Global
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 Overall Strategy: The global economy is entering a reflationary sweet spot that will last for the next two years. Investors should overweight equities, maintain slightly below benchmark exposure to government bonds, and underweight cash over a 12-month horizon. Fixed Income: Global bond yields will rise only modestly over the next two years, reflecting an abundance of spare capacity in many parts of the world. A major bond bear market will begin towards the end of the decade, as stagflationary forces gather steam. Equities: Investors should underweight the U.S. for the time being, while overweighting Europe and Japan in currency-hedged terms. Emerging markets will benefit from the reflationary tailwind, but deep structural problems will drag down returns. Currencies: The broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate another 6% from current levels. The yen still has considerable downside against the dollar. The euro will grind lower, as will the Chinese yuan. The pound is approaching a bottom. Commodities: Favor energy over metals. Gold will move higher once the dollar peaks later this year. Feature I. Key Theme: A Reflationary Window The global economy is entering a reflationary sweet spot where deflationary forces are in retreat but fears of excess inflation have yet to surface. Activity data are surprising to the upside and leading economic indicators have turned higher (Chart 1). Falling unemployment in most major economies is boosting confidence, fueling a virtuous cycle of rising spending and even further declines in joblessness. Manufacturing activity is bouncing back after a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 2). In addition, the stabilization in commodity prices has given some relief to emerging markets, while fueling a modest rebound in resource sector capital spending. Meanwhile, easier fiscal policy is providing a welcome tailwind to growth. The aggregate fiscal thrust for advanced economies turned positive in 2016 - the first time this has happened in six years. We expect this trend to persist for the foreseeable future. Reflecting these developments, market-based measures of inflation expectations have risen, offsetting the increase in nominal interest rates. In fact, real rates in the euro area and Japan have actually declined across most of the yield curve since the U.S. presidential election (Chart 3). This should translate into higher household and business spending in the months ahead. Chart 1Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 2Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 3Falling Real Rates In The Euro Area And Japan Supply Matters Yet, there has been a dark side to this reflationary trend, and one that could sow the seeds for stagflation as the decade wears on. Simply put, much of the reduction in spare capacity over the past eight years has occurred not because of much faster demand growth, but because of continued slow supply growth. Chart 4 shows that output gaps in the main developed economies would still be enormous today if potential GDP had grown at the rate the IMF forecasted back in 2008. Chart 4AWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Chart 4BWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Unfortunately, we do not expect this state of affairs to change much over the coming years. The decline in birth rates that began in the 1960s has caused working-age populations to grow more slowly in almost all developed and emerging economies (Chart 5). In some countries such as the U.S., the downward pressure on labor force growth has been exacerbated by a structural decline in participation rates, especially among the less educated (Chart 6). Chart 5Slowing Workforce Growth Chart 6U.S.: The Less Educated Are Shunning The Labor Force Productivity growth has also fallen (Chart 7). Part of this phenomenon is cyclical in nature, reflecting the impact of several years of weak corporate investment in new plant and equipment. However, much of it is structural. As Fed economist John Fernald has shown, the slowdown in productivity growth since 2004 has been concentrated in sectors that benefited the most from the adoption of new information technologies in the late 1990s (Chart 8).1 Recent technological innovations have focused more on consumers than on businesses. This has resulted in slower productivity growth. Chart 7Slowing Productivity Growth Around The World Chart 8The Productivity Slowdown Has Been ##br##Greatest In Sectors That Benefited The Most From The I.T. Revolution To make matters worse, human capital accumulation has decelerated both in the U.S. and elsewhere, dragging productivity growth down with it. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the rate it did in the 1990s (Chart 9). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores, has also peaked, and is now falling in many countries (Chart 10). Chart 9The Contribution To Growth ##br##From Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart 10Math Skills Around The World From Deflation To Inflation To reiterate what we have discussed at length in the past, the slowdown in potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset, but becomes inflationary later on.2 Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also curtails consumption, as households react to the prospect of smaller real wage gains. Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation (Chart 11). One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a period during which productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Likewise, a slowdown in labor force growth tends to morph from being deflationary to inflationary over time. When labor force growth slows, two things happen. First, investment demand drops. Why build new factories, office towers, and shopping malls if the number of workers and potential consumers is set to grow more slowly? Second, savings rise, as spending on children declines and a rising share of the workforce moves into its peak saving years (ages 35-to-50). The result is a large excess of savings over investment, which generates downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. As time goes by, the deflationary impact of slower labor force growth tends to recede (Chart 12). Workers who once brought home paychecks start to retire en masse and begin drawing down their accumulated wealth. Since there are few young workers available to take their place, labor shortages emerge. At the same time, health care spending and pension expenditures rise as a larger fraction of the population enters its golden years. The result is less aggregate savings and higher interest rates. Chart 11A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Chart 12An Aging Population Eventually Pushes Up Interest Rates Is Debt Deflationary Or Inflationary? The answer is both. Excessively high debt levels are deflationary at the outset because they limit the ability of overstretched borrowers to spend. However, high debt levels also reduce investment in new capacity - homes, office buildings, machinery, etc. This undermines the supply-side of the economy. Moreover, once the output gap is closed, high debt levels can become inflationary by increasing the incentive for central banks to keep rates low in order to suppress interest-servicing costs and reduce real debt burdens. Acting on that incentive also becomes easier as the output gap evaporates. Consider the case of forward guidance. If an economy has a large output gap, a central bank's promise to maintain interest rates at ultra-low levels, even after full employment has been reached, may hold little sway. After all, many things can happen between now and then: A change of central bank leadership, an adverse economic shock, etc. In contrast, if the output gap is already close to zero, a promise to let the economy run hot is more likely to be taken seriously. The U.S. Economy: Still In A Reflationary Sweet Spot The stagflationary demons described above will eventually come back to haunt the U.S., but for now and probably for the next two years, the economy will remain in a reflationary sweet spot. After a weak start to 2016, growth has bounced back. Real GDP grew by 3.5% in Q3. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model points to still-healthy growth of 2.9% in Q4. We expect growth to stay robust in 2017, as improving confidence and a stabilization in energy-sector investment lift overall business capex, homebuilding picks up after contracting in both Q2 and Q3 of 2016, and rising wages push up real incomes and personal consumption. Above-trend growth will continue to erode spare capacity. The headline unemployment rate has fallen to 4.6%, close to most estimates of NAIRU. Broader measures of unemployment, which incorporate marginally-attached and involuntary part-time workers, are also approaching pre-recession levels (Chart 13). Consistent with this observation, the job openings rate in the JOLT survey, the share of households reporting that jobs are "plentiful" versus "hard to get" in the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence survey, and the share of small businesses reporting difficulty in finding suitably qualified workers in the NFIB survey are all at or above 2007 levels (Chart 14). In contrast to most measures of labor market slack, industrial utilization still remains quite low by historic standards (Chart 15). In fact, the Congressional Budget Office's "capacity utilization-based" estimate of the output gap stands at around 3% of GDP, whereas its "unemployment-based" estimate is close to zero. Chart 13U.S. Labor Market: Not Much Slack Left Chart 14Most U.S. Labor Market Measures ##br## Are Back To Pre-Recession Levels Chart 15U.S.: Industrial Capacity Utilization Remains Low A strong dollar, as well as the ongoing decline of the U.S. manufacturing base, partly explain the low level of industrial utilization. However, another important reason bears noting: Years of depressed real wage growth has made labor scarce compared with capital. The free market solution to this problem is higher wages for workers. Good news for Main Street; but perhaps not so good news for Wall Street. Stagflation Is Coming, Just Not Yet While inflation will creep higher in 2017, a major spike is unlikely over the next two years. There are two main reasons for this. First, if the economy does run into severe capacity constraints, the Fed will have to step up the pace of rate hikes. Higher interest rates will push up the value of the dollar, curbing growth and inflation. Second, the historic evidence suggests that it takes a while for an overheated economy to generate meaningfully higher inflation. Consider how inflation evolved during the 1960s. U.S. inflation did not reach 4% until mid-1968. By that time, the output gap had been positive for five years, hitting a whopping 6% of GDP in 1966 due to rising military expenditures on the Vietnam War and social spending on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs (Chart 16). The relationship between economic slack and inflation is depicted by the so-called Phillips curve. As one would intuitively expect, inflation tends to rise when slack diminishes. However, this correlation has weakened over the past few decades (Chart 17). For example, U.S. core inflation declined only modestly during the Great Recession, and has been slow to bounce back, even as the output gap has shrunk. Chart 16It Can Take A While For Inflation To Rise In Response To An Overheated Economy Chart 17The Phillips Curve Has Flattened The adoption of inflation targeting, coupled with more transparent Fed communication, has helped anchor inflation expectations. This has flattened the Phillips curve. A flatter Phillips curve implies a lower "sacrifice ratio." This means that the Fed could let the economy overheat without putting undue upward pressure on inflation. Going forward, the temptation to exploit the flatness of the Phillips curve may be too great to resist. While the Fed would have reservations about pursuing such a strategy, Janet Yellen's musings about running a "high-pressure economy" suggest that she is at least willing to entertain the idea. Interest rates are still fairly low and a few more hikes are unlikely to cause much distress among corporate and household borrowers. As rates continue to climb, however, this may change, making it difficult for the Fed to further tighten monetary policy. This is especially the case if potential real GDP growth remains lackluster, as this would make it harder for borrowers to generate enough income to service their debts. Trump's budget-busting fiscal deficits may also put some pressure on the Fed to eschew raising rates too much in an effort to hold down interest costs. Even if such political pressures do not materialize, the challenges posed by the zero bound constraint on nominal interest rates could still justify efforts to raise the Fed's 2% inflation target. After all, if inflation were higher, this would give the Federal Reserve the ability to push down real rates further into negative territory in the event of an economic downturn. Admittedly, such a step is unlikely to be taken anytime soon. Nevertheless, given that a number of well-regarded economists - including prominent policymakers such as Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist at the IMF; San Francisco Fed President John Williams; and former Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota - have floated the idea of raising the inflation target, long-term investors should be open-minded about the possibility. The bottom line is that inflation is likely to move up slowly over the next two years, but could begin to accelerate more sharply towards the end of the decade. Japan: The End Of Deflation? Like the U.S., Japan has also entered a reflationary window. Retail sales surprised on the upside in November, rising 1.7%, against market expectations of 0.8%. Industrial production and exports continue to rebound, a trend that should persist thanks to the yen's recent depreciation (Chart 18). Stronger economic growth is causing the labor market to heat up. The Bank of Japan estimates that the "labor input gap" is now positive, meaning that the economy has run out of surplus workers (Chart 19). Reflecting this, the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has reached a 25-year high (Chart 20). Chart 18Japan: Some Positive Economic News Chart 19Japan: Labor Market Slack Has Evaporated, But Industrial Capacity Utilization Has Fallen Chart 20Japan: Sign Of Tightening Labor Market Wage growth so far has been tepid, but that should change over the next two years. The labor force expanded by 0.9% year-over-year in November - the latest month for which data are available - largely due to the continued influx of women into the labor force. Chart 21 shows that the employment-to-population ratio for Japanese prime-age women now exceeds that of the U.S. by three percentage points. As Japanese female labor participation stabilizes, overall labor force growth will turn negative, pushing up wages in the process. Chart 21Japan: Female Labor Force ##br##Participation Now Exceeds The U.S. In contrast to the Fed, the BoJ is unlikely to tighten monetary policy in response to higher inflation. As a consequence, real yields will continue to fall as inflation expectations rise further. This will lead to higher net exports via a weaker yen, as well as increased spending on interest-rate sensitive goods such as consumer durables and business equipment. Indeed, a virtuous circle could develop where an overheated labor market pushes down real rates, causing aggregate demand and inflation to rise, leading to even lower real rates. If this occurs, growth could accelerate sharply, avoiding the need for more radical measures such as "helicopter money." In short, Japan may be on the verge of escaping its deflationary trap. This is something that could have happened shortly after Prime Minister Abe assumed office, but was short-circuited by the government's lamentable decision to tighten fiscal policy by 3% of GDP between 2013 and 2015. It won't make the same mistake again. Europe: Fine... For Now The European economy grew at an above-trend pace in 2016. Real GDP in the EU is estimated to have expanded by 1.9%, compared to 1.6% in the U.S. The euro area is estimated to have grown by 1.7% - the first time that growth in the common currency bloc exceeded the U.S. since the Great Recession. Euro area growth should remain reasonably strong in 2017, as telegraphed by a number of leading economic indicators (Chart 22). Fiscal austerity has been shelved in favor of modest stimulus. The European Commission is now even advising member countries to loosen fiscal policy more than they themselves are targeting (Chart 23). Chart 22Euro Area Growth Will Remain On Solid Footing In 2017 Chart 23The European Commission Recommends Greater Fiscal Expansion Ongoing efforts to strengthen the euro area's banking system will also help. As we noted in the "Italian Bank Job," the costs of cleaning up the Italian banking system are modest compared with the size of the Italian economy.3 The failure to have done it earlier represents a massive "own goal" by the Italian and EU authorities. As banking stresses recede, the gap in economic performance between northern and southern Europe should narrow. The overall stance of monetary policy will facilitate this trend. If the ECB keeps interest rates near zero for the foreseeable future, as it almost certainly will, Germany's economy will overheat. Chart 24 shows that the German unemployment rate has fallen to a 25-year low, while wage growth is now running at twice the rate as elsewhere in the euro area. Chart 24German Labor Market Going Strong An overheated German economy will help the periphery in two important ways: First, higher wage inflation in Germany will give a competitive advantage to Club Med producers seeking to sell their goods in the euro area's biggest economy. Second, faster wage growth and stronger domestic demand in Germany will erode the country's gargantuan current account surplus of nearly 9% of GDP. This will put downward pressure on the euro, giving the periphery a further competitive boost. Of course, all this rests on the assumption that Germany accepts an overheated economy. One could objectively argue that it is in Germany's political best interest to do so, as this may be the only means by which to hold the euro area together. One could also argue that rebalancing German growth towards domestic demand, and away from its historic reliance on exports, would be in the country's long-term best interest. One might also contend that German banks would accept a few more years of low rates if this helped lower nonperforming loans across the euro area, while also paving the way for the eventual abandonment of ZIRP and NIRP. Chart 25Italy Lags Peers On Euro Support Whatever the merits of these arguments, they clash with Germany's historical antipathy towards inflation. This means that political risk could escalate over the coming years. Against the backdrop of growing anti-establishment sentiment - fueled in no small measure by the EU's deer-in-the-headlights response to the migration crisis - Europe's populist parties will continue to make gains at the polls. Timing is important, however. With unemployment trending lower, our hunch is that any truly disruptive populist shock may have to wait until the next recession, which is likely still a few years away. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team holds a strong conviction view that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the eurosceptic National Front, will be defeated in the second round of the presidential election in May. They also think that Angela Merkel will cling to power, partly because Germany still lacks an effective anti-establishment opposition party. Italy is more of a concern, given that support for the common currency among Italians has been falling and is now lower than virtually anywhere else in the euro area (Chart 25). Nevertheless, our geopolitical strategists assign very low odds to Italy following Britain's example and voting to leave the EU. Indeed, it is still not even clear that the U.K. will actually follow through and exit the EU. Brussels is likely to play hardball with the U.K. during the negotiations slated to begin in March. EU officials are keen to send a clear warning to other EU members who may be tempted to leave the club. It is still quite possible that another referendum will be held in one or two years concerning the terms of the negotiated agreement that would govern Britain's future relationship with the EU. Given how close the first referendum was, there is a reasonable chance that U.K. voters will choose EU membership over a bad deal. In that case, Brussels will back off from its threat that triggering Article 50 would irrevocably lead to the U.K.'s expulsion from the EU. China: Still In Need Of A Spender-Of-Last Resort Investor angst about China rose to a fever pitch early last year, but has since faded into the background. The main reason for this is that the deflationary forces which once threatened to precipitate a hard landing for the economy have abated. Growth has picked up and producer price inflation has risen from -5.3% in early 2016 to 3.3% in November (Chart 26). As our China strategists have argued, the end of PPI deflation is a major positive development for the Chinese corporate sector, as it improves its pricing power while reducing its real cost of funding (Chart 27). Real bank lending rates deflated by the PPI rose to near-record highs early last year, but have since tumbled by a whopping 10 percentage points - largely due to easing deflation. This has bestowed dramatic relief on some highly-levered, asset-heavy industries. These industries were the biggest casualties of the growth slowdown and posed material risks to the banking sector due to their high debt levels. In this vein, rising PPI and easing financial stress among these firms also bode well for banks. Chart 26China: Improving Growth Momentum Chart 27China: Real Interest Rates Dropping ##br## Thanks To Easing Deflation Unfortunately, the reflationary forces in China are masking deep underlying problems. Structural reform has been patchy at best; credit continues to expand much faster than GDP; and speculation in the real estate sector is rampant (Chart 28). Meanwhile, capital continues to flow out of the country, taking the PBOC's foreign exchange reserves down from a high of $4 trillion in June 2014 to $3.1 trillion at present. There are no easy solutions to these problems. Tightening monetary policy could help fend off capital flight, but this would hurt growth and potentially plunge the economy back into deflation. This week's spike in interbank rates is evidence of just how sensitive the economy has become to any withdrawal of monetary accommodation (Chart 29). Chart 28China: Credit Continues Expanding And The##br## Real Estate Sector Is Getting Frothy Chart 29China: Yet Another Spike In Interbank Rates As we controversially argued in "China Needs More Debt," China's underlying problem is a chronic excess of savings.4 This has kept aggregate demand below the level commensurate with the economy's productive capacity. In the past, China was able to export some of those excess savings abroad via a large current account surplus, which peaked at 10% of GDP in 2007 (Chart 30). However, China is now too large to export its way out of its problems. It was one thing for China to run a current account surplus of 10% of GDP when its economy represented 6% of global GDP. It is quite another to do so when the economy represents 15% of global GDP, as it does now. This is especially the case when other economies are also keen to have cheap currencies. Faced with this reality, the government has been trying to buttress aggregate demand by funneling a huge amount of credit towards state-owned companies, which have then used these funds to finance all sorts of investment projects. The problem is that China no longer needs as much new capacity as it once did. As trend GDP growth has slowed, the level of investment necessary to maintain a constant capital-to-output ratio has fallen by about 10% of GDP over the past decade.5 China's aging population will eventually lead to a drop in savings. Government plans to strengthen the social safety net should also help this transition along by reducing household precautionary savings. However, these are long-term developments. Over the next couple of years, China will have little choice but to let credit grow at a rapid pace. The good news is that China has ample domestic savings to continue financing credit expansion. The ratio of bank loans-to-deposits remains near all-time lows (Chart 31). The government also has plenty of fiscal resources to safeguard the banks from losses on nonperforming loans extended to local governments and state-owned enterprises. Chart 30China Used To Rely On Large ##br##Current Account Surplus To Export Excess Savings Chart 31China: Banks Have Ample Deposit Coverage All that may not be enough, however. Given the risks to financial stability from excessive investment by state-owned enterprises, the government may have little choice but to cajole households into spending more by suppressing bank deposit rates while purposely engineering higher inflation. The resulting decline in real rates will reduce the incentive to save while helping to inflate away the mountain of debt that has already been accumulated. II. Financial Markets Equities Chart 32Investors Are Optimistic Deflation is bad for equities, as is stagflation. But between deflation and stagflation there is reflation - and that is good for stocks. This reflationary window should remain open for the next two years. As such, we expect global equities to be higher in 12 months than they are today. However, the risks for stocks are tilted to the downside over both a shorter-term horizon of less than two months and a longer-term horizon exceeding two years. The near-term outlook is complicated by the fact that global equities are overbought, and hence vulnerable to a selloff. Chart 32 shows that bullish sentiment is stretched to the upside. Expectations of long-term U.S. earnings growth have also jumped to over 12%, something that strikes us as rather fanciful. Renewed rumblings in China could also spook the markets for a while. We expect global equities to correct 5%-to-10% from current levels, setting the stage for a more durable recovery. Once that recovery begins, higher-beta developed markets such as Japan and Europe should outperform the U.S. As my colleague, Mark McClellan, has shown, Europe and Japan are considerably cheaper than the U.S., even after adjusting for sector skews and structural valuation differences.6 The relative stance of monetary policy also favors Europe and Japan. Neither the ECB nor the BoJ is likely to hike rates anytime soon. This means that rising inflation expectations in these two economies will push down real rates, weakening their currencies in the process. Emerging markets are a tougher call. The combination of a strengthening dollar, growing protectionist sentiment in the developed world, and high debt levels are all bad news for emerging markets. EM equity valuations are also not especially cheap by historic standards (Chart 33). Nevertheless, a reflationary environment has typically been positive for EM equities. The tight correlation between EM and global cyclical stocks has broken down over the past three months (Chart 34). We suspect the relationship will reassert itself again over the course of 2017, giving EM stocks a bit of a boost. Chart 33EM Stocks Are Not Particularly Cheap Chart 34EM Stocks Are Lagging On balance, EM equities are likely in a bottoming phase where returns over the next 12 months will be positive but not spectacular. BCA's favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand, and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil, and Peru. Turning to global equity sectors, a bias towards cyclical names is appropriate in an environment of rising global growth. Longer term, our equity sector specialists like health care and technology names. The outlook for financial stocks remains a key area of debate within BCA. Most of my colleagues would still avoid banks. I am more partial to the sector. As I argued in September in "Three Controversial Calls: Global Banks Finally Outperform," steeper yield curves will boost net interest margins over the next few years while rising demand for credit will support top-line growth (Chart 35). On a price-to-earnings basis, global banks are quite cheap, despite being much better capitalized than they were in the past (Chart 36). Chart 35AHigher Yields Will Benefit Banks Chart 35BHigher Yields Will Benefit Banks Lastly, in terms of size exposure, we prefer small caps over large caps. Small capitalization stocks tend to do better in reflationary environments (Chart 37). The ongoing retreat from globalization will also benefit smaller domestically-focused firms at the expense of those with large global footprints. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new Trump administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Chart 36Global Banks Are Cheap ##br##And Better Capitalized Since The Crisis Chart 37Reflationary Backdrop ##br##Favors Small Caps Outperformance Fixed Income And Credit Back in March 2015, we predicted that the 10-year Treasury yield would fall to 1.5% even if the U.S. economy avoided a recession.7 The call was notably out of consensus at the time, but proved to be correct: The 10-year yield reached a record closing low of 1.37% on July 5th. As luck would have it, on that very same day, we sent out a note entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," advising clients to position for higher bond yields. Global bonds have sold off sharply since then, with the selloff intensifying after the U.S. presidential election. As discussed above, inflation in the U.S. and elsewhere will be slow to rise over the next two years. Hence, global bond yields are unlikely to move significantly higher from current levels. Indeed, the near-term path for yields is to the downside if our expectation of a global equity correction proves true. However, once the stagflationary forces described in this report begin to gather steam towards the end of the decade, bond yields could spike higher, imposing significant pain on fixed-income and equity investors alike. Regionally, we favor Japanese and euro area bonds relative to their U.S. counterparts over a 12-month horizon. Inflation in both Japan and the euro area remains well below target, suggesting that neither the BoJ nor the ECB will tighten monetary policy anytime soon. In contrast, the Fed is likely to raise rates three times in 2017, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. In addition, we would underweight U.K. gilts. While U.K. growth will decelerate next year as uncertainty over the Brexit negotiations takes its toll, a weaker pound and some fiscal loosening will keep the economy from flying off the rails. In this light, the market's expectations that U.K. rates will rise to only 0.66% at end-2019 seems too pessimistic. Elsewhere in the developed world, our global fixed-income strategists are neutral on Canada and New Zealand bonds, but are underweight Australia. A modest underweight to EM government bonds is also warranted. Turning to credit, a reflationary backdrop is positive for spread product insofar as it will keep defaults in check, while also propping up the appetite for riskier assets. That said, U.S. high-yield credit is now quite expensive based on our fundamental models (Chart 38). Private-sector leverage remains at elevated levels and our Corporate Health Monitor is still in deteriorating territory (Chart 39). Rising government yields could also prompt yield-hungry investors to move some of their money back into sovereign debt. On balance, U.S. corporate spreads are likely to narrow slightly this year, but corporate credit will still underperform equities. Regionally, we see more upside in European credit, given the ECB's continued bond-buying program and greater scope for corporate profit margins to rise across the region. Chart 38U.S. High-Yield Valuations Chart 39U.S. Corporate Health Keeps Deteriorating Currencies And Commodities BCA's Global Investment Strategy service has been bullish on the dollar since October 2014, a view that has generated a gain of nearly 17% for our long DXY trade recommendation. We reiterated this position last October in a note entitled "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen,"8 where we predicted that the dollar would rally a further 10%. Since that report was published, the real trade-weighted dollar has gained 4%, implying another 6% of upside from current levels. Chart 40Real Rate Differentials Are Driving Up The Dollar Both economic and political forces have conspired to keep the dollar well bid. The resurgent U.S. economy has pushed up real rate expectations in the U.S. relative to its trading partners. Chart 40 shows the amazingly strong correlation between the trade-weighted dollar and real interest rate differentials. Rate differentials should widen further over the coming months as investors price in more Fed rate hikes, and rising inflation expectations abroad push down real rates in economies such as Japan and the euro area. As we predicted in "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar" and "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Wins And The Dollar Rallies," Donald Trump's triumph on November 8th has given the greenback an additional boost. Progress in implementing any of Trump's three signature policy proposals - fiscal stimulus, trade protectionism, and immigration restrictions - will cause the U.S. output gap to narrow more quickly than it otherwise would, forcing the Fed to pick up the pace of rate hikes. Chart 41The Pound Is A Bargain The adoption of a "destination-based tax system" would further strengthen the dollar. Under the existing corporate tax structure, taxes are assessed on corporate profits regardless of where they are derived. In contrast, under a destination-based system, taxes would be assessed only on the difference between domestic sales and domestic costs. In practice, this means that imports would be subject to taxes, while exports would receive a tax rebate. In the simplest economic models, the imposition of a destination-based tax has no effect on domestic economic activity, inflation, or the distribution of corporate profits across the various sectors of the economy. This is because the dollar is assumed to appreciate by precisely enough to keep net exports unchanged. For that to happen, however, the requisite change in the currency needs to be quite large. For example, if the Trump administration succeeds in bringing down effective corporate tax rates to 20%, the required appreciation would be 1/(1-tax rate)=25%. Under current law, the required appreciation would be over 30%! In reality, the dollar probably would not adjust that quickly, implying that the transition period to a destination-based tax system would disproportionately benefit exporters at the expense of importers. Partly for this reason, the proposal will probably be heavily watered down if it is ever passed. Nevertheless, overall U.S. policy will continue to be biased towards a stronger dollar. Looking at the various dollar crosses, we still see more downside for the yen. The BoJ's policy of pegging the 10-year nominal yield will result in ever-lower real yields as Japanese inflation expectations rise. The euro should also continue to drift lower, most likely reaching parity against the dollar later this year. The pound could dip further if an impasse is reached during Brexit negotiations, as is likely at some point this year. That said, sterling is now very cheap, which limits the downside for the currency (Chart 41). Chart 42The Dollar Has Weighed On Gold The Chinese yuan will continue to grind lower, in line with most other EM currencies. As we discussed in March 2015 in a report entitled "A Weaker RMB Ahead," China's excess savings problem necessitates a weaker currency. The real trade-weighted RMB has fallen by 7% since that report was written, but a bottom for the currency remains elusive.9 As noted above, the Chinese government may have no choice but to boost household spending by suppressing deposit rates while working to engineer higher inflation. Negative real borrowing rates will keep capital flowing out of the country, putting downward pressure on the yuan. The overall direction of the Canadian and Aussie dollars will be dictated by the path of commodity prices. A reflationary environment tends to be bullish for commodities. Nevertheless, an uncertain macro outlook in China muddies the waters. We prefer oil over metals, given that the former is more geared towards growth in developed economies while the latter is heavily dependent on Chinese demand. This also makes the Canadian dollar a more attractive currency than the Aussie dollar. Lastly, a few words on gold: The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations, and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar. The strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining gold prices in the second half of 2016 (Chart 42). On balance, we would maintain a modest position in gold for the time being, but would look to increase exposure later this year as the dollar peaks. Peter Berezin Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 John G. Fernald, "Productivity and Potential Output Before, During, and After the Great Recession," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Working Paper 2014-15, (June 2014), and John G. Fernald, "The Pre-Great Recession Slowdown in U.S. Productivity Growth," (November 16, 2015). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Italian Bank Job," dated July 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China Needs More Debt," dated May 20, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Back in 2007, trend growth was around 10%. Consistent with the empirical literature, let us assume that an appropriate capital-to-GDP ratio is 250% and that the capital stock depreciates at 5% a year. With a trend growth of 10%, China needs 2.5*10%=25% of GDP in new investment before depreciation to keep its capital-to-GDP ratio constant, and an additional 2.5*5%=12.5% of GDP in investment to cover depreciation, for a grand total of 37.5% of GDP in required investment. With a trend GDP growth rate of 6%, however, the required investment-to-GDP ratio would only be 2.5*6%+2.5*5%=27.5%. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Reports Section 2, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really That Cheap?" dated June 30, 2016, and "Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap?" dated November 24, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Structural Reasons For A Lower Neutral Rate In The U.S.," dated March 13, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Weaker RMB Ahead," dated March 06, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The tactical environment is dynamic, chaotic and unpredictable. ...Chaos also brings opportunity. We must recognize and exploit opportunities when chance presents them. Look for recurring patterns to exploit.1 Feature Highlights Strategically, major commodity markets are balanced with the exception of ags, where we remain underweight on the back of record grain harvests and high stock-to-use ratios. Otherwise, broad exposure to the asset class is warranted. However, within the larger investment context, we believe tactical positioning once again will produce higher returns than strategic index exposure to commodities. Chart of the WeekTactical Positioning ##br##Rewarded In Oil Markets Supply-driven price volatility and erratic monetary policy presented commodity markets strategic and tactical opportunities in 2016, particularly in oil, where our recommendations returned an average of 95% (Chart of the Week). We remain overweight oil, expecting continued opportunities from volatile markets. Going forward, the contribution of demand-side risk to price volatility will increase. This will be evident in iron ore, steel and base metals, where the opacity of China's fiscal and monetary policy - especially re heavily indebted state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the banks that support them - in the lead-up to the Communist Party's Congress abounds. Continued adjustments by the U.S. Fed to random-walking data will again contribute to volatility, particularly in oil and gold markets. A stronger dollar resulting from continued Fed tightening will hit U.S. ag exports, and benefit competitors such as Argentina and the EU. However, uncertainty re the Trump administration's fiscal and trade policies could keep the Fed looser for longer, particularly if border-adjusted taxation favoring exports over imports is realized. Geopolitics - particularly vis-à-vis U.S. and China trade and military policy - will become more important if America tilts toward dirigisme, i.e., actively managing its economy by adjusting taxation and policy to support favored industries. Governments typically allocate resources inefficiently, which distorts fundamentals. If border-adjusted taxation becomes law in the U.S. we will look to get long volatility across commodity markets: Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand for commodities generally and lift supply by lowering local costs. This would run smack into higher U.S. inflation arising from the increasing cost of imported goods. This is a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Russia lurks in the background: U.S. sanctions in the wake of alleged interference in American presidential elections, and Russia's response, will keep oil markets on edge. 2017 Weightings Energy: Overweight. The OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to limit production could evolve into a durable modus operandi for managing oil supply. Markets will judge the pact effective if tanker chartering out of the Persian Gulf falls, and global inventories draw by mid- to end-February. Base Metals: Neutral. Bulks and base metals prices will remain rangebound, until greater clarity on China's fiscal and monetary policy emerges. Fiscal stimulus in the U.S. will have a marginal effect on demand toward year-end. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will remain sensitive to shifts in U.S. fiscal and monetary policy expectations. The possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. Should it pass, the Fed could be forced to keep interest rates lower for longer to offset the massive tightening in financial conditions such a tax would impose. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We see limited downside for grains, despite record harvests. We favor wheat and rice over corn and beans. A stronger USD will be bearish for grain exports. Feature Commodities as an asset class remain attractive. However, constantly changing information flows affecting these markets compel us once again to favor tactical positioning over a broad strategic exposure to the asset class. Fundamentals - supply, demand, inventories - and financial variables remain in a state of flux. In the oil market, the durability of the OPEC-Russia co-operation pact to reduce oil production will be tested, following a year-end surge in global production. Markets will closely follow shipping activity - particularly out of the Persian Gulf - and global oil inventory levels for signs the production cuts engineered late last year by OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC producers, led by Russia, are taking hold. Uncertainty regarding the incoming Trump administration's tax and trade policies - and responses from states targeted by such policies (e.g., China and Mexico) - will keep decisions affecting supply and demand fluid. The incoming Trump administration's trade policies could alter global oil flows: e.g., a re-working of NAFTA that reduces U.S. refined-product exports to Latin America would result in lower demand for crude at American refineries, and present an opening to Chinese refiners. In addition, as mentioned above, legislation authorizing border-adjusted taxes favoring exports and penalizing imports likely will be taken up this year in the U.S. Congress. If we did see tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports, we believe it would prompt a USD rally via reducing America's current account deficit. This would, all else equal, send commodity prices sharply lower, as EM commodity demand will contract, owing to higher USD prices for commodities, and production ex U.S. will increase, due to lower local costs. That said, border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. also would increase the price of imports, and lift realized and expected inflation. How this plays out is highly uncertain at present. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session. If it passes, it would have major implications for pricing relationships globally - chiefly WTI vs. Brent, and Brent vs. Dubai crudes, along with product differentials that drive shipping economics. If such a bill looks like it will pass, we expect a sharp increase in commodity-price volatility globally. If the odds do favor such a tax regime shift, we would look to get long WTI and short Brent further out the curve, expecting higher U.S. exports and lower imports. In addition, we would look to get long gold volatility - buying puts and calls - as policy uncertainty effects resolve themselves. Heightened Uncertainty Means Tactical Positioning Once Again Trumps Passive Commodities Allocation The primacy of tactical positioning was demonstrated in 2016 in the oil market, when strategic positions quickly became tactical, either because they were stopped out or reached their P&L targets quicker than expected. Supply destruction dominated price formation last year, following OPEC's decision to abandon its strategy to support prices via production management in November 2014. This destruction occurred mostly in non-Gulf OPEC, which was down 7.0% yoy in 2016 (Chart 2), and non-OPEC producers, particularly the U.S. shale-oil fields, where yoy production was down 12.0% by year-end 2016 (Chart 3). Chart 2Low Prices Crushed Non-Gulf Production... Chart 3...And U.S. Production Even in states where production increased - chiefly KSA and Russia (Chart 4) - domestic finances crumbled, leaving them in dire straits. By our estimates, between July 2014, just prior to its decision to launch OPEC's market-share war, and December 2016, KSA had burned through $220 billion of it foreign reserves, equivalent to 30% of its central-bank holdings. Russia had drawn down its official reserves by $77 billion over the same period, or 16% of its holdings; its burn rate was reduced by allowing its currency to depreciate, which lowered the local cost of producing oil and boosted profitability of exports priced in USD. This was the background that forced OPEC, led by KSA, and non-OPEC, led by Russia, to negotiate the year-end pact that resulted in an agreement to cut production by up to 1.8 mm b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 mm from OPEC, 300k b/d from Russia, and another 300 from other non-OPEC producers. The goal of this agreement is to reduce global oil inventories to more normal levels (Chart 5). Chart 4KSA, Russia Production Ramp ##br##Exacerbated Price Weakness Chart 5KSA-Russia Production Pact Aimed ##br##At Lowering Inventories Throughout 2016, as the supply-destruction drama was unfolding, numerous opportunities opened up to investors to fade market overshoots, brought about by over-reactions to fast-moving news flows. Unrestrained output by OPEC and non-OPEC producers strained oil-storage facilities early in the year, taking markets to the brink of breaking down entirely. Unexpected shifts in U.S. monetary policy - driven by random-walking data - also contributed to oil price volatility and opened numerous trading opportunities. Markets essentially ignored the cumulating right-tail price risks last year, following the supply destruction wrought by OPEC's declaration of a market-share war, and Russian overtures to OPEC seeking a production-allocation dialogue, which were very much in evidence in January 2016. The continual OPEC-Russia dialogue, which appeared to be bearing fruit in Doha before it was scuppered by KSA at the last minute in April, was the underlying geopolitical driver last year, and kept the odds of a production deal elevated. Based on our modeling, the supply surge following OPEC's decision made getting long contingent upside price exposure extremely compelling, particularly as it imperiled the finances of all oil producers - rich and poor, but mostly the poorer states like Venezuela and Nigeria. Our reasoning was lower prices would accelerate rebalancing of global markets and raise the odds of a major supply disruption at one of these failing states.2 Our modeling consistently indicated global oil markets would rebalance in 2016H2.3 Ultimately, this is how things played out, aided in no small measure by mid-year wildfires in Canada, which temporarily removed move than 1mm b/d from global markets, and sabotage of pipelines and loading facilities in Nigeria. Even with that, markets remained under pressure as Canadian barrels returned, and foreign reserves in KSA and Russia were rapidly depleted. These fundamentals, along with constantly changing Fed guidance, provided numerous opportunities to exploit recurring patterns thrown up by chance, as is evident in the returns on recommendations we made - averaging 95.1% last year - that naturally followed from our analysis (Table 1). Our favored exposure was getting long contingent exposure (i.e., options), using deferred call spreads in WTI and Brent, given our assessment the odds of higher prices exceeded the market's. Later in the year, following the OPEC-Russia pact, we got long a front-to-back crude oil spread (Dec/17 WTI vs. Dec/18 WTI) expecting the goal of the deal - reducing global inventories - stood a good chance of being realized. We got lucky putting the trade on as the market was correcting, but just ahead of the statement by KSA's oil minister that the Kingdom would do "whatever it takes" to make the deal work. This transformed a strategic position - one we expected to hold for months - into a one-week exposure that returned 493% (Table 1). Table 1Energy Trades Closed In 2016 In order to obtain a more detailed assessment of our energy portfolio's performance, we built an information ratio (IR) to evaluate how our energy recommendations performed compared to a selected benchmark, the S&P GS Commodity Index (GSCI). Essentially, our IR is used to assess whether an active portfolio has outperformed the selected benchmark in a consistent manner during the period of analysis, given the risk it incurred. To that end, our ratio looks at the average excess return of the active portfolio against the benchmark. This average excess return is then divided by its standard deviation (also referred to as the tracking error volatility) in order to get a risk-adjusted metric to evaluate whether the risk we took were compensated by the returns we generated. Our IR thus is calculated as: Formula The higher the IR, the better the risk-adjusted relative performance of the portfolio. Three elements can explain a high IR: high returns in the portfolio, low returns in the benchmark, or low tracking error volatility. Hence, this measure helps analyzing the notion of risk-reward tradeoff; it tells us whether or not the risk assumed in our trades was compensated by larger returns. In our case, to get the risk-adjusted returns of the energy portfolio, we selected the GSCI as a benchmark, as it is heavily skewed towards Energy commodities (around 60% of its composition). We believe this is a plausible benchmark alternative to our energy trade recommendations for an investor, whose choice is passive index exposure with a significant energy weighting. Our portfolio's average return in 2016 was 95%, while the GSCI return was 11%. The tracking error volatility was 56%.4 Using these inputs, we calculated the IR of our recommendations was 1.47. This is an excellent risk-adjusted return, and indicates the high volatility of our returns was more than compensated for by consistent positive excess returns our recommendations generated relative to passive GSCI exposure, which also can be used as a benchmark for energy-heavy commodity index exposure (i.e., "commodity beta"). Remain Overweight Oil We expect the combination of production cuts and natural declines will remove enough production from the market this year to restore global oil stocks to five-year average levels toward the end of 2017Q2 or early Q3 (Chart 5), even with cheating by OPEC and non-OPEC producers capable of increasing production. As a result, in 2017, we expect the OPEC-Russia deal to result in inventory draws of ~ 10% by 2017Q3. On the demand side, we continue to expect global growth of ~ 1.3 to 1.5mm b/d. Given these expectations, we expect U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl, up $5 from our 2016 forecast, on the back of the end-year OPEC-Russia pact. We are moving the bottom of the range in which we expect WTI prices to trade most of the time to $45/bbl and keeping the upside at $65/bbl. Markets already are pricing in a normalization of global inventories by year end (Chart 6 and Chart 7). We will look for opportunities to re-establish our long front-to-back positions, expecting the backwardation further out the curve will steepen. Chart 6Backwardation Steepening Near Term... Chart 7...And Further Out the Curve Further out the curve - i.e., mid-2018 and beyond - our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry for projects expected between 2015 - 2020 will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers, chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia. It will be difficult to offset natural decline-curve losses - which will increase as U.S. shales account for a larger share of global supply - and meet increasing demand. As we've often noted, any indication U.S. shales or conventional supplies (Gulf states and Russian production) will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand and replace natural declines could spike prices further out the curve. We expect U.S. oil exports to increase this year, which means the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, will increasingly price to move WTI into global markets. We expect U.S. WTI exports to increase from an average ~ 500k b/d, which should keep the price differential roughly around +$1.50/bbl differential (Brent over) for 2017. If we see border-adjusted taxation laws take effect, we would look to get long WTI vs. short Brent, and long U.S. products (e.g., U.S. Gulf gasoline and distillate exposure) vs. short Brent exposure. Remain Neutral Bulks, Base Metals Over in the bulks and base metals markets, a full-fledged iron-ore market-share war at the beginning of last year threatened to take prices to $30/ton. Then, seemingly out of the blue, an unexpected pivot by Chinese policymakers toward stimulating the "old economy" caught many bulks and base-metals traders and analysts - ourselves included - flat-footed. Powerful rallies in iron ore, steel and base metals early in the year on Chinese exchanges were dismissed as irrational exuberance on the part of retail investors. But, at the end of the day, these market participants were responsible for well-informed price signals that fully reflected low inventories and surging demand.5 The -0.5% average return in our bulks and base metals recommendations last year attests to how difficult we found these markets to read and anticipate (Table 2). Table 2Base Metals Trades Closed In 2016 As always, the evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced to slightly oversupplied globally and in China. Production globally and in China is growing yoy, while consumption shows signs of slowing. (Chart 8 and Chart 9). Chart 8World Base Metals Consumption Slowing,##br## Relative to Production... Chart 9...As Is ##br##China's Uncertainty re the direction of China's fiscal and monetary policy - chiefly, whether policymakers will, once again, resort to stimulating the "old economy" - will keep us broadly neutral bulks and base metals until we get further clarity on the direction of policy. We expect the monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. Odds favor "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, but we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. The fate of border-adjusted taxation in the U.S. Congress is critically important to bulk and base-metals markets, since it would encourage exports and discourage imports (along with raising their prices). Tax policy favouring U.S. exports over imports likely would prompt a USD rally, which would send commodity prices generally sharply lower. It would boost U.S. steel production and base metals exports, while raising the cost of imports. A border-adjusted tax bill likely will be taken up in the current session of Congress. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector will eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. Manufacturing will play a larger role in copper markets, and will drive the demand side this year. However, if we see a stronger USD - either as a result of Fed policy or U.S. fiscal policy - price appreciation will be limited. We remain neutral copper, expecting a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in China. Reflationary policies will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. The supply deficit in nickel will widen on the back of rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017, which will support prices. We expect nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. Aluminum supply - for the moment - will lag demand globally, which keeps us tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. Stay Neutral Precious Metals Precious metals, gold in particular, staged an impressive rally on the back of unexpected easing by the U.S. Fed in response to weaker-than-expected sub-1% GDP growth in 1Q16 GDP. Markets had been pricing in as many as four interest-rate hikes earlier in the year into short-term expectations, which were quickly dashed. Markets lowered their expectations for multiple rate hikes last year, which weakened the USD and U.S. real rates, setting the stage for the gold rally. Nonetheless, gold proved a difficult commodity to trade last year, as our results indicate - the average return on our precious metals recommendations amounted to a paltry -0.65% (Table 3). For the near term - i.e., until greater clarity on Fed policy and the incoming Trump administration's fiscal policy direction becomes clear - we remain neutral precious metals, and will avoid taking any further exposure other than perhaps getting long gold volatility - i.e., buying puts and calls in the gold market - if the odds of border-adjusted taxation legislation passing increase. Such legislation likely would rally the USD, which would lower global demand and increase supply ex U.S. at the margin for commodities generally, oil and base metals in particular. This would be deflationary, given the high correlations between oil and base metals consumption and U.S. inflation (Chart 10).6 However, such a taxation scheme also would raise U.S. inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, sending the U.S. core PCE, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, higher. The global disinflationary impulse from a stronger USD would run headlong into higher U.S. inflation, which would be a recipe for heightened uncertainty and price volatility. Table 3Precious Metals Trades ##br##Closed In 2016 Chart 10Risk of Deflation Will Rise If Border-Adjusted ##br##Taxes Prove Deflationary This will complicate U.S. monetary policy. We believe the Fed also will be waiting on such direction, and that interest-rate policy will, therefore, remain pretty much be on hold, keeping precious metals - gold, in particular - rangebound. For the moment, the possibility of border-adjusted taxes in the U.S. will hang like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the gold market. We are taking profits on the tactical long gold position we opened December 15, 2016, as of today's close. Remain Underweight AGS Lastly, Ag markets provided us no joy, as the El Nino wreaked havoc on our recommendations. Our average -1.0% return for the year amply demonstrates the difficulty of trading markets so heavily influenced by weather (Table 4). Going into 2017, we believe there is a limited downside for grains. The downtrend since August 2012 like forms a bottom this year, if, as we are modeling, we see a return to normal weather conditions. That said, the principal upside risk remains unfavorable weather in major grain-producing countries, which could send badly battered grain prices surging as they did in 2016H1. Among grains, we favor wheat and rice over corn and soybeans. Global soybean acreage is likely to expand as the crop provides higher returns than other grains. South American corn output will continue rising on favorable policies and weak currencies, adding further pressure to already-high U.S. corn inventories, in particular, and global inventories globally (Chart 11). Table 4AGS Trades Closed In 2016 Chart 11Global Grain Inventories Remain High Softs - cotton and sugar - likely will underperform grains in 2017, reversing their outperformance this year. We are tactically bearish cotton, as U.S. cotton acreage is likely to increase next spring. Strategically, we are neutral cotton. For the global sugar market, barring extremely unfavorable weather, we are tactically and strategically bearish. This year's extreme rally in prices may result in a small supply surplus in 2017. Our Ag strategies will continue to focus on relative-value investments. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodities & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Belanger, Research Assistant hugob@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Tactics Cliff Notes; A Synopsis of MCDP 1-3 Tactics," published by the United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Warfighting Lab, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. 10 May 1998 (pp. 2, 3. sf). 2 In our January 7, 2016, publication we noted investors were ignoring growing upside price risk and suggested they get long a Dec/16 $50/$55 WTI call spread to gain exposure to higher volatility. We also recommended remaining long Dec/16 and Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent following passage of legislation to allow U.S. crude exports. We ultimately took profits on these recommendations of 172% on the call spread in June, and 97% on the Dec/16 WTI vs. Brent spread in June, and 88% on the Dec/17 WTI vs. Brent spread in July, respectively (Table 1). Please see "Oil Market Ignores Right-Tail Saudi Risks" in the January 7, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, which is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 In our January 21, 2016, Commodity & Energy Strategy article entitled "Global Oil Sell-off Will Accelerate Rebalancing," we noted, "We expect oil markets to rebalance by late 2016Q3 or early Q4. We remain long Dec/16 $50 calls vs. $55 calls, in anticipation of rebalancing and as a hedge against geopolitical risk." 4 Note: In order to find the standard deviation of the portfolio's excess returns (tracking error volatility), we averaged the daily percentage change in each trade's underlying assets. Any given trade only weighed in the daily average return if it was open during that day of the year. We are not accounting for the type of trades (spreads, pairs or single trades), we only track the underlying asset returns. From these daily average returns we subtracted the daily return of the preferred benchmark to obtain the daily excess return. Using this, we computed an historical standard deviation (based on 20-day periods) for every day during which a trade was open in our portfolio (we had 203 days with at least one energy trade opened). Lastly, we annualized this standard deviation to obtain our tracking error volatility. 5 Please see "Dead-Cat Bounces Notwithstanding, Iron Ore Will Trade Lower" in the January 21, 2016 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy, and "Fade The Copper Rally" in the February 25, 2016 issue. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 In earlier research, we've shown U.S. core PCE inflation is highly correlated with EM oil and base metals demand. Please see "2017 Commodity Outlook: Precious Metals" published December 15, 2016. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017
GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of December 30, 2016. The model has boosted its overweight in the Euro Area, especially in Italy, Spain and Netherland, financed mainly by a slight reduction in the large overweight in the U.S. Japan's underweight is back to the largest again, followed by the U.K. (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the non-U.S. model (Level 2) outperformed its benchmark by 206 bps in December, thanks to the overweight in Euro Area. The large overweight in the U.S. caused the Level 1 model to underperform by 27 bps. Overall, the GAA model outperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 15 bps in December. Since Inception, the GAA model outperformed its benchmark by 26 bps. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model". http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of December 30, 2016. Table 3AllocationsTable 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance The momentum component has shifted Info Tech from overweight to underweight. The valuation component indicated that Consumer Staples is no longer expensive. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com
The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In December, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P in USD and local-currency terms. For January, the model increased its allocation to stocks and reduced its allocation to bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, the weighting to euro area stocks was increased. The model boosted its allocation to Canadian and Swedish bonds at the expense of other European markets. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in December, as did the bond risk index. Feature Performance In December, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 2.1% in local-currency terms and 0.8% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 2.9% for the global equity benchmark and a 3.4% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we provide other suggestions on currency risk exposure from time to time. The continued bonds selloff was a drag on the model's performance in December. Chart 1Model Weights Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Weights The model increased its allocation to stocks from 53% to 57%, and trimmed its bond weighting from 47% to 43% (Table 1). The model boosted its equity allocation to Spain by 3 points, Germany by 2 points, Italy by 1 point, Japan by 1 point and France by 1 point. Meanwhile, weightings were reduced in Sweden by 3 points and New Zealand by 1 point. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Canadian paper was boosted by 5 points, Sweden by 3 points, New Zealand by 2 points. The allocation to Italian bonds was reduced by 6 points, France by 4 points, U.K. by 3 points, and U.S. Treasurys by 1 point. Table 1Model Weights (As Of December 22, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar's attempt at consolidating its gains was cut short by the hawkish Fed. As a result, our Dollar Capitulation Index is back to levels that indicate the rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar could pause. However, unless the new administration pours cold water on expectations of a major fiscal boost, monetary policy divergence will underpin the dollar bull market (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The risk index for commodities improved slightly reflecting a better reading from the momentum indicator. However, this asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 4). The risk index for global equities remains at the highest level in over two years. Despite this, our model slightly increased its allocation in equities following four consecutive months of reductions (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The deterioration in the value and liquidity indicators for U.S. stocks was offset by some improvement in the momentum reading. As a result, the risk index for U.S. stocks was flat in December (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities increased in December and is now at neutral levels. However, even after the latest increase, the risk index for euro area stocks is noticeably lower than the U.S. measure (Chart 7). Positive growth momentum and a weaker currency could provide support for the euro area equities. Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk The model slightly increased its allocation to German equities despite the deterioration in the risk index (Chart 8). Unlike most of the equity risk indexes in the model's universe, the one for Emerging Asian stocks improved in December. The model kept its allocation to this asset unchanged (Chart 9). Chart 8German Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Emerging Asian Stock Market And Risk The risk index for bonds deteriorated in December, but remains at a historically low-risk level reflecting oversold readings from the momentum indicator. The model has trimmed its allocation to bonds a touch (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys was little changed in December. Despite its very low risk reading, the model is adding allocation to bond markets that feature more oversold conditions. (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk Canadian bonds remain massively oversold based on our momentum measure, and the overall risk index is at extremely low-risk levels. The model boosted its allocation to this asset (Chart 12). With oversold conditions unwinding and the cyclical indicator moving in a more bond-negative direction, the overall risk index for Italian bonds has shifted back to neutral levels. The model has excluded this asset class from its allocation (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13Italian Bond Yields and Risk U.K. bonds remain deeply in low-risk territory, despite a small deterioration in its risk index. The oversold reading in the momentum measure is completely overshadowing the negative signal from the cyclical indicator. Allocation to gilts remains one of the highest in the bond universe, even after the model trimmed its exposure to this market (Chart 14). The risk index for Swedish bonds fell once again in December reflecting improved readings in all of its components. Extremely oversold conditions dominate the overall risk index and suggest that a pullback in yields is overdue. The model boosted its allocation to Swedish paper. (Chart 15). Chart 14U.K. Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swedish Bond Yields And Risk Currency Technicals The 13-week momentum measure indicates that the dollar's ascent could face near-term resistance. However, the continued recovery in the 40-week rate of change measure suggests that the dollar bull market has more upside. The latest round of central bank meetings reinforces the monetary divergence between the Fed on one side, and the ECB and BoJ on the other (Chart 16). With the prospect of the Bank of Canada staying put, while its southern peer gradually raises rates, the rate differential should exert downward pressure on the CAD/USD. Technically, the breakdown of the longer-term rate-of-change measure is pointing in that direction. In addition, the short-term rate of change metric is not stretched. However, the risk to this view is that the headwinds for the loonie arising from monetary policy divergences can be mitigated by higher oil prices (Chart 17). With the BoJ pegging nominal JGB yields, the differential in real rates is supportive of a stronger USD/JPY. This cyclical outlook for the yen is being confirmed by the 40-week rate of change measure. That said, the 13-week momentum measure is at levels that have signaled a pause in the yen weakening trend in both 2013 and 2015 (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Canadian Dollar Chart 18Yen Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com
Dear Client, This is our last report of the year. We will be back the first week of January with our 2017 Strategy Outlook. On behalf of BCA's Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to take this moment to wish you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all the best for the coming year. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights The global economy has entered a reflationary window, where deflation risks are receding, but fears of excess inflation have yet to surface. Europe and Japan, two regions where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates and whose stock markets tend to have a cyclical tilt, are the most likely to benefit. Emerging markets should also gain from a more reflationary environment. However, a rising dollar and elevated debt levels will take the bloom off the rose. Chronically low productivity and labor force growth will make it difficult for central banks to contain inflation once it does begin to accelerate. Global bond yields will rise only modestly next year, but could begin to surge as the decade wears on. Feature Stagflation Is Coming, But Not Yet Bill Gates once noted that "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." This observation applies just as well to the risk of stagflation as it does to technology. For the next few years, the likelihood of a disorderly rise in inflation is extremely low. Beyond then, however, the risk is that inflation surprises to the upside, perhaps significantly so. Three factors will prevent global inflation from rising too rapidly over the next two-to-three years: The global economy still suffers from a fair amount of spare capacity; While spare capacity is likely to decline further, it will do so only gradually; Even when all remaining spare capacity is exhausted, the knock-on effect to inflation will initially be quite small. Spare Capacity Lingers Chart 1 shows that the global output gap has declined from its high in 2009, but is still larger than it has been at any time since the early 1990s. This can be seen in low industrial capacity utilization rates in some countries (Chart 2), as well as in the high levels of joblessness and involuntary part-time employment (Charts 3 and 4). Chart 1Mind The (Output) Gap Chart 2Global Capacity Utilization Remains Low Chart 3AJoblessness Still Elevated In Europe Chart 3BJoblessness Still Elevated In Europe Chart 4AHigher Incidence Of Involuntary ##br##Part-Time Employment Chart 4BHigher Incidence Of Involuntary ##br##Part-Time Employment Granted, the U.S. is much closer to full employment than most other economies. However, high levels of spare capacity abroad will still exert downward pressure on U.S. inflation. The reason for this was first laid out by Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming in the early 1970s. The Mundell-Fleming model, as it is now called, posits that a country's interest rate will rise in response to stronger growth, thereby pushing up the value of its currency. Indeed, Mundell and Fleming showed that easier fiscal policy would not benefit a small open economy at all in a world of perfect capital mobility and flexible exchange rates because any gains from the stimulus would be entirely offset by a deterioration in the trade balance. Chart 5Real Rate Differentials ##br##Are Driving Up The Dollar While the Mundell-Fleming model is a gross oversimplification of how the global economy actually functions, it is still highly relevant for understanding today's macro environment. The real broad trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 21% since mid-2014, largely due to the widening of interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 5). We estimate that the stronger dollar has reduced the level of U.S. real GDP by 1% so far, and will reduce it by another 0.5% stemming from the lagged effects from the recent dollar rally. The buoyant greenback will keep a lid on U.S. inflation both directly, in the form of lower import prices and indirectly, in the form of slower employment growth. The analysis above leads to three important investment implications. First, it implies that the dollar will remain well bid as long as the Fed remains the only major central bank in hiking mode. We have been long the DXY since October 2014 - a trade that has gained 18.6%. We think there is another 5% of upside from current levels. Second, a stronger dollar will help redistribute growth to Europe and Japan, two economies that desperately need it. We are bullish on European and Japanese stocks and bearish on the euro and the yen. Third, Treasury yields will be hard-pressed to rise substantially from current levels until spare capacity outside the U.S. is extinguished. Only once other central banks start raising rates will the Fed be able to hike rates in a sustainable manner. Until then, any Fed tightening beyond what the market is currently expecting will put upward pressure on the dollar, reducing the need for further hikes. A Gradual Recovery Table 1Global Growth Will Improve Next Year Global growth should pick up next year in line with the IMF's most recent projections (Table 1). Alongside stronger growth in Japan and continued above-trend growth in Europe, the U.S. economy will benefit from robust consumer spending on the back of rising real wages. In addition, residential investment should rise, as foreshadowed by the jump in homebuilder confidence in December. Tighter credit spreads, deregulation, and a modest recovery in energy sector investment should also boost business capex. Despite this welcome reflationary backdrop, a number of factors will hold back growth. Most prominently, debt levels are still high around the world (Chart 6). In fact, emerging market debt continues to rise more quickly than GDP. Even in the optimistic scenario where the ratio of EM debt-to-GDP merely stabilizes, this would still entail a negative credit impulse (Chart 7). Chart 6Global Debt Levels Are Still High Chart 7Negative EM Credit Impulse Looming Meanwhile, monetary policy continues to be constrained by the zero bound in a number of developed economies. Many EM central banks will also be reluctant to cut interest rates due to fears that this could precipitate a disorderly plunge in their currencies. And while fiscal policy around the world will no longer be restrictive, a major burst of government stimulus is not in the cards. Donald Trump's fiscal package may not boost aggregate demand by as much as the more optimistic estimates suggest. As we have noted before, most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance. 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. There is also a significant risk that Congressional Republicans will try to sneak through cuts to Social Security and Medicare, much to the annoyance of many of Trump's voters. As for Trump's proposed personal tax cuts, while they are hefty in size, their bang for the buck is likely to be modest, given that the benefits are tilted towards higher income groups that tend to save much of their earnings. Indeed, it is possible that cutting the estate tax would actually depress spending by reducing the incentive for older households to blow through their wealth before the Grim Reaper (and The Taxman) arrive. Likewise, corporate tax cuts will have only an incremental effect on business capex, given that companies are already flush with cash and effective tax rates are well below statutory levels. The bottom line is that global growth is likely to rise in 2017, but not by enough to cause inflation to surge. A Flat Phillips Curve ... For Now Chart 8The Phillips Curve Has Flattened It might take a few more years for most of the developed world to claw its way back to something approximating full employment, but with any luck, it will get there. What happens to inflation then? The answer is probably not much. The relationship between economic slack and inflation is encapsulated by the so-called Phillips curve. As one would intuitively expect, inflation tends to rise when slack diminishes. However, this correlation has weakened over the past few decades (Chart 8). For example, U.S. core inflation declined only modestly during the Great Recession, and has been slow to bounce back, even as the output gap has shrunk. Economists have proposed a variety of reasons for why the Phillips curve may have flattened out over time. Globalization is often cited as one factor, but the empirical evidence for this view is rather shaky.1 True, free trade and capital mobility have helped keep inflation in check by diverting excess domestic demand into higher net imports via the Mundell-Fleming channel discussed above. However, this only implies that globalization may prevent economies from sliding too far along the Phillips curve. It says nothing about the slope of the curve itself. A fall in unionization rates and a decline in the use of inflation-indexed wage contracts are also often cited as reasons for why the correlation between inflation and economic slack has diminished. Here again, the evidence is rather mixed. While the U.S. has experienced a pronounced decline in unionization rates, Canada has not (Chart 9). Nevertheless, the sensitivity of inflation to economic fluctuations has fallen in both countries by roughly the same magnitude. Likewise, the increased use of inflation-index contracts in the 1970s appears mainly to have been a response to rising inflation, rather than a cause of it (Chart 10). The one point on which most economists agree is that long-term inflation expectations are much more stable now than they used to be, which has reduced the volatility of actual inflation. Central banks deserve some of the credit for this. The adoption of inflation targeting, coupled with more transparent communication policies, has helped anchor inflation expectations. A more sober assessment of economic conditions has also been a plus. Back in the 1970s, the Fed continuously overstated the degree of economic slack (Chart 11). This led it to keep interest rates too low for too long, thereby sowing the seeds for much higher inflation later on. Chart 9Inflation Fell In Canada, ##br##Despite A High Unionization Rate Chart 10When High Inflation ##br##Entailed Inflation-Indexed Contracts Chart 11The Fed Continuously Overstated ##br##The Magnitude Of Economic Slack Shifting Sands For Inflation The Fed has vowed not to make the same mistake again, but the temptation to exploit the flatness of the Phillips curve may be too great to resist. A flattish Phillips curve implies a low "sacrifice ratio." This means that the Fed could let the economy overheat without putting undue upward pressure on inflation. While the Fed would have reservations about pursuing such a strategy, Janet Yellen's musings about running a "high-pressure economy" suggest that it is at least willing to entertain the idea. The 25-year period of falling inflation that began in the early 1980s had a dark side. As Hyman Minsky first noted, economic stability can beget instability: The so-called "Great Moderation" that policymakers were patting themselves on the back for before the financial crisis created a fertile milieu for rising debt levels. Excessively high debt levels are deflationary at the outset because they limit the ability of overstretched borrowers to spend. However, high debt levels also reduce investment in new capacity - homes, office buildings, machinery, etc. This undermines the supply-side of the economy. Once the output gap is closed, high debt levels can become inflationary by increasing the incentive for central banks to keep rates low in order to suppress interest-servicing costs and reduce real debt burdens. The challenges posed by the zero-bound constraint could also justify efforts to raise inflation targets. After all, if inflation were higher, this would give central banks the ability to push down real rates further into negative territory in the event of an economic downturn. Such a step is unlikely to be taken anytime soon. That said, given that a number of well-regarded economists - including prominent policymakers such as Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist at the IMF, San Francisco Fed President John Williams, and former Minneapolis Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota - have floated the idea of raising the inflation target, long-term investors should be open-minded about the possibility. In any event, as we discussed in great detail last week, underlying economic trends - ranging from the retreat from globalization to the slowdown in potential GDP growth - are all pushing the global economy in a more inflationary direction.2 This suggests that inflation could move appreciably higher towards the end of this decade. Investment Conclusions Chart 12Near-Term Inflation Risk Is Low Inflation is unlikely to rise significantly over the next few years. Indeed, the sharp appreciation in the dollar since the election will put downward pressure on U.S. inflation in the coming months. This view is supported by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Price Pressure gauge, which shows that there is less than an 8% chance that inflation will rise above 2.5% over the next 12 months (Chart 12). And even when the economy has reached full employment and the effects of a stronger dollar have washed through the system, inflation will be slow to increase. Consider how inflation evolved during the 1960s. As my colleague Mathieu Savary has pointed out, U.S. inflation did not reach 4% until mid-1968. By that time, the output gap had been positive for five years, hitting a whopping 6% of GDP in 1966 on the back of rising military expenditures on the Vietnam War and social spending on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs (Chart 13).3 The lesson is that it often takes a number of years for an overheated economy to generate meaningful inflation. This suggests that the global economy is entering a "goldilocks" reflationary window, where deflation risks are receding, but fears of excess inflation have yet to surface. This is obviously good news for global risk assets, and underpins our cyclically constructive view on global equities. Europe and Japan, two regions where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates and whose stock markets tend to have a cyclical tilt, are the most likely to benefit. In fact, both economies have seen a decline in real yields since the U.S. elections, as rising inflation expectations have outpaced the increase in nominal yields (Chart 14). Emerging markets should also gain from a more reflationary environment, but a rising dollar and elevated debt levels will take the bloom off the rose. Chart 13It Can Take A While For Inflation ##br##To Rise In Response To An Overheated Economy Chart 14Europe And Japan: Rising Inflation ##br##Expectations Suppressing Real Yields While we have a positive cyclical (3-to-24 month) view on risk assets, we have significant concerns about both the near-term and longer-term outlooks. From a short-term tactical perspective, developed market equities - especially U.S. equities - are highly vulnerable to a correction. This is reflected in our sentiment indices, which have moved firmly into overbought territory (Chart 15). It can also be seen in the weak historic performance of global stocks following sharp spikes in bond yields (Table 2). Chart 15U.S. Equity Sentiment Is Stretched Table 2Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike Over a longer-term horizon, the risks to global equities are also to the downside. Once inflation is on a firm upward trajectory, central banks may find it more difficult to arrest the trend. Against the backdrop of weak productivity and labor force growth, memories of stagflation may reappear. As Chart 16 shows, stagflation in the 1970s was devastating for equities, and this time may not be any different. The bottom line is that investors should lease the bull market in stocks, rather than own it. Chart 16Stagflation Was Devastating For Stocks From The Vault: Two "Big Picture" Holiday Reports Lastly, for those who would like to take their minds off the nitty-gritty of the financial world for the next two weeks and focus more on transcendent issues, let me recommend two special reports. The first, entitled A Smarter World is based on a speech I delivered at the 2014 BCA New York Investment Conference. I argue that genetic changes in the human population sowed the seeds for the Industrial Revolution. This development then unleashed a virtuous cycle where rising living standards led to better health and educational outcomes, generating even further gains in living standards. Many countries now appear to be at the end of this cycle, but new technologies could one day generate huge gains in IQs, sending humanity down a path towards immortality. Of course, before we get there, we have to contend with all sorts of existential pitfalls. With that in mind, the second report, Doomsday Risk, examines what is literally a life-and-death issue: the likelihood of human extinction. Drawing on insights from biology, history, cosmology, and probability theory, our analysis yields a number of surprising investment implications. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Eddie Gerba and Corrado Macchiarelli, "Is Globalization Reducing The Ability Of Central Banks To Control Inflation?" European Parliament, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, Brussels, Belgium (2015); Jane Ihrig, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaime Marquez, "Some Simple Tests Of The Globalization And Inflation Hypothesis," International Finance Vol. 13, no. 3 (2010): pp. 343-375; and Laurence M. Ball, "Has Globalization Changed Inflation?" NBER Working Paper No. 12687 (2006). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Main Street Bonds, Wall Street Stocks," dated December 16, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits," dated December 16, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Dear Client, We are pleased to present our 2017 Outlook for Grains & Softs, covering corn, wheat, soybeans and rice in the grain markets, and cotton and sugar. This is our last regular Weekly Report for the year. You should have received BCA's annual "Mr. X" interview on December 20, and we trust you found it stimulating and insightful. We will resume regular publishing on January 5th with our annual Review and Outlook summarizing the performance of our market recommendations for 2016, with an eye on where we see value going into the New Year. As a preview, the average return on our recommendations this year was 33.1%, led by our Energy recommendations, which were up an average 95.1% in 2016. Please see page 15 of this week's report for a summary. The Commodity & Energy Strategy team wishes you and yours a wonderful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Turning to the Ags, we believe there is a limited downside for grain prices in 2017. The downtrend since August 2012 may form a bottom next year under the assumption of normal weather conditions. However, the principal upside risk remains unfavorable weather in major grain-producing countries, which could send badly battered grain prices surging as they did in 2016H1. Among grains, we favor wheat and rice over corn and soybeans. Global soybean acreage is likely to expand as the crop provides higher returns than other grains. South American corn output will continue rising on favorable policies and weak currencies, adding further pressure to already-high U.S. corn inventories. Softs - cotton and sugar - likely will underperform grains in 2017, reversing their outperformance this year. We are tactically bearish cotton, as U.S. cotton acreage is likely to increase next spring. Strategically, we are neutral cotton. For the global sugar market, barring extremely unfavorable weather, we are tactically and strategically bearish. This year's extreme rally in prices may result in a small supply surplus in 2017. Our Ag strategies will continue to focus on relative-value investments. We have three investment strategies: We look to go long wheat versus cotton, long corn versus sugar, and long rice versus soybeans. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Chart 1Ag In 2017: A Reversal Of Grain ##br##Underperformance? Feature Limited Downside For Grains; Softs ... Not So Much As of December 20, the CCI grain index had declined 0.3% since the beginning of this year. In comparison, sugar and cotton prices rallied 19.8% and 9.6% during the same period of time, respectively. For individual grains, soybean prices were up 15.4%, while corn, wheat and rice declined 2.4%, 14.2% and 18.2%, respectively. Cotton and sugar outperformed grains considerably this year (Chart 1, panel 1). Among grains, soybeans had the best run, while wheat and rice had the worst (Chart 1, panel 2). Going forward, the question is: Will these trends continue into 2017, or is a reversal likely to occur? For now, we cannot rule out the possibility of a continuation of these trends, but a reversal is possible, depending on weather conditions. We will tread water carefully and re-evaluate our calls next April when U.S. farmers' planting decisions are made, and the outlook for the South American soybean and sugar harvests become clearer. Grains In 2017: Likely Bottoming With Potential Upside We believe there is limited downside for grain prices in 2017. Four consecutive years of supply surpluses have driven grain prices down by more than 50% since August 2012, when grain prices reached all-time highs (Chart 2, panels 1 and 2). In the meantime, global grain inventories also rose to their highest levels since 2002 (Chart 2, panel 3). True, it is difficult to get bullish on such elevated inventories. Another year of supply surpluses obviously would send prices lower. Will that happen? No doubt, it could. But we believe the odds are fairly low. A Dissection Of This Year's Supply Increase Global grain output grew 5.2% this year, the second highest rate of growth since 2005. Yield growth, mainly due to extremely favorable weather, contributed 87% of the supply increase, while acreage expansion accounted for the rest (Chart 3, panels 1 and 2). Chart 2Grain: Too Much Supply In 2016... Chart 3...Less Supply in 2017? Now, with yields of corn, soybeans and wheat all at record highs, and rice yields near their record highs, grain yields are more likely to have a pullback than a continuation of growth in 2017. If global grain yields revert to their trend line as the third panel of Chart 3 suggests, global grain yields will decline 1.4% in 2017. This year, the world aggregate harvested grain acreage only grew 0.7%. Currently low grain prices are discouraging grain plantings, while new supportive policies in Argentina and a strengthening dollar are likely to encourage grain sowing in the southern hemisphere. Taking all related factors into account, we expect a 0.2 - 0.5% expansion in global grain acreage next year. Based on our analysis, we believe world grain output is likely to decline about 1% next year, assuming normal weather conditions. On the other side of the ledger, global grain demand has been growing steadily over the past 30 years (Chart 3, panel 4). Last year demand grew 3.4%. In 2017, low prices likely will boost consumption. Therefore, we expect similar growth in global grain demand next year. In the current crop year, the global grain market has a supply surplus of 55 million metric tons (mmt). Based on our calculations, given the assumptions we've outlined above, a 1% decline in global grain output coupled with 3.4% growth in global grain demand will swing the grain market into a supply deficit of 58 mmt. If we assume a more conservative scenario in which global grain output does not decline at all, a 2.2% rate of growth in global consumption still will send the global grain market into a supply deficit. The odds of seeing this scenario unfold are relatively high, given that the average growth in global grain consumption was 2.5% over the past 10 years, and 2.9% over the past four years, when grain prices were mired in a downtrend. We believe this would clearly be positive to global grain prices. Considering the elevated global grain inventories and the expected supply deficit we foresee, we believe, even if prices do not move to the upside, the downside for grain prices should be at least limited in 2017 as inventories are drawn down. In addition to the supply deficit, rising oil prices are supportive to grain prices as well. All else equal, higher oil prices will increase the production cost of grains. Bottom Line: We expect limited downside for grain prices next year. The 2017 Outlook For Individual Grains Corn, soybeans, wheat and rice prices are highly correlated with each other (Chart 4, panel 1). In terms of end consumption, they can all be consumed as either human food or animal feed. In terms of supply, farmers rotate among these crops depending on their profit outlook, soil conditions, and government policies. In 2017, we believe wheat and rice likely will outperform corn and soybeans, for two reasons: Crop-rotation economics and inventories. Chart 4Wheat & Rice May Outperform ##br##Corn & Soybeans In 2017 Firstly, global acreage rotation still favors soybeans most, then corn, over wheat and rice. If we rebase grain prices back to the beginning of 2006, corn and soybean prices are currently 62% and 67% higher than they were at the start of this interval. In comparison, wheat and rice prices are only 19% and 16% higher, respectively (Chart 4, panel 1). The U.S. is the world's biggest corn exporter, the second-largest soybean and wheat exporter. Informa Economics, a private consulting firm, projects 2017 soybean plantings will rise 6.2% to 88.862 million acres, while corn and winter wheat plantings will fall 4.6% and 8.1% to 90.151 million acres and 33.213 million acres, respectively. If these projections are realized, the 2017 U.S. winter wheat planted acreage will be the lowest since 1911. Winter wheat accounts for about 70% of U.S. total wheat production. Secondly, wheat and rice inventories ex-China declined, while corn and soybean inventories ex-China increased. Yes, it is true that the world wheat and rice stocks-to-use ratios rose to the highest since 2002 and 2003, respectively. (Chart 4, panel 2). But this does not show the full picture for these markets: 58% of global rice inventories and 44% of global wheat inventories are in China, even though that country accounts for only 12% of global rice imports and 2% of global wheat imports. China is unlikely to export these inventories to the world: the country tends to hold massive grain inventories, in order to prevent domestic food crises. This means that global wheat and rice importers outside China, which account for about 88% of the global rice trade and 98% of the global wheat trade, will compete for inventories outside China. The third panel of Chart 4 shows the rice stocks-to-use ratio for the ex-China world has already dropped to its lowest level since 2008, while the wheat stocks-to-use ratio ex-China already has declined for two years in a row. This is positive for wheat and rice prices. In comparison, the soybean and corn stocks-to-use ratios ex-China looks much less promising. Both ratios are at or near record highs (Chart 4, panel 3). China only accounts for 2% of the global corn trade, therefore corn importers outside China will have more abundant supplies available to them in 2017. China is the largest buyer of soybeans, accounting for 63% of the global soybean trade. The country will have more bargaining power, on the back of increasing competition among major soybean exporters (the U.S., Brazil and Argentina). In the meantime, China's central policy is currently focused on encouraging domestic soybean plantings mainly at the cost of corn, which is negative for global soybean prices and good for global corn prices. In 2016, the corn acreage in China fell for the first time since 2004 while its soybean acreage jumped 9.1% - the largest increase since 2001 (Chart 4, panel 4). Chart 5Downside Risks To Grains Downside Risks To Our Grain View Grain prices could decline more than 10% from current levels next year, if favorable weather results in a slight drop (less than 1.4%) or even an increase in global grain yields. Also, if grain prices rise significantly in 2017H1 - for whatever reason - this likely would spur plantings and depress prices. If either of these events transpire, we will re-evaluate our grain view. A strengthening dollar is also a major risk to our view. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy expects a further 5%-7% appreciation in U.S. dollar in 2017. We believe most of the negative effects of a strengthening dollar already are reflected in depressed grain prices, as the U.S. dollar has already appreciated 36% since July 2011. At the end of last week, the U.S. dollar was only 2% lower than all-time highs reached in February 2002 (Chart 5, panel 1). Another risk to watch is acreage expansion in Argentina, Brazil and the Former Soviet Union (FSU) region. All of these countries/regions had massive currency depreciations and supportive agricultural policies this year, especially in Argentina (Chart 5, panels 2, 3 and 4). However, our calculations show that for corn and wheat, acreage increases in these countries/regions are mostly offset by declines in the U.S. With an expectation of a continuing decline in U.S. wheat and corn plantings, we expect an insignificant growth in overall global wheat and corn acreage. For soybeans, however, the acreage expansion could pose a downside risk as all top three producers (the U.S., Brazil and Argentina) are likely to increase their plantings. We will re-evaluate the grain market at the end of March, when the U.S. posts its planting intentions for all major crops. Softs In 2017: Less Positive Than Grains Both cotton and sugar prices had strong rallies in 2016, following the second consecutive year of supply deficits (Chart 6). Global cotton acreage has declined 19% during the past five years when cotton prices fell significantly from peak prices in 2011. This is the main reason for the 18.3% decline in global cotton production during the same period of time and also for the two consecutive years of supply deficit in 2015 and 2016. For sugar, the El Niño phenomenon that ended this past summer hurt sugar plantings and crop development in major producing countries (Brazil, India, China and Thailand) in both 2015 and 2016, resulting in two years of supply deficit and a supercharged rally in 2016 sugar prices. Both cotton and sugar prices fell from their 2016 highs, with a 9.6% drop for cotton and a 23.4% decline for sugar. However, we are still tactically bearish on both commodities as speculators' net long positions are still crowed (Chart 7). Chart 6Cotton & Sugar: Supply Deficit in 2016 Chart 7Cotton & Sugar: Crowed Net Long Spec Positions Strategically, we are neutral cotton and bearish sugar. For cotton, global demand will stay sluggish in 2017. Even though there has been no growth at all in global cotton demand for the past three years, the bad news is that there still are no signs of improvement in global textile demand (Chart 8). On the supply side, global cotton output may rise significantly next year, if farmers shift some of their grain acreage to cotton due to a better profit profile for cotton (Chart 9). We believe, barring extreme weather, the global cotton market will become more balanced next year, leaving us neutral in our price outlook. For sugar, with weather patterns back to normal and the extreme rally in prices this year, sugar output in India, Thailand, China and the EU (European Union) should receive a strong boost. In addition, a strengthening U.S. dollar will also encourage sugar production in those countries whose currency had massive depreciation like Brazil, Russia and India (Chart 10). Chart 8Cotton: Demand Does Not Look Good Chart 9Cotton: Supply Will Increase In 2017 Chart 10Sugar Production Will Recover On the demand side, average global sugar consumption growth was only 1.3% p.a. during 2013-2015, even though average sugar prices declined every year during that period. This year, global demand growth slowed to only 0.6%, as average sugar prices were 35% higher than last year. If sugar prices go sideways, the average prices will still be higher than this year, which may result in an even slower growth in global sugar demand. Given an extremely oversupplied corn market, cheaper corn syrup will replace sugar in its industrial uses. Chart 11Ag Investment Strategies: ##br##Focus On Relative-Value Trades Our calculations indicate the global sugar market is likely to have a supply surplus next year, which will be a big shift from this year's supply deficit. This likely will pressure sugar prices lower. Upside Risks To Our Softs View Both the cotton and sugar markets are still in supply deficits, which means any unfavorable weather in the major producing countries could send prices sharply higher. For sugar, Brazilian sugarcane mills could favor ethanol production instead of sugar in 2017 if the country keeps hiking gasoline prices and promotes ethanol consumption. So far, the sugar/ethanol price ratio in Brazil still favors sugar production. This can change quickly if ethanol prices in Brazil rise faster than sugar prices in 2017. We will monitor this risk closely. Investment Strategy Our Ag strategies continue to focus on relative-value investments. As such, we look to go long wheat versus cotton, long corn versus sugar, and long rice versus soybeans through the following recommendations: Long July/17 wheat vs. short July/17 cotton: We recommend putting this relative trade on if the wheat-to-cotton ratio drops to 5.75 (current: 6.14) (Chart 11, panel 1). Long July/17 corn vs. short July/17 sugar: We put a limit-buy order at 17 on this position on November 3, 2016. Since then, this ratio rose 12.8% and only declined to 17.47 on November 9. Now, we suggest initiating this position if the ratio falls back to 18.5 (Chart 11, panel 2). Long November/17 rice vs. short November/17 soybeans: We recommend putting this relative-value trade on if the ratio drops to 0.95 (current: 1.01) (Chart 11, panel 3). Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades