... These restrictive measures have been either targeting illegal channels or activities that are of minor importance to the economy as a whole. More recently, the authorities have also begun tightening rules on direct overseas investment by Chinese firms. Projects over US$10 billion and investments in "non-core" businesses are being tightly scrutinized. As companies' overseas expansion efforts are largely strategic in nature and tend to be long term, policymakers are potentially sacrificing long-term economic interests for a near-term fix of capital leakage. This underscores the authorities' increasing anxiety over capital outflows. Chart 4 shows net FDI outflows have become a major source of China's capital outflows in recent quarters, while Chinese firms paying off foreign liabilities was previously the main reason.2 Moreover, there has been a rush to acquire foreign assets among large Chinese firms this year, which is probably partially motivated by avoiding exchange rate losses (Chart 5). Chinese overseas investment activity will likely slow down significantly in the near term. Chart 4...And Outward Direct Investment Chart 5Overseas M&A Under Scrutiny Yesterday's data release show Chinese official reserves dropped to USD 3.05 trillion in November, down USD 69 billion from October. On surface, this is a marked deterioration from previous months. Underneath, however, our calculation shows that the decline in the headline official reserve number is more than explained by the mark-to-market paper losses from both a strengthening dollar and rising interest rates in the U.S. in the past month. Non-dollar assets account for about half of Chinese official reserves, and the 5% surge in the U.S. dollar index last month alone should have led to about $75 billion paper losses in the dollar value of Chinese reserves. Meanwhile, Chinese holdings of U.S. treasuries and agency bonds amount to about USD 1.4 trillion, and the sharp spike in U.S. risk free rates last month should have shaved off at least USD 30 billion in value. Taken together, the mark-to-market losses of Chinese reserve holdings are should be substantially higher than the decline in reserves last month. This may suggest that China's all-out efforts to stabilize capital outflows have been effective and should further reduce the drawdown of the country's official reserves. P.S. Over the years, we have been running a series of Special Reports tracking the composition and evolvement of China's foreign reserves. This year's update will be published next week. Stay tuned. Chart 6Interest Rate Vs Exchange Rate Will Interest Rates Be The Next Shoe To Drop? Chinese interest rates have also begun to pick up in recent weeks, as the RMB has continued to depreciate against the dollar (Chart 6). The increase in interest rates so far has been much milder compared with mid-2015, when RMB/USD depreciation sparked widespread financial volatility. Some have attributed China's higher interest rates to a weakening currency - as a sign that the country's monetary policy independence has been undermined. Recently, a senior PBoC official hinted that the central bank can raise interest rates if necessary to counter the downward pressure of the RMB, which further reinforces this view. Raising interest rates has been a typical policy response, especially among emerging countries look to defend their exchange rates, but it has rarely been proven successful. Hiking rates at a time of currency weakness further weakens domestic growth, which can in turn reinforce additional downward pressure on the exchange rate. The PBoC could certainly raise its benchmark rate, but we doubt the central bank is at all considering this option. In our view, the recent rise in Chinese interest rates may be attributable to both domestic and global factors: Globally, the synchronized selloff of bonds in major countries may have also pushed up Chinese interest rates. Chinese 10-year government bond yields have increased by 45 basis points since their August lows, not extraordinary considering the 102-basis-point selloff in U.S. Treasurys (Chart 7). Domestically, stronger growth numbers reported of late are providing additional evidence of growth improvement, which may have led to an adjustment in Chinese interest rate expectations (Chart 8). The latest PMI numbers point to further acceleration in both manufacturing and service industries, while the growth "surprise index" has been gradually improving and the yield curve has been steepening. Chart 7Higher Chinese Yields Reflect Global Factors... Chart 8... And Growth Improvement In short, we view rising yields in China as largely reflective rather than restrictive. As such, the PBoC is unlikely to rush in to push yields down just yet. In terms of monetary policy, we maintain the view that China's monetary easing through interest rate cuts has likely run its course, at least in the near term. Nonetheless, raising interest rates to protect the RMB would be a major policy mistake that would further undermine the exchange rate. Chart 9Cheaper Hong Kong Valuation Attracts ##br##Chinese Domestic Capital The Shenzhen-Hong Kong Connect Compared with the Shanghai-Hong Kong program that started over two years ago, the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program that debuted early this week has been received with much less enthusiasm from investors on both sides. The muted response in the marketplace likely reflects generally depressed sentiment within both Chinese and Hong Kong bourses. Given the large gap between Chinese domestic A shares and Hong Kong-listed stocks and well-entrenched expectorations of further RMB weakness, Chinese investors' purchases of Hong Kong-listed shares, or southbound purchases, will likely continue to increase (Chart 9). The establishment of the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program is also another step in liberalizing China's capital account controls. While in the near term this contradicts the authorities' recent efforts to block capital outflows, the new stock connect channel is subject to daily quotas, and capital movement is under close scrutiny. Meanwhile, capital flows through the stock exchanges are tiny compared with economic activity. In the past two years, Chinese domestic investors' cumulative "southbound" net purchases of Hong Kong-listed stocks only amounted to RMB 200 billion, or US$30 billion, a fraction of the country's capital movement and foreign reserve holdings. As far as investors are concerned, a major difference between the two Chinese domestic exchanges is their sectoral composition. The Shanghai Stock Exchange is heavily concentrated in the financial sector and state-controlled enterprises (Table 1). The Shenzhen Stock Exchange, on the other hand, is more tech-heavy with larger representation of private firms, and therefore has been more dynamic, which is also reflected in its stock prices. The Shenzhen stock index has outperformed that of Shanghai massively in recent years (Chart 10). In this vein, opening Shenzhen stocks directly gives overseas investors another option to tap into some of China's fastest growing sectors. This could also increase the odds that MSCI Inc. may include Chinese domestic stocks in its widely followed EM and global indices in its next review. Table 1Sectoral Components Of Shanghai And ##br##Shenzhen Exchanges Chart 10Shenzhen Market's Secular Outperformance##br## Against Shanghai The bottom line is that the Shenzhen-Hong Kong connect program is yet another step towards China's capital account liberalization, allowing freer access between Chinese and overseas investors to each other's financial assets. In the near term it could give a boost to Hong Kong-listed shares due to the large valuation gap. The direct impact on the RMB is marginal. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Mapping China's Capital Outflows: A Balance Of Payment Perspective", dated February 3, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

President-elect Trump and the specter of his spendthrift policy proposals have generated significant client interest/inquiries on equities and inflation - not asset prices, but of the more traditional kind: consumer price inflation. Chart 1 shows that a little bit of inflation would be positive for the broad equity market, further fueling the high-risk, liquidity-driven blow off phase. However, when inflation has reached 3.7%-4% in the past, the broad equity market has stumbled (Chart 2). Sizeable tax cuts, increased infrastructure and defense spending (i.e. loose fiscal policy), protectionism and a tougher stance on immigration are inherently inflationary policies (and bond price negative) ceteris paribus. Chart 1A Whiff Of Inflation##br## Is Good For Stocks... Chart 2...But Too Much ##br##Is Restrictive However, our working assumption is that in the next 9-12 months, CPI headline inflation will only renormalize, rather than surge. Importantly, the magnitude and timing of the implementation of Trump's policy pledges is unknown. Moreover, the Fed's reaction function is also uncertain, and the resulting economic growth and U.S. dollar impact will be critical in determining whether any lasting inflation acceleration occurs. Table 1 For global inflation to take root beyond the short term, Europe and Japan would also have to follow Canada's and America's fiscal largesse to swing the global deflation/inflation pendulum toward sustained inflation. The Fed's Reaction Function Our sense is that a Yellen-led Fed will allow for some inflation overshoot to materialize. This view was originally posited in her 2012 "optimal control"1 speech and more recently reiterated with her mid-October speech emphasizing "temporarily running a "high-pressure economy," with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market."2 The Fed has credible tools to deal with inflation. If economic growth does not soar, but rather sustains its post-GFC steady 2-2.5% real GDP growth profile as we expect, then taking some inflation risk is a high-probability. The implication is that the Fed will likely not rush to abruptly tighten monetary policy, a view confirmed by the bond market , which is penciling in only 40bps for 2017 (Chart 3). A sustainable breakout in bond yields would require inflation (and to a lesser extent real GDP growth) to significantly surprise to the upside and thus compel the Fed to aggressively raise the fed funds rate. Is that on the horizon? While wage inflation has perked up, unit labor cost inflation has a spotty track record in terms of leading core consumer goods prices. Why? About 20% of the CPI and PCE inflation baskets are produced abroad, underscoring that domestic costs are not a factor in setting prices. There is a tighter correlation between unit labor costs and service sector inflation, but even here there is not a consistent relationship (Chart 4). Consequently, there is minimal pressure on the Fed to get aggressive, suggesting that most of the cyclical back up in long-term yields may have already occurred. Chart 3Fed Will Be Late, As Always Chart 4Wage And CPI Inflation Often Diverge The 1960s Analogy The 1960s period provides an instructive guide for today. Then, an extremely tight labor market and a positive output gap was initially ignored by the Fed, i.e. the economy was allowed to overheat (Chart 5). This ultimately led to the surge of inflation in the 1970s, especially given the then highly unionized labor market (see appendix Chart A1). While there are similarities between the current backdrop and the 1960s, namely an extended business cycle, full employment, narrowing output gap, easy monetary and a path to easing fiscal policies, and rising money multiplier, there are also striking differences. At the current juncture, wage inflation is half of what it was in the mid-1960s. Even unit labor costs heated up to over 8% back then, nearly four times the current level. Chart 5The 1960's... Chart 6... And Today Full employment has only been recently attained (Chart 6) and in order to pose a long-term inflation worry, it would have to stay near 5% for another three years. True, the output gap is almost closed, and is forecast to turn marginally positive in 2017/2018, but much will depend on the timing of fiscal stimulus. Industrial production has diverged negatively from the output gap of late, suggesting that excess capacity still lingers in some parts of the economy (Chart 7). The upshot is that inflationary pressures may stay contained for some time, especially if the U.S. dollar continues to firm. The global environment remains marked by deficient demand, not scarce resources. Chart 8 shows that the NFIB survey of the small business sector has a good track record in leading core inflation. The survey shows that businesses are still finding it difficult to lift selling prices. That is confirmed by deflation in the retail price deflator. Chart 7Divergent Economic Slack Messages Chart 8Pricing Power Trouble Finally, while the money multiplier has troughed, it would have to jump to a level of 4.9 to parallel the 1960s (Chart 9). This is a tall order and it would really require the Fed to very aggressively wind down its balance sheet. Chart 9Monitoring The Money Multiplier Therefore, a 1960s repeat would be a tail risk, and not our base case forecast. What About The Greenback? Chart 10 shows that inflation decelerates during U.S. dollar bull markets. Our Foreign Exchange Strategy service believes that the currency has more cyclical upside3, given that it has not yet overshot on a valuation basis and interest rate differentials will favor the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, it may be difficult for inflation to rise on a sustained basis. Chart 10Appreciating Dollar Is##br## Always Disinflationary So What? Accelerating inflation is a modest risk, but not our base case forecast. Nevertheless, for investors that are more worried about the prospect of higher inflation, the purpose of this Special Report is to serve as an equity sector positioning roadmap if inflationary pressures become more acute sooner than we anticipate. Historically, inflation has been synonymous with an aggressive Fed and hard asset outperformance, suggesting that deep cyclical sectors would be primary beneficiaries. Table 1 on Page 2 shows that over the last six major inflationary cycles, energy, materials, real estate and health care have been consistent outperformers. Utilities, tech and telecom have been clear underperformers. The remaining sectors have been a mixed bag. However, this cycle, potential growth is much lower than in the past, underscoring that the hit to overall profits from tighter monetary policy could be pronounced, potentially undermining equity market risk premiums. If inflation rises too quickly and the Fed hits the economic brakes, then it is hard to envision cyclical sectors putting in a strong market performance, especially given their high debt loads and shaky balance sheets, i.e. they are at the epicenter of corporate sector vulnerability if interest rates rise too quickly. Owning shaky balance sheets in a sluggish global economy is a strategy fraught with risk. On the flipside, the recent knee jerk sell off in more defensive sectors represents a reversal of external capital flows, and is not representative of an underlying vulnerability in their earnings prospects. As a result of this shift, valuations now favor more defensive sectors by a wide margin. Ultimately, we expect relative profit trends to dictate relative performance on a cyclical investment horizon, and are not rushing to position our portfolio for accelerating inflation. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20120411a.htm 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20161014a.htm 3 https://fes.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/20812 Health Care (Overweight) Health care stocks have consistently outperformed during the six inflationary periods we studied. Over the long haul it has paid to overweight this sector given the structural uptrend in relative share prices. Spending on health care services is non-cyclical and demand for such services is also on a secular rise around the globe: in the developed markets driven largely by the aging population and in the emerging markets by the adoption of health care safety nets (Chart 11). Health care pricing power is expanding at a healthy clip, outshining overall CPI. Importantly, recent geopolitical uncertainty had cast a shadow on the sector's pricing power prospects that suffered from a constant derating. Now that political and pricing power uncertainty is lifting, a rerating looms. Finally, the health care sector's dividend yield allure is the lowest among defensive sectors and remains 44bps below the broad market, somewhat insulating the sector from the inflation driven selloff in the bond market (Chart 12). Chart 11Health Care Chart 12Health Care Consumer Staples (Overweight) Similar to the health care sector, consumer staples stocks have been stellar outperformers over the past 55 years. The sector's track record during the six inflationary periods we studied is split down the middle. Most consumer staples companies are global conglomerates and their efforts have been focused on building global consumer brands, allowing them to implement a stickier pricing strategy. As a result, overall inflation/deflation pressures are more benign (Chart 13). Relative consumer staples pricing power is expanding and has been in an uptrend for the past five years. As the U.S. dollar has been in a bull market since 2011, short-circuiting the commodity super cycle, consumer staples manufacturers have been beneficiaries of falling commodity input costs. The implication is that profit margins have been expanding due to both rising pricing power and lower input costs (Chart 14). Chart 13Consumer Staples Chart 14Consumer Staples Telecom Services (Overweight - High Conviction) Relative telecom services performance and inflation appear broadly inversely correlated since the early 1970s, underperforming 60% of the time when core PCE prices accelerate. Importantly, in two of the periods we studied (during the late-70s and the TMT bubble) the drawdowns were massive, skewing the mean results portrayed in Table 1 on page 2. This fixed income proxy sector tends to suffer in times of inflation as competing assets dilute its yield appeal and vice versa (Chart 15). Telecom services pricing power has been declining over time as the government deregulated this once monopolistic industry. As more entrants forayed into the sector boosting competition, pricing power erosion accelerated. While relative sector pricing power has been mostly mired in deflation with a few rare expansionary spurts, there is an offset as the industry has entered a less volatile selling price backdrop: communications equipment costs are also constantly sinking (they represent a major input cost), counterbalancing the industry's profit margin outlook (Chart 16). Chart 15Telecom Services Chart 16Telecom Services Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) While the overall trend in consumer discretionary stocks has been higher since the mid-1970s, relative performance mostly declines during inflationary times. Consumer spending takes the backseat as a performance driver when interest rates rise on the back of higher inflation. In addition, previous inflationary periods have also coincided with surging energy prices, representing another source of diminishing consumer discretionary purchasing power (Chart 17). Consumer discretionary selling prices are expanding relative to overall wholesale price inflation, but they have been losing some steam of late. Were energy prices to sustain their recent cyclical advance, as BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects, that would represent a minor headwind to discretionary outlays. True, the tightening in monetary conditions could also be a risk, but we doubt the Yellen-led Fed would slam on the brakes at a time when the greenback is close to 15 year highs. The latter continues to suppress import prices and act as a tailwind to consumer spending and more than offsetting the energy and interest rate headwinds (Chart 18). Chart 17Consumer Discretionary Chart 18Consumer Discretionary Real Estate (Overweight) REITs have been outperforming the overall market during the five inflationary periods we analyzed, exemplifying their hard asset profile. While the 1976-81 iteration skewed the mean results, REITs still come out with the third best showing among the top eleven sectors even on median return basis (see Table 1 on page 2). Real estate prices tend to appreciate when inflation is accelerating, because landlords have consistently raised rents at least on a par with inflation (Chart 19). REITs pricing power has outpaced overall CPI. Apartment REITs rental inflation has been on a tear since the GFC, and the multi-family construction boom will eventually act as a restraint. The selloff in the bond market represents another risk to REITs relative returns as this index falls under the fixed income proxied equity basket, but the sector is now attractively valued (Chart 20). Chart 19Real Estate Chart 20Real Estate Energy (Neutral) The energy sector comes out on top of the median relative return results in times of inflation, and second best in average terms (Table 1 on page 2). Oil price surges are typically synonymous with other forms of inflation. During the six inflationary periods we analyzed, all but one period were associated with relative share price outperformance. Oil producers in particular benefit from the increase in the underlying commodity almost immediately (assuming little to no hedging), which also serves as an excellent inflation hedge (Chart 21). While relative energy pricing power had stabilized following the tumultuous GFC, Saudi Arabia's decision in late 2014 to refrain from balancing the oil market triggered a plunge in oil prices, similar to the mid-1980s collapse. The OPEC deal reached last week to curtail oil production should rebalance the market more quickly, assuming OPEC cheating will be limited, removing downside price risks. Nevertheless, any oil price acceleration to the $60/bbl level will likely prove self-limiting, as supply will come to the market and producers would rush to lock in prices by hedging forward (Chart 22). Chart 21Energy Chart 22Energy Financials (Neutral) Financials relative returns are neither hot nor cold when inflation rears its ugly head. In fact they sit in the middle of the pack in terms of relative median and mean returns. This lack of consistency reflects different factors that exerted significant influence in some of these inflationary periods. Moreover, Chart 23 shows that relative share prices have been mean reverting since the 1960s, likely blurring the inflation influence. Ultimately, the yield curve, credit growth and credit quality determine the path of least resistance for the relative share price ratio of this early cyclical sector. Financials sector pricing power has jumped by about 400bps over the past 18 months. Given the recent steepening of the yield curve, the odds are high that sector pricing power will remain firm via rising net interest margins. Any easing in the regulatory backdrop could also provide a fillip to margins (Chart 24). Chart 23Financials Chart 24Financials Utilities (Neutral) Utilities relative returns during inflationary bouts are the second worst among the top eleven sectors on an average basis and dead last on a median return basis. In five out of the six inflationary phases we examined, utilities stocks suffered a setback. The industry's lack of economic leverage and fixed income attributes anchor the relative share price ratio during inflationary times (Chart 25). Our utilities sector pricing power proxy has sprung to life recently moderately outpacing overall inflation. Natural gas prices, the industry's marginal price setter, have experienced a V-shaped recovery since the March trough, as excess inventories have been whittled down, signaling that recent pricing power gains have more upside. Nevertheless, the recent inflation driven jack up in interest rates has dealt a blow to this high dividend yielding defensive sector. Barring a sustained selloff in the bond market at least a technical rebound in relative share prices is looming (Chart 26). Chart 25Utilities Chart 26Utilities Tech (Underweight) Technology stocks have underperformed every time inflation has accelerated with two exceptions, in the mid-to-late 1960s and mid-to-late 1970s. Creative destruction forces in the tech industry are inherently deflationary. As a result, tech business models have evolved to thrive during disinflationary periods. Moreover, tech stocks have become more mature than typically perceived, having more stable cash flows and paying dividends. The implication is that the negative correlation with inflation will likely remain in place (Chart 27). Tech companies are constantly mired in deflation. While relative pricing power has been in an uptrend since 2011, it has recently relapsed into the deflationary zone. Worrisomely, deflation pressures are likely to intensify as the U.S. dollar appreciates, eating into the sector's earnings growth prospects. Finally, as a reminder, among the top eleven sectors tech stocks have the highest international sales exposure (Chart 28). Chart 27Tech Chart 28Tech Industrials (Underweight - High Conviction) The industrials sector tends to outperform during inflationary periods. In fact, relative share prices have risen 50% of the time since the mid-1960s when inflation was accelerating. The two oil shocks in the 1970s raised the profile of all commodity-related sectors as investors were scrambling to find reliable inflation hedges (Chart 29). Industrials pricing power is sinking steadily, weighed down by the multi-year commodity plunge on the back of China's economic growth deceleration, rising U.S. dollar and increasing supplies. While infrastructure spending is slated to increase at some point in late-2017 or early-2018, we doubt a lot of shovel ready projects will get off the ground quickly enough to satisfy the recent spike in expectations. We are in a wait and see period and remain skeptical that all this fiscal spending enthusiasm will translate into a sustainable earnings driven outperformance phase (Chart 30). Chart 29Industrials Chart 30Industrials Materials (Underweight) Materials equities have a tight positive correlation with accelerating inflation. Resource-related stocks are the closest representation of hard assets, given their ability to store value among the eleven GICS1 sectors. As inflation takes root and commodity prices rise, materials sales and EPS growth get a boost with relative share prices following right behind (Chart 31). From peak-to-trough relative materials prices collapsed by over 35 percentage points and only recently have managed to stage a modest comeback. Our relative pricing power gauge is flirting with the zero line, but may not move much higher. Deleveraging has not even commenced in the emerging markets, and the soaring U.S. dollar is highly deflationary. It will be extremely difficult for materials prices to advance sustainably if EM financial stress intensifies, given the inevitable backlash onto regional economic growth (Chart 32). Chart 31Materials Chart 32Materials Appendix Chart A1 Chart A2 Chart A3 Chart A4 Chart A5 Chart A6