Developed Countries

Highlights Animal spirits have soared, according to soft data from surveys. But 6-month credit impulses have slumped in the euro area, U.S. and China, according to hard data from the ECB, Federal Reserve and PBOC. The negative 6-month credit impulse - rather than soaring animal spirits - is more important for the cyclical direction of the global economy. A growth-pause would blindside financial markets. Lean against any rise in high-quality bond yields and equity prices until the conflict between soaring animal spirits and slumping credit impulses is resolved. Feature Animal spirits have soared since the surprise election of President Trump on November 8. For many investors, the heightened animal spirits - shown in surging sentiment and survey data (Chart I-2) - are a strong signal that the global economy is about to accelerate. Unfortunately, these investors could end up very disappointed. Chart of the Week6-Month Credit Impulses Have Slumped Chart I-2Animal Spirits Have Soared... The problem is that the hard data on bank credit are giving the exact opposite signal. Over the past few months, global credit flows have slumped (Chart of the Week, Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3...But Credit Impulses Have Slumped Chart I-4The Global 6-Month Credit Impulse Has Turned Negative Despite Heightened Animal Spirits The ECB's latest Monetary Developments in the Euro Area shows that the euro area 6-month credit flow has shrunk by €26 billion. The most recent 6-month credit flow fell to €321 billion from €347 billion in the previous period. The U.S. Federal Reserve's latest weekly H8 release paints an even starker picture. The U.S. 6-month credit flow has shrunk by $271 billion, equivalent to 3% of U.S. GDP (at an annualised rate). The most recent 6-month credit flow plunged to just $152 billion from $423 billion in the previous period. For completeness, look at the world's other major economy, China. Given the lower credibility of official bank credit data in China we prefer to focus on the broad money supply numbers. The People's Bank of China does not seasonally adjust this data, but it is straightforward to do ourselves using standard seasonal adjustment functions. The seasonally-adjusted data shows that the most recent 6-month flow, at 8.1 trillion yuan, was slightly higher than the preceding 7.7 trillion yuan. Nevertheless, the resulting marginally positive China 6-month impulse is sharply down from previous months. Why Optimism Is Up, But Borrowing Is Down Let's explain why sentiment data and credit flows have headed in polar opposite directions since the shock electoral success of Donald Trump. Imagine that firms (or households) are willing to borrow $1 billion for investment projects at a long-term borrowing cost of 1.5%. Then, an unexpected event causes animal spirits to surge. Suddenly, firms will become more optimistic about the expected profits from the investment projects. At this higher net1 profitability, firms might be willing to borrow and invest more than $1 billion, let's say $1.5 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher and so will the credit flow, resulting in a credit impulse of +$0.5 billion. Chart I-5A Sharp Rise In Borrowing Costs Has##br## Countered Heightened Animal Spirits Now imagine that in response to this improved economic outlook, the financial markets expect the central bank to hike interest rates quicker and further. So the markets push up the bond yield to 2.0%. For firms, this higher cost of long-term borrowing might now exactly neutralise the expected profit boost from the investment projects. At this unchanged net profitability, firms will continue to borrow and invest $1 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher but the credit flow will be unchanged, resulting in a credit impulse of zero. Finally imagine that in response to the improved economic outlook, the financial markets get carried away. They push up the bond yield to 2.5%. Now, the much higher cost of long-term borrowing will more than neutralise the expected profit boost from the investment projects. At a sharply lower net profitability, firms will borrow and invest less than $1 billion, let's say $0.5 billion. In which case, the sentiment data will be higher but the credit flow will fall, resulting in a credit impulse of -$0.5 billion. Note that in all three cases, animal spirits are up sharply. For credit flows, these heightened animal spirits in isolation are a tailwind. But any associated rise in the cost of long-term borrowing is a headwind. It follows that the net impact on credit flows depends on the relative strengths of the tailwind from heightened animal spirits and the headwind from higher long-term borrowing costs. Today, we would suggest that for global credit flows, the tailwind from heightened animal spirits is weaker than the headwind from the sharpest rise in bond yields in a decade (Chart I-5). The result is a negative 6-month global credit impulse. And it is this negative 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that is more important for the cyclical direction of the global economy. The History Of "Animal Spirits" In the early nineteenth century, the 'British Currency School', led by David Ricardo, postulated that expansions and contractions of bank credit and the broad money supply are the main cause of the economic cycle. We are very strong advocates of Ricardo's Currency School thesis. In opposition to the Currency School, the 'British Banking School' believed that expansions and contractions of bank credit are merely the passive effects of the economic cycle. The true cause of the economic cycle is fluctuations in business speculation and expectations of profit, which ultimately come from psychological mood swings. A century later in 1936, John Maynard Keynes wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. In it, Keynes reiterated the Banking School's psychological mood swing explanation of the cycle. To describe these mood swings, he came up with the now very familiar phrase "animal spirits". Keynes blamed the Great Depression on the collapse of these animal spirits, and a consequent collapse in investment and consumption. But Keynes was only partly right. Animal spirits in isolation do not cause the cycle. As discussed in the previous section, borrowing costs lean against mood swings in both directions. Optimism results in higher borrowing costs, countering the desire to borrow. Pessimism results in lower borrowing costs, countering the reluctance to borrow. And it is the net impact on credit flows that drives the cycle. The specific problem in the Depression was a slump in asset prices. This depressed the value of households' and firms' balance sheet assets to below the value of the liabilities - an extreme event which economist Richard Koo calls a 'balance sheet recession'. Crucially, in a balance sheet recession, no amount of borrowing cost reduction can counter the reluctance to borrow, because households' and firms' single-minded objective is to regain solvency. Hence for us, the Ricardian bank credit cycle - rather than Keynesian animal spirits - is the better explanation for the Great Depression, as well as for Japan's post-1990 bust and for the 2008-09 Great Recession. The Ricardian bank credit cycle also explains the more common and garden variety of economic fluctuations (Box I-1). Readers should review our February 2 report Slowdown: How And When? for the compelling theoretical and empirical evidence. Right now, the important message is that the global bank credit cycle is weakening. Box I-1The Mathematics Of Mini-Cycles Credit Slumps While Animal Spirits Soar: What Should Investors Do? Many commentators and investors look at sentiment and survey data and note that animal spirits have soared. On this basis, they expect global growth to accelerate. But to reiterate, animal spirits in isolation do not cause the economic cycle. Heightened animal spirits do generate a tailwind for credit creation, but any associated rise in the cost of long-term borrowing generates a headwind (Chart I-6). And it is the net effect on the 6-month credit impulse - rather than heightened animal spirits per se - that determines the cyclical direction of the economy (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Higher Borrowing Costs Weaken Credit Flows... Chart I-7...And Weaker Credit Flows Slow The Economy Today, the hard data on bank credit in the euro area, the U.S. and China show that 6-month impulses have slumped. The risk is that this could generate an unwelcome surprise. Rather than accelerate in the coming months, global growth may level off or even decelerate. Even if it were a short-lived pause, major financial markets - including all of those in Europe - would be blindsided. The risk-on mode so far in 2017 would turn out to be incongruous. At the very least, until the conflict between soaring animal spirits and weakening credit impulses is resolved, we will lean against any rise in high-quality bond yields and equity prices. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Profitability net of borrowing cost. Fractal Trading Model* Excessive optimism in global equity prices reinforces our near-term caution towards stocks. We are expressing this through a short position in the AEX. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-8 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The end game for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Russia and their respective allies is fairly obvious: Remove enough production from the market to draw down storage and make the oil-supply curve, once again, more inelastic. This would allow these states to use forward guidance and small adjustments in production to influence prices, the sine qua non of petro-states desperate to maintain revenues and diversify away from near-complete dependence on hydrocarbon exports. We think the effort will succeed over the short run. Just how durable this pact will be remains to be seen, given oil is, once again, super-abundant. If production discipline breaks down, all bets are off. Energy: Overweight. We are now solidly positioned for backwardation in oil - long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI and Brent; these positions are up 141.6% and 68.4%, respectively. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks: We are long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017; these positions are up 7.66% on average. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at Chile's Escondida mine are back on the job, after a 44-day strike. The strike is estimated to have cost BHP Billiton some $1 billion, according to Reuters.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold has rallied by 4.3% since the FOMC raised overnight rates. Our long volatility position - long a Jun/17 put and call spread for $21/oz - is down 30%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The long-awaited and much-anticipated USDA planting intentions report is due out tomorrow. We remain bearish, expecting an early indication stocks-to-use ratios for grains and beans will remain elevated. Feature Chart of the WeekStorage Was Well On Its Way to Drawing##br## Before the Year-End Production Surge KSA and Russia have to make oil supply more inelastic in order to regain some control over where prices go and, consequently, where their revenues go. Their end game is obvious - i.e., remove the excess oil production that pushed inventories to historically high levels - but their execution has been, at best, halting. Prior to KSA and Russia delivering an historic production-management Agreement at the end of last year, oil markets were well on the way to removing the storage overhang by year-end 2017, as any Econ 101 text would have suggested. Low prices following OPEC's market-share war declaration destroyed supply and lifted demand, which was drawing down stocks. This is easily seen in the Chart of the Week showing inventories beginning to head south in mid-2016. Then came the KSA - Russia Agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers to cut output by some 1.8mm b/d. The goal of the deal was to accelerate the drawdown in record high storage levels. Even while the deal was being negotiated, it was apparent some producers in the know were getting a jump on shipping those last barrels out the door before they were obliged to cut. This produced the end-of-year production surge, which swelled global inventories. The year-end surge by OPEC and non-OPEC producers could be expected (Chart 2), but it came at a really bad time for the market, since 1Q17 also was when refiners took units down for maintenance. This is fairly routine, but in some key markets like the U.S. Gulf, the current maintenance season was busier than average, according to the EIA (Chart 3). This left a lot of crude in storage, as product inventories were being drawn. Chart 2Year-End Production Surge ##br##Powered The Storage Build Chart 3Maintenance Season In 1Q17 ##br##Exacerbated The Storage Build Where are we today? Most of the pre-Agreement production and export surge has been absorbed, and inventories in the U.S. are drawing a bit. Floating storage has been drained. But, in an interesting economic twist, OECD storage levels are likely to reach the targeted drawdown of 10% (300mm bbl) by year-end 2017, which is exactly what would have happened absent any action by KSA and Russia at the end of last year. It is difficult to resist reiterating that had nothing been done at the end of last year by KSA and Russia, and the market was left to do its necessary work of removing high-cost production and encouraging increased demand via lower prices, the market would have ended up in the exact same place it now finds itself. Trust But Verify Be that as it may, the really hard work of the KSA - Russia deal now begins. We expect OECD inventories to hit the 10% drawdown target by year end. However, if parties to the deal do not maintain production discipline markets will almost surely take prices lower. This could easily happen if prices start to percolate as we expect in 2Q17, and cash-strapped non-OPEC producers decide to see how far they can push KSA and its Gulf-state allies on their deal. Russia has been slow to deliver on its production commitment, while KSA has over-delivered (Chart 4). The same can be said for their respective allies (Chart 5). We believe markets will remain skittish, until evidence Russia and Iraq also are abiding by the end-2016 Agreement becomes incontrovertible. It is true Russian President Vladimir Putin personally involved himself in this deal, and helped close it on the non-OPEC side, but markets will want proof production actually is falling. Like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, markets may be willing to trust, but they certainly will want to verify compliance. Chart 4KSA Over-Delivers On Its Cuts, ##br##Russia Is Slow To Deliver Chart 5KSA's Allies Are Delivering, ##br##Russia's Not So Much While not our base case, it is possible Russia and its fellow travelers could decide to risk keeping their production above agreed volumes under the Agreement, in the belief KSA is more in need of keeping prices above $50/bbl or so over the next 18 months, given the Kingdom wants a successful IPO of state-owned Saudi Aramco. Should this occur, markets would correct violently. At the end of the day, such a gamble likely would be ruinous for both, if it provoked KSA to abandon its commitment to keep production below 10mm b/d. Short-term goals - getting OECD storage levels down to five-year averages - would be sacrificed. Importantly, long-term goals we believe are driving KSA and Russia to cooperate in the first place, namely developing a modus operandi for containing U.S. shale-oil output, will become moot, possibly returning the market to the production free-for-all that motivated the KSA - Russia dialogue. The Quest For Relevance Chart 6Odds Favor Backwardated Markets ##br##As the Production Cuts Lead To Physical Deficits Our base case envisions a successful KSA - Russia Agreement in which production discipline is maintained, and the deal produces its desired result - drawing storage down by ~ 300mm bbls. Forward curves then backwardate (Chart 6). This sets the stage for deeper discussions among KSA, Russia and their respective allies re how they can work together going forward to contain U.S. shale-oil production. In effect, the parties to this deal have a choice to make: Either they figure out a way to make room for shale, which has catapulted the U.S. to major-producer status once again, or they leave this to the market. We are fairly confident these discussions already are ongoing, and will be well advanced by year-end. Next week, we will be publishing a theoretical piece on how the KSA - Russia pact could provide a platform that allows these petro-states - which we are taking the liberty of dubbing OPEC 2.0 - to re-gain a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. In earlier research, we advanced a theory that shale rig counts are highly sensitive not only to the level of prices at the front of the curve, but to the curve shape itself. We were able to demonstrate that contango markets - i.e., prices for promptly delivered crude are less than prices for deferred delivery material - favor shale producers, and, all else equal, incentivize them to hedge forward so as to lock in future revenues that maximize the number of rigs they deploy.2 In backwardated markets, the number of rigs a shale operator is able to deploy is lower, all else equal, which means the revenue they can lock in by hedging forward is lower. This limits the rate at which the resource can be developed. Based on these theoretical results, we believe it is in the interest of the OPEC 2.0 states to keep the WTI forward curve in backwardation, so that, at the margin, the number of rigs deployed to the shales is contained. Our research suggests that the deeper the backwardation, the slower rig counts grow. So, if the ideal price level for KSA is, as has been reported in the media, $60/bbl for Brent, then, in the best of all worlds, the Kingdom, Russia and their respective allies target spot prices at this level and use production, storage and forward guidance to backwardate the WTI curve, which is used by shale producers to hedge.3 Such a strategy has numerous risks, particularly if OPEC 2.0 cannot react quickly enough to keep prices from rising above a level that keeps shale-oil producers restricted to their core production areas. This would allow higher-cost shale reserves to be brought on line, which would raise the likelihood of lower prices, and cost OPEC 2.0 market share.4 Such a strategy also would tempt OPEC 2.0 producers to free ride, raising production at the margin to increase their revenues. This also risks lower prices. Nonetheless, we believe such a strategy could benefit both KSA and Russia and their allies, which is why it likely will at least be considered and attempted.5 KSA would be able to IPO Aramco into a relatively stable higher-price market, which would allow it to invest in additional refinery capacity in Asia and elsewhere, and in alternative-energy resources like solar, to free up oil for export. Russia also is better off keeping prices at a level at which its economy can continue to work on diversifying its exposure away from its heavy dependence on oil and gas exports.6 We will present more of our thinking on this next week. In the meantime, we highly recommend BCA clients read Matt Conlan's article in this week's Energy Sector Strategy entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery."7 This is an excellent analysis of shale-oil economics. Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude and products storage to draw as production cuts become apparent and refiners bring units back up off maintenance. This will backwardate WTI and Brent forward curves. Based on our high level of conviction in this outcome, we added a long Brent Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 Brent position to our recommended trades, along with a similar WTI position. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks, by being long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017. We continue to expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 and for WTI prices to trade most of the time between $45/bbl and $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, we expect the spread between Brent and WTI prices to average $1.50/bbl (Brent over). Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Escondida outcome seen as disaster for BHP as workers return," published by Reuters.com on March 24, 2017. 2 We introduced this line of research in our February 16, 2017, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "North American Oil Pipeline Buildout Complicates Price And Storage Expectations," it is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We continue to delve into this topic, and will be presenting out latest thinking next week. 3 Please see "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia wants oil prices to rise to around $60 in 2017 - sources," published by Reuters February 28, 2017. Russia's budgeting assumption for 2017 to 2019 is $40/bbl, according to a Bloomberg report from March 24, 2017, entitled "OPEC Be Warned: Russia Prepares for Oil at $40." 4 It is not in KSA's, Russia's or their allies' interests to kill off shale production. The more-than-$1 trillion of capex for projects that would have been developed between 2015 and 2020, and would have translated into some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production will not be available to the market beginning later this decade. As we have noted, an enormous burden will be placed on shale production, Gulf OPEC producers and Russia to meet growing demand later this decade. 5 We also would note this would be a boon to long-only commodity index investors, whose returns are driven by roll yields that only exist in backwardated markets. More on that in subsequent research as well. 6 Russia's exports are dominated by oil and gas, while KSA's are dominated by crude oil and, increasingly, refined products. In 2015, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calculated close to 70% of Russia's economy is dependent on revenue from hydrocarbons - production, trade, investments in non-oil industries funded by oil revenues, and consumption made possible via oil and gas production and sales. We discuss this at length in the September 8, 2016, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." 7 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery," This article was published March 29, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Special Report

This month's Special Report, on Scotland's role in Brexit negotiations, was penned by our colleagues Matt Gertken, Marko Papic, and Jesse Kurri of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Scottish secessionist sentiment has increased in response to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's decision to push for a second popular referendum on Scottish independence, tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019, though likely to be denied for some time by Westminster. The outcome of a referendum on leaving the U.K., which eventually will occur, is too close to call at this point. The possibility will influence the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, and vice versa. The risk of a U.K. break-up adds an important constraint to Prime Minister Theresa May's government in the Brexit talks. Since the EU also has an interest in avoiding a devastating outcome for the U.K., our geopolitical team believes that the worst version of a "hard Brexit" will be avoided. That said, independence for Scotland cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s divorce proceedings. I trust that you will find the report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the "Great Repeal Bill" that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the "Phoney War" has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart II-1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart II-2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart II-3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart II-1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart II-2...Is Looking More Likely Chart II-3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, the outcome will be "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss why, and how Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "the End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland resented the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. If that had happened in 2014, it was estimated that the country's fiscal deficit would have been 5.9% of GDP and that its national debt would have been 109% of GDP. (Today those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively) (Table II-1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Table II-1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart II-4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Chart II-4Highly Financialized Societies Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms Chart II-5Three Cheers For Brexit And The Tories In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart II-5). Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that a new independence vote would be justified in case of "a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will." Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart II-6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart II-7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart II-6Immigration Curbs Threaten Scots Growth Chart II-7Scottish Patriots Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart II-8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart II-9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. Chart II-8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart II-9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart II-10). Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart II-11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart II-12). Chart II-10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Chart II-11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Chart II-12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts II-13 and II-14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart II-15). Chart II-13Irish Independence: Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart II-14Scotland: If The Irish Can Do It So Can We Chart II-15EU Market No Substitute For British Market Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart II-16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart II-17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while their elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart II-16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart II-17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart II-18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart II-19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart II-18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart II-19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, though of course Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart II-5, page 24). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism and migration, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the common market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the common market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down 2%. This suggests that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer this currency trade as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Jesse Anak Kuri Research Analyst Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also may work against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and the so-called 'Trump trades' going into reverse. Equity valuation is stretched and plenty of risks remain. Nonetheless, we do not believe it is time to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar. The economic data remain constructive for profits in the major countries. The risks posed by upcoming European elections have eased for 2017, now that the Italian election appears unlikely until 2018. The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. If a tax reform package proves too difficult to pass, then the GOP will settle for straight tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending. Market reaction to the FOMC's 'dovish hike' was overdone. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce a further tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. In Japan, the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar, and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations. This reflects falling perceptions of downside "tail risk", which is reflected in a declining equity risk premium (ERP). Absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside risk should continue to wane, allowing risk premia and asset correlations to ease further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years. The only adjustment to asset allocation we are making this month is an upgrade for U.S. high-yield based on improved valuation. Feature The financial market landscape has shifted over the past month with asset correlations changing and a number of popular trades going into reverse. First, the failure to replace Obamacare triggered a pull-back of the so-called 'Trump trades.' Stock indexes are holding up well, but the U.S. dollar has given back most of the gains made in March and the 10-year Treasury yield has dropped back to the bottom of the post-U.S. election trading range. Moreover, the negative correlation between the U.S. dollar and risk assets has flipped (Chart I-1). Even oil prices have diverged from their usual negative trading relationship with the dollar. Second, investors are questioning the FOMC's appetite for rate hikes in the coming months. They are also wondering how much longer the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) can maintain current hyper-stimulative policy settings. The whole narrative regarding equity strength, a dollar overshoot and bond price weakness may be over if there is not going to be any fiscal stimulus in the U.S., the Fed is not going to hike more aggressively than the market currently expects, and monetary policy is near a turning point in Japan and the Eurozone. Is it time for investors to become defensive, scale back on risk assets, upgrade bonds and short the dollar? We believe the answer is 'not yet', although 2017 was always destined to be a rough ride given the ups-and-downs in the U.S. legislative process and the lineup of European elections. President Trump's first 100 days are turning out to be even more tumultuous than many expected. Allegations of wiretaps and the FBI investigation into the alleged interference of Russia in the U.S. election are costing the President political capital, as well as raising question marks over the Republican Party's wish list. Simply removing the possibility of corporate tax cuts would justify a healthy haircut on the S&P 500. The political situation has admittedly become more complicated, but our geopolitical team makes the following observations: The GOP base supports Trump: Until the mid-term elections, Trump's popularity with Republican voters remains strong, which means that the President still has political capital (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Changing Correlations Chart I-2Trump Not Dead To Republicans Yet Republicans want tax reform: Even if reform gets bogged down, there is broad support for cutting taxes at a minimum. Many deficit hawks appear willing to use the magic of "dynamic scoring" to justify tax cuts as revenue-neutral. Even the chairman of the Freedom Caucus has signaled that he is open to tax reform that is not revenue neutral. Tax reform not conditional on Obamacare: The failure to replace Obamacare does not mean that tax reform is necessarily going to be delayed. The Republicans will need to show success on at least one of their signature platforms before heading into the mid-term elections. The prospective savings from Obamacare's repeal are not needed to "fund" tax cuts. Infrastructure: We still expect that President Trump will get his way on additional spending on defense, veterans, infrastructure and the wall. The tax reform process will undoubtedly be full of drama and may be stretched out, adding volatility to the equity market. Our base case is that some sort of tax reform and infrastructure package will be passed by year end. However, if a reform package proves too difficult to pass, then we believe that the GOP will settle for straight-forward tax cuts and a modest amount of infrastructure spending (please see Table I-1 in the March 2017 monthly Bank Credit Analyst for the probabilities we have attached to the various GOP proposals). Tax cuts and increased spending will be positive for risk assets. The caveat is that we see little change in Trump's commitment to mercantilism. This means he will lean toward backing the border tax or tariff increases, which will offset some of the benefits for risk assets from reduced tax rates. Excess Reaction To FOMC Chart I-3FOMC & Market Disagree Beyond This Year Given the uncertainty on the fiscal side, one can't blame the FOMC for taking a "wait and see" approach. The range for the funds rate was raised to 0.75-1.00% at the March meeting, as expected, but there was virtually no change to any of the median FOMC member projections for GDP growth, inflation or interest rates out to 2019. Another 50 bps of tightening is expected by the Committee this year, with 75 bps expected in both 2018 and 2019 (Chart I-3). The FOMC signaled in March that it was not yet prepared to adjust the 'dot plot,' sparking a rally in bond prices and a pullback in the dollar. This market reaction seemed excessive in our view. The key message from the March meeting was that the Fed now sees inflation as having finally reached its 2% target, as highlighted by the decision to strip the reference to the "current shortfall of inflation" from the statement. If the U.S. economy performs as we expect, the Fed will have to take a more hawkish tone later this year. Is The Dollar Bull Over? Still, recent market action suggests that the dollar may not get a lift from future Fed rate hikes because the outlook for global growth outside of the U.S. is brightening. Moreover, it could be that monetary policy in the Eurozone and Japan is at a turning point. There is increasing speculation that the ECB will have to taper the quantitative easing program sooner than planned. Some are even speculating the ECB will lift rates this year. The recent economic data for the euro area have indeed been stellar. The composite PMI surged to 56.7 in March, with the forward-looking new orders components hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart I-4). In addition, private-sector credit growth has accelerated to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis. Our real GDP model for the Eurozone, based on our consumer and business spending indicators, remains quite upbeat for the first half of the year. With unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to establish a consensus view on the ECB policy committee. The Bundesbank has been quite vocal on this issue, especially given that Eurozone headline HICP inflation reached 2% in February. The core rate of inflation remains close to 1%, but the rising diffusion index suggests that budding inflation pressure is becoming more broadly based (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Solid Eurozone Economic Data Chart I-5Eurozone Inflation Broadening Out BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service recently compared the current economic situation to that of the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum."1 In Chart I-6, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for the Euro Area and U.S. In the Euro Area, the number of months to the first rate hike discounted in money markets peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, this indicator has converged with the U.S. path. There is less spare capacity in European labor markets today than was the case in the U.S. when the Fed first hinted at tapering its asset purchases. Nonetheless, the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to rush to judgment on asset purchases, especially given upcoming elections. Not before September will the ECB be in a position to announce another tapering of its asset purchases beginning in 2018. A "Bund Tantrum" could thus be the big story for the global bond market later this year. We do not believe that the ECB will raise short-term interest rates before it starts the tapering process. A rate hike would result in a stronger euro, downward pressure on inflation, and an unwanted tightening in financial conditions that would threaten the current economic impulse. This means that, between now and September, the window is still open for U.S./Eurozone interest rate spreads to move further in favor of the dollar. The European election calendar remains a risk to our view on currencies and risk assets. Widening OAT/Bund yield spreads highlight that investors remain concerned that the French election will follow last year's populist script in the U.K. and the U.S. However, our geopolitical team believes that Le Pen is unlikely to win since she trails in the polls by a 25-30% margin relative to Macron, her most likely opponent. Even if she were to pull off a win, she will not hold the balance of power in the National Assembly. Over in Germany, where the election is heating up, the fact that the Europhile SPD party is gaining in the polls means that the September vote is unlikely to be a speed bump for financial markets. The real political risk lies in Italy. While the election has been pushed off to February 2018, it appears that there will be genuine fireworks at that time because Euroskeptic parties have seized the lead in the polls (Chart I-7). In the meantime, European elections will be a source of volatility, but investors should ride it out until we get closer to the Italian election. Chart I-6Less Spare Capacity In Europe ##br##Now Vs. Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. Chart I-7Italian Elections: The Big Risk Japanese Yield Cap To Hold Chart I-8Japanese Wages Still Disappointing Similar to our view on the ECB, we do not believe that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) will be in a position to begin removing monetary accommodation anytime soon. We expect that the 0% yield cap on the 10-year JGB to remain in place at least for the remainder of this year. True, deflationary forces appear to have eased somewhat. Japan is also benefiting from the faster global growth on the industrial side. Nonetheless, the domestic demand story is less positive, with consumer confidence and real retail sales growth languishing. Wages continue to struggle as well (Chart I-8). This year's round of Japanese wage negotiations was particularly disappointing, with many manufacturing companies offering pay raises only half as large as those of last year. We continue to see this as the only way out of the low-inflation trap for Japan - keeping Japanese interest rates depressed versus the rest of the world, thus making the yen weaken alongside increasingly unattractive interest rate differentials. Our views on U.S. fiscal policy and the outlook for the major central banks paint a bullish picture for the dollar and suggest that the other 'Trump trades' still have legs. The dollar has another 10% upside in trade-weighted terms and the global bond bear phase is not yet over. Admittedly, however, the next major move in global yields may not occur until the autumn when the ECB takes a less dovish tone. In the meantime, our fixed-income strategists remain underweight Treasurys within global currency-hedged portfolios. The team recently upgraded (low beta) JGBs to overweight at the expense of core European government bonds, which move to benchmark. Correlation, ERP And Hurdle Rates Chart I-9Market Correlations Are Shifting Another key market development has been the continuing drop in risk asset correlations, a trend that began before the U.S. election (Chart I-9). Elevated financial market correlations have been a hallmark of this expansion, making life difficult for traders and for investors searching for diversification. Correlations have been higher than normal across assets, across regions and within asset classes. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the past 6 months. A drop in asset correlations is important for diversification reasons and because it provides a better backdrop for those seeking alpha. But the reasons behind the decline in correlations may have broader financial and economic implications. One can only speculate on the underlying cause of the surge in asset correlations in the first place. Our theory has been that the large global output gap lingered because of the sub-par recovery that followed the most damaging macroeconomic shock since the Great Depression. The growth headwinds were formidable and many felt that the sustainability of the recovery hinged solely on the success or failure of radical monetary policy. Either policy would "work", the output gap will gradually close, the deflation threat would be extinguished and risk assets would perform well, or it would fail, and risk assets would be dragged down as the economy fell back into recession. Thus, risk assets fluctuated along with violent swings in investor sentiment in what appeared to be a binary economic environment. In the March 2017 Quarterly Review, the Bank for International Settlements described it this way: "In a global environment devoid of growth but plentiful in liquidity, central bank decisions appear to draw investors into common, successive phases of buying or selling risk." In previous research, we developed a model that helps to explain the historical movements in correlations. We chose to focus on the correlation of individual stocks within the S&P 500 (Chart I-10). The two explanatory variables are: (1) the equity risk premium (ERP; the difference between the S&P 500 forward earnings yield and the 10-year Treasury yield); and (2) rolling 1-year realized downside volatility.2 The logic behind the model is that a higher ERP causes investors to revalue cash flows from all firms, which in turn, causes structural shifts in the correlation among stocks. Conversely, a lower ERP results in less homogenization of the present value of future cash flows, and raises the effect of differentiation among business models. A rise in the ERP could occur for different reasons, but the most obvious include an increase in the perceived riskiness of firms, a shift in investor risk aversion, or both. Volatility is included to explain the cyclical variation of correlations, but we use only below-average returns in the calculation because we are more concerned about the risk of equity market declines. It makes sense that perceptions of downside "tail risk" should affect investors' appetite for risk. The model almost completely explains the trend in stock price correlations over the past decade, highlighting the importance of the ERP in driving the structural change in correlations (Chart I-11). But why was the ERP so elevated after 2007? Chart I-10Market Correlation And The ERP Chart I-11Modeling The Stock ##br##Correlation Within The S&P 500 The preceding moderation in risk premia in the 1990s was likely due to a decline in macroeconomic volatility, a phenomenon that began in the early 1980s and has since been dubbed "The Great Moderation". A waning in the volatility of global inflation and growth contributed to a decline in the volatility of interest rates, which are used to discount future cash flows. This also reduced the perceived riskiness of investing in securities that are leveraged to economic growth, thus causing investors to trim their required excess returns to equities. Unfortunately, the Great Moderation contributed to complacency and bubbles in tech stocks and, later, housing.3 The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble brought the Great Moderation to a crushing end, ushering in an era of rolling financial crises and monetary extremism. Our measure of downside volatility soon returned to normal levels after the recession-driven spike. However, the ERP continued to fluctuate at a higher average level, which helps to explain the strong correlation among risk asset prices in the years since the recession. The ERP And Capital Spending Chart I-12Capex Hurdle Rates Never Came Down An elevated equity risk premium is consistent with the view that investors demanded a more generous premium to take risk in a post-Lehman world. This may also help to explain the disappointing rate of capital spending growth in the major countries in recent years. Firms demanded a fat "hurdle rate" when evaluating new investment projects. Sir John Cunliffe, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, recently cited survey evidence related to the dismal U.K. capital spending record since the recession.4 The main culprits were bank lending issues, the high cost of capital and elevated hurdle rates. Eighty percent of publically-owned firms in the survey agreed that financial market pressure for short-term returns to shareholders had been an obstacle to investment. This short-termism makes sense if investors feared that the recovery could turn to bust at any moment. The survey highlighted that market pressure, together with macro uncertainty among CEOs, kept the hurdle rate applied to new investment projects at close to 12%, despite the major drop in market interest rates. In other words, the gap between the required rate-of-return on new projects and the risk-free rate or corporate borrowing rates surged (Chart I-12). J.P. Morgan concluded that hurdle rates have also been sticky at around 12% in the U.S.5 This study blamed uncertainty over the cash-flow outlook (macro risk) and the fact that CEOs believed that low borrowing rates are temporary. It is rational for a firm to hold cash and buy back stock if perceptions of downside tail risk remain lofty. The bottom line is that uncertainty and higher risk aversion related to macro volatility kept the ERP elevated, curtailing animal spirits and lifting correlation among risk asset prices. The good news is that the situation appears to have changed since the U.S. election. Measures of market correlation have dropped sharply across asset classes, within asset classes and across regions. Animal spirits also appear to be reviving given the jump in consumer and business confidence in the major countries. We are not making the case that all risks have dissipated. The military situation in North Korea and upcoming European elections are just two on a long list, as highlighted in this month's Special Report on Brexit's implication for Scotland independence, beginning on page 19. Our point is that, absent further negative shocks, perceptions of downside tail risk and a binary economic future should wane further. And, if business leaders come to believe that deflation risk has finally been vanquished, they can now focus more on long-term revenue generation rather than on guaranteeing their existence. Does The ERP Have More Downside? It is difficult to determine the equilibrium equity risk premium, but back-of-the-envelope estimates can provide a ballpark figure. Let us assume that the ERP is not going back into negative territory, as was the case from 1980-2000. A more reasonable assumption is that the ERP instead converges with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003 to 2007 (about +200 basis points). The ERP is currently 3.2, which is equal to the forward earnings yield of 5.6 minus the 10-year yield of 2.4% (Chart I-13). The ERP would need to fall by 120 basis points to get back to the 2% average yield of 2003-2007. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or a higher bond yield. If the 10-year Treasury yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3%, then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 60 basis points. This would boost the earnings multiple from 17.8 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We lean to the latter scenario for bonds, although it will take some time for the bond bear phase to play out. In the meantime, an equity overshoot is possible. The bottom line is that much of the normalization of the ERP since 2012 has been due to multiple expansion. Going forward, the lion's share of the remaining adjustment is likely to be in the bond market, with equity multiples trending sideways. This means that equity total returns will be roughly in line with dividends and earnings growth over the next couple of years, although that will be much better than the (likely negative) returns in the bond market. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets where value is less stretched, such as the euro area and Japan, over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. Europe is about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. index, although the extra value in the Japanese market has dissipated recently (Chart I-14). Moreover, both Eurozone and Japanese stocks in local currency terms will benefit from weaker currencies in the coming months, as rising inflation expectations and stable nominal interest rates result in declining in real rates, at least relative to the U.S. Chart I-13Forward Multiple Scenarios Chart I-14Eurozone Stocks Are Cheap Conclusion We have reassessed our asset allocation given that several market calls have gone against us over the past month. However, three key views argue to stay the course for now: Recent economic data support our view that a synchronized global acceleration is underway. This is highlighted by an update of the real GDP growth models we introduced last month (Chart I-15). The implication is that earnings growth will be constructive for stocks; Tax reform is still likely to be passed this year in the U.S. Moreover, were a broad tax reform package to elude the Administration, the fallback position will involve (stimulative) tax cuts, some infrastructure spending and de-regulation; and The FOMC will shift to a more hawkish tone in the coming months, while the ECB, Bank of England and Bank of Japan will maintain extremely accommodative monetary policy at least into the fall. The result is that stocks will outperform cash and bonds, while the dollar still has another 10% upside potential. The only adjustment we are making this month is in the U.S. high-yield corporate bond allocation. According to our fixed-income strategists, value has improved enough that it is worth upgrading the sector to overweight at the expense of Treasurys. Some of the indicators that comprise our default rate model have become more constructive for credit risk, including lending standards, the PMIs and profits. The combination of wider junk spreads and an improving default rate outlook have resulted in a widening in our estimate of the default-adjusted high-yield spread to 219 basis points (Chart I-16). Historically, high-yield earns a positive 12-month excess return 81% of the time when the default-adjusted spread is between 200 and 250 basis points. Chart I-15GDP Models Are Bullish Chart I-16Upgrade U.S. High Yield Turning to oil markets, we expect recent price weakness to reverse despite dollar strength. Building inventories have weighed on crude, but this is a head fake according to our commodity experts. We expect to see a sustained draw in OECD storage volumes this year, now that the year-end surge on crude product from OPEC's Gulf producers has been fully absorbed. With global supply/demand fundamentals now dominating price movements, the recent breakdown in the inverse correlation between oil prices and the dollar should persist. Oil prices will rise back toward the US$55 range that we believe will be the central tendency over 2016 and 2017. Risks are to the upside. Our other recommendations include: Maintain below-benchmark duration within bond portfolios. Shift to benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and upgrade JGBs to overweight within currency-hedged portfolios. The U.S. remains at underweight. Overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged portfolios. Be defensively positioned within equity sectors to temper the risk associated with overweighting stocks over bonds. In U.S. equities, maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that rely heavily on imports. Overweight investment-grade corporate bonds relative to government issues in the U.S.; upgrade U.S. high-yield to overweight, but downgrade European investment-grade to underweight due to fading support from the ECB. Within European government bond portfolios, continue to avoid the Periphery in favor of the core markets. Fade the widening in French/German spreads. Overweight the dollar relative to the other major currencies. Stay cautious on EM bonds, stocks and currencies. Overweight small cap stocks versus large in the U.S. market, on expected policy changes that will disproportionately favor small companies. Favor oil to base metals. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 30, 2017 Next Report: April 27, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?" dated March 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Downside volatility is calculated in a fashion similar to standard deviation, except only using below-average returns. 3 Of course, the Great Moderation was not the only factor that contributed to the financial market bubbles. 4 Are Firms Underinvesting - and if so why? Speech by Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor Financial Stability and Member of the Monetary Policy Committee. Greater Birmingham Chamber of Commerce. February 8, 2017. 5 It's Time to Reassess Your Hurdle Rates. J.P. Morgan, November 2016. II. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? This month's Special Report, on Scotland's role in Brexit negotiations, was penned by our colleagues Matt Gertken, Marko Papic, and Jesse Kurri of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Scottish secessionist sentiment has increased in response to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's decision to push for a second popular referendum on Scottish independence, tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019, though likely to be denied for some time by Westminster. The outcome of a referendum on leaving the U.K., which eventually will occur, is too close to call at this point. The possibility will influence the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, and vice versa. The risk of a U.K. break-up adds an important constraint to Prime Minister Theresa May's government in the Brexit talks. Since the EU also has an interest in avoiding a devastating outcome for the U.K., our geopolitical team believes that the worst version of a "hard Brexit" will be avoided. That said, independence for Scotland cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s divorce proceedings. I trust that you will find the report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.'s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the "Great Repeal Bill" that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the "Phoney War" has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart II-1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart II-2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart II-3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart II-1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart II-2...Is Looking More Likely Chart II-3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, the outcome will be "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss why, and how Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "the End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland resented the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. If that had happened in 2014, it was estimated that the country's fiscal deficit would have been 5.9% of GDP and that its national debt would have been 109% of GDP. (Today those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively) (Table II-1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Table II-1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart II-4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Chart II-4Highly Financialized Societies Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart II-5). Brexit does indeed mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. Chart II-5Three Cheers For Brexit And The Tories It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that a new independence vote would be justified in case of "a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will." Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart II-6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart II-7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart II-6Immigration Curbs ##br##Threaten Scots Growth Chart II-7Scottish Patriots ##br##Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart II-8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart II-9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart II-10). Chart II-8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart II-9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies Chart II-10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart II-11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Chart II-12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts II-13 and II-14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart II-15). Chart II-13Irish Independence: ##br##Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart II-14Scotland: If The Irish ##br##Can Do It So Can We Chart II-15EU Market No ##br##Substitute For British Market Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart II-16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart II-17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while their elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart II-16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart II-17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart II-18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart II-19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart II-18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart II-19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, though of course Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart II-5, page 24). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism and migration, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the common market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the common market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. Our Geopolitical Strategy service has been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down 2%. This suggests that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer this currency trade as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Jesse Anak Kuri Research Analyst Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also may work against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 index has pulled back from its recent highs, but it has not corrected enough to 'move the dial' in terms of the valuation or technical indicators. Stocks remain expensive based on our valuation index made up of 11 different measures. The technical indicator is still bullish. Our equity monetary indicator has dropped back to the zero line, meaning that it is not particularly bullish or bearish at the moment. The speculation index is elevated, however, pointing to froth in the market. The high level of our composite sentiment index and the low level of the VIX speaks to the level of investor complacency. Net earnings revisions remain close to the zero mark, although it is somewhat worrying that the earnings surprises index is slowly deteriorating. Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator continues to send a positive message for the S&P 500. This indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. However, the widening gap between the U.S. WTP and that of Japan and Europe highlights that recent flows have favored the U.S. market relative to the other two. Looking ahead, this means that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the Japanese and European markets. A rise in the WTPs for these two markets in the coming months would signal that a rotation into Europe and Japan is taking place. U.S. bond valuation is hovering close to fair value. However, we believe that fair value itself is moving higher as some of the economic headwinds fade. The composite technical indicator for the 10-year Treasury shows that oversold conditions are unwinding, although the indicator is not yet back to zero. This suggests that the consolidation period for bonds is not yet complete. Oversold conditions are almost completely gone in terms of the U.S. dollar. The dollar is very expensive on a PPP basis, although it is less so by other measures. We believe the dollar has more upside. Technical conditions are also benign in the commodity complex. However, we are only bullish on oil at the moment. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China

Special Report

Highlights A second Scottish referendum will be "too close to call"; There is upside potential to the 45% independence vote of 2014; Scots may vote with their hearts instead of their heads; But the EU will not seek to dismember the U.K. ... ...And that may keep the kingdom united. We are tactically short EUR/GBP and USD/GBP. Feature "For who is it that would not prefer the greatest Hardships attended with Liberty, to a State that deprived him of all means to defend himself against the Oppressions that must inevitably follow [the Union of the two Crowns]." "No sooner did Scots Men appear inclined to set Matters upon a better footing, than the Union of the two Kingdoms was projected, as an effectual measure to perpetuate their Chains and Misery." - George Lockhart, Memoirs Concerning The Affairs Of Scotland, 1714. British Prime Minister Theresa May has had a busy week. On Monday she met with Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon as part of a tour of the United Kingdom to drum up national unity. On Wednesday she communicated with European Council President Donald Tusk and formally invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, initiating the process of the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union. And on that day and Thursday, she turns to the parliamentary battle over the “Great Repeal Bill” that will replace the 1972 European Communities Act, which until now translated European law into British law. Brexit is finally getting under way. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi puts it, the “Phoney War” has ended, and now the real battle begins.1 Indeed, the dynamic has truly shifted in recent weeks. Not because PM May invoked Article 50, which was expected, but rather because Scottish secessionist sentiment has ticked up in reaction to Sturgeon's decision to hold a second popular referendum on Scottish independence (Chart 1), tentatively set for late 2018 or early 2019. Scottish voters are still generally opposed to holding a second referendum, but the gap is narrowing (Chart 2). A sequel to the September 2014 referendum was always in the cards in the event of a Brexit vote. Financial markets pretty much called it, by punishing equities domiciled in Scotland following the U.K.'s EU referendum (Chart 3). The timing of the move toward a second referendum is significant for two reasons. First, the odds of Scotland actually voting to leave have increased relative to 2014, even as the economic case for secession has worsened. Second, Scotland's threat of leaving will impact the U.K.'s negotiations with the EU, slated to end in March 2019.2 Chart 1A Second Independence Referendum... Chart 2...Is Looking More Likely Chart 3Scottish Stocks Have Underperformed BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that a second Scottish referendum will eventually take place. And as with the Brexit referendum, it is "too close to call," at least judging by the data available at present. In what follows we discuss the ways in which Scotland could influence the Brexit negotiations, and vice versa. While the U.K. can avoid the worst version of a "hard Brexit," the high risk of a break-up of the U.K. will add urgency to negotiations with the EU. Why Scotland Rejected "Freedom" In 2014 In a Special Report on "Secession In Europe," in May 14, 2014, we argued that the incentives for separatism in Europe had weakened and that this trend specifically applied to Scotland:3 The world is a scary place: Whereas the market-friendly 1990s fueled regional aspirations to independence by suggesting that the world was fundamentally secure and that "The End of History" was nigh, the multipolar twenty-first century discourages those aspirations, with nation-states fighting to maintain their integrity. For Scotland, the Great Recession especially drove home the dangers of socio-economic instability. EU and NATO membership is difficult to obtain: Scotland could not be assured to find easy accession to the EU as it faced opposition from states like Spain, which wanted to discourage Catalan independence. Enlargement of the EU and NATO have both become increasingly difficult and Scotland would need a special dispensation. The United States and the European Union vociferously discouraged Scotland from striking out on its own ahead of the 2014 referendum. Domestic politics: The Great Recession revived old fissures in every country, including the old Anglo-Scots divide. The U.K. imposed budgetary austerity while Scotland opposed it. Left-leaning Scotland opposed the rightward shift in the U.K., ruled by the Conservative Party after 2010. We also highlighted some of Scotland's particular impediments to independence: Energy: Scotland's domestic sources of energy are in structural decline. This would weigh on the fiscal balance and domestic private demand. The referendum actually signaled a top in the oil market, with oil prices collapsing by 58% in 2014. Deficits and debt: Scotland's public finances would get worse if it left the U.K. The fiscal deficit, in 2014, would have been 5.9% of GDP and the national debt would have been 109% of GDP - now those numbers are 8% and 84% of GDP respectively (Table 1). A newborn Scotland would have to adopt austerity quickly. Central banking: If Scotland walked away from its share of the U.K.'s national debt, yet retained the pound unilaterally and without the blessing of the BoE, it would lose access to the English central bank as lender of last resort. And if it walked away from its U.K. debt obligation and the pound, then it would also lose its financial sector and much of its wealth, which would be newly redenominated into a Scots national currency. Scotland is every bit as reliant on the financial sector as the U.K. as a whole (Chart 4), making for a major constraint on any political rupture that threatens to force it to change currencies or lose control of monetary policy. Politics: We also posited that domestic political changes in the U.K. could provide inducements to keep Scotland in the union, particularly if the Conservatives suffered in the 2015 elections. The opposite, in fact, occurred, sowing the seeds for today's confrontation. Table 1Scotland Would Be A High-Debt Economy Chart 4Highly Financialized Societies For all these reasons, we argued that the risks of Scottish secession were overstated. The September 2014 referendum confirmed our forecast. The economic prospects were simply too daunting outside the U.K. But the 45% pro-independence tally also left open the possibility for another referendum down the line. Bottom Line: Scottish independence did not make sense in 2014 for a range of geopolitical, political, and economic reasons. But note that while independence still does not make economic sense, the political winds have shifted. Scottish antagonism toward the Conservative leadership in England has only intensified, while it remains to be seen how the European Union will respond to Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The Three Kingdoms In our Strategic Outlook for 2017, we argued that the British public not only did not regret the Brexit referendum outcome, but positively rallied around the flag because of it. This helped set up an environment in which the ruling party could charge forward aggressively and pursue the outcome confirmed by the vote (Chart 5). Brexit indeed does mean Brexit. We have since seen that the Tories have forced parliament's hand in approving the bill authorizing the government to initiate exit proceedings. Chart 5Three Cheers For Brexit & The Tories It stood to reason that the crux of tensions would shift to the domestic sphere, i.e. to the troubling constitutional problems that Brexit would provoke between what were once called "the Three Kingdoms," England (and Wales), Scotland, and Northern Ireland.4 While 52% of the U.K. public voted to leave the EU, the subdivision reveals the stark regional differences: England and Wales voted to leave (53.4% and 52.5% respectively), while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to stay (62% and 55.8% respectively). Scotland and the London metropolitan area were the clear outliers. The Scottish parliament is a devolved parliament subordinate to the U.K. parliament in Westminster, and it cannot hold a legally binding referendum on independence without the latter's permission.5 The May government is insisting that it will not allow a referendum to go forward until the Brexit negotiations are completed. This is an obvious strategic need. Although the Scottish National Party (SNP), the dominant party in Edinburgh, could hold a non-binding referendum at any time to apply pressure on London (reminder: the Brexit vote was also non-binding), it has an interest in waiting to see whether public opinion of Brexit will shift in England and what kind of deal the U.K. might get from the EU in the exit negotiations. Eventually, however, Scotland is likely to push for a new vote. The SNP is a party whose raison d'être is independence sooner or later. It faces a once-in-a-generation opportunity, with the 2014 referendum producing an encouraging result and Brexit adding new impetus. The party manifesto made clear in 2016 that it would call for a new independence vote in case of "a significant or material change" in Scotland's constitutional circumstances - a clear hint at Brexit. Why have the odds of Scottish independence increased? First, Brexit removes a domestic political constraint on independence. After the Brexit vote, the SNP and other pro-independence groups can say that England changed the status quo, not Scotland. It is worth remembering that the Anglo-Scots union was forged in 1707 at a time of severe Scottish economic hardship, in which a common market was the primary motivation to merge governments. Today, Scotland's comparable interest lies in maintaining access to the European single market, which is now under threat from Westminster. In particular, as with the U.K. as a whole, Scotland stands to suffer from a decline in immigration and hence workforce growth (Chart 6). Second, Brexit removes an external constraint. The EU's official opposition to Scottish independence, particularly European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's threat that Scottish accession would be "extremely difficult, if not impossible," likely affected the outcome of the 2014 referendum. Of course, many Scots rejected all such warnings as the vote approached, with polls showing a rally just before the referendum date toward the 45% outcome (Chart 7). But if the EU's warnings even had a temporary effect, what happens if the EU gives a nod and wink this time around? While EU officials have recently reiterated the so-called "Barroso doctrine," we suspect that they are less likely to play an interventionist role under the new circumstances. Spain - which is still concerned about Scotland fanning Catalan ambitions - might be less vocal this time, since Madrid could plausibly argue that Brexit makes a material difference from its own case. Catalonians could not argue, like the Scots, that their parent country attempted to deprive them of access to the European Single Market. Chart 6Immigration Curbs Threaten Scots Growth Chart 7Scottish Patriots Only Temporarily Deterred To put this into context, remember that it is not historically unusual for continental Europe to act as a patron to Scotland to keep England in check. There is ample record of this behavior, namely French and Spanish patronage of the exiled Stuart kings after 1688. The situation is very different today, but the analogy is not absurd: insofar as Brexit undermines the integrity of the EU, the EU can be expected to reciprocate by not doing everything in its power to defend the integrity of the U.K. All is fair in love and war. Nevertheless, the economic constraints to Scottish secession are even clearer than they were in 2014: The North Sea is drying up: Scotland's North Sea energy revenues have essentially collapsed to zero (Chart 8). Meanwhile the long-term prospects for the North Sea oil production remain as bleak as they were in 2014, especially since oil prices halved. Reserves of oil and gas are limited, hovering at around five to eight years' worth of supply - i.e. not a good basis for long-term independence (Chart 9). Decommissioning costs are also expected to be high as the sector is wound down. Chart 8No Golden Goose In The North Sea Chart 9Limited Domestic Energy Supplies England still foots many bills: Total government expenditures in Scotland exceed the total revenue raised in Scotland by about £15 billion or 28% of Scotland's government revenue (Chart 10). Chart 10The U.K. Pays For Scotland's Allegiance Chart 11Scotland's Deficits Getting Worse Scottish finances stand at risk: Scotland's fiscal, foreign exchange, and monetary policy dilemmas are as discouraging as they were in 2014 (Chart 11). Judging by the value of financial assets (which come under risk if Scotland loses the BoE's support or changes currencies), Scotland is incredibly exposed to financial risk (Chart 12). Chart 12Scottish Financial Assets Need Currency Stability Thus, while key domestic political and foreign policy impediments may be removed, the country's internal economic impediments remain gigantic. Moreover, Scotland already has most of the characteristics of a nation state. It has its own legal and education system, prints its own banknotes, and has some powers of taxation (about 40% of revenue). It lacks a standing army and full fiscal control, but in these cases it clearly benefits from partnering with England. It also has a strong sense of national identity, regardless of whether it is technically independent. Why, then, do we believe Scottish independence is too close to call? Because Brexit has shown that "math" is insufficient! The Scots may go with their hearts against their heads, just as many English voters did in favor of Brexit. Nationalism and political polarization are a two-way street. History also shows that strictly materialist or quantitative assessments cannot anticipate paradigm shifts or national leaps into the unknown. Compare Ireland in 1922, the year of its independence from the U.K. Ireland was far less prepared to strike out on its own than Scotland is today. It comprised a smaller share of the U.K.'s population, workforce, and GDP than Scotland today (Charts 13 and 14). It was less educated and less developed relative to its neighbors, and it faced unemployment rates above 30%. Yet it chose independence anyway - out of political will and sheer Celtic grit. Chart 13Irish Independence: Poverty Not An Obstacle Chart 14Scotland: If The Irish Can Do It So Can We Ireland's case was very different than Scotland's today, but there is an interesting parallel. The U.K. was absorbed with continental affairs, the Americans played the role of external economic patron, and the Irish were ready to seize their once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Today the U.K. is similarly distracted with Europe, and the SNP leadership is ready to seize the moment, having revealed its preference in 2014. But foreign support (in this case the EU's) will be a critical factor, even though the EU's common market is much less valuable to Scotland than the U.K.'s (Chart 15). Will the SNP be able to get enough votes? We know that more Scots voted to stay in the EU (62%) than voted to stay in the U.K. (55%), which in a crude sense implies that there is upside potential to the first referendum outcome. However, looking at the referendum results on the local level, it becomes clear that there is no correlation between Scottish secessionists and Europhiles, or unionists and Euroskeptics (Chart 16). Nor is there any marked correlation between level of education and the desire for independence, as was the case in Brexit. Yet there is evidence that love of the Union Jack is correlated with age (Chart 17). Youngsters are willing to take risks for the thrill of freedom, while the elders better understand the benefits from economic links and transfer payments. In the short and medium run, this suggests that demographics will continue to work against independence - reinforcing the fact that the SNP can wait to see what kind of deal the U.K. gets first.6 Chart 15EU Market No Substitute For British Market Chart 16No Relationship Between IndyRef And Brexit Chart 17Old Folks Loyal To The Union Jack The most striking indicator of Scottish secessionism is unemployment (Chart 18). Thus an economic downturn that impacts Scotland, for example as result of uncertainty over Brexit, poses a critical risk to the union. The SNP will be quick to blame even a shred of economic pain on Tory-dominated Westminster. The British government and BoE have shown a commitment to use accommodative monetary and fiscal policy to smooth over the transition period, and they have fiscal room for maneuver (Chart 19), but much will depend on what kind of a deal London gets from the EU and whether the markets remain calm. Chart 18Joblessness Boosts Independence Vote Chart 19The U.K. Has Room To Maneuver Bottom Line: Economics is an argument against Scottish independence, but history and politics are unclear. We simply note that independence cannot be ruled out, particularly in the context of any adverse economic shock stemming from the U.K.'s actual divorce proceedings. Will Scotland Scotch Brexit? From the beginning of the Brexit saga, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has argued that Britain, of all EU members, was uniquely predisposed and positioned to leave the union. Hence the referendum was "too close to call."7 This did not mean that the U.K. could do so without consequences. Leaving would be detrimental (albeit not apocalyptic) to the U.K.'s economy, particularly by harming service exports to the EU and reducing labor force growth via stricter immigration controls. In the event, upside economic surprises have occurred, but Brexit has not happened yet.8 How does the Scottish referendum threat affect the Brexit negotiations? This is much less clear and will require constant monitoring over the coming two years, and perhaps longer if the European Council agrees to extend the negotiating period (which would require a unanimous vote). Still, we can draw a few conclusions from the above. First, London is a price taker not a price maker. It cannot afford not to agree to a trade deal or transition deal of some sort upon leaving in 2019. Even if England were willing to walk away from the EU's offers, a total rupture (reversion to minimal WTO trade rules) would be unacceptable to Scotland after being denied a say in the negotiation process. Therefore Scotland is now a moderating force on the Tory leadership that is otherwise unconstrained by domestic politics due to the high level of support for May's government (see Chart 5, page 5). To save the United Kingdom, the Tories may simply have to accept what Europe is willing to give. This supports our view that the risk of a total diplomatic war between Europe and the U.K. is unlikely and that expectations of cross-channel fireworks may be overdone. Second, Scotland is twice the price taker, because it can only afford independence from the U.K. if the EU is willing to grant it a special arrangement. This is possible, but difficult to see happen early in the negotiations process. It will be important to monitor Brussels' statements on Scottish independence carefully for signs that the EU is taking a tough stance on Brexit negotiations. Sturgeon has to play it safe and see what kind of a deal May brings back from Brussels. By waiting, she can profit from Scottish indignation over both May's use of prerogative to block the referendum in the first place and then over the Brexit deal itself, when it takes place. Third, the saving grace for both countries is that it is not in Europe's interest to dismantle the U.K., or to force it into a debilitating economic crisis. We have long differed from the view that the EU will be remorseless in its negotiations over Brexit. The EU seeks extensive trade engagements with every European country, from Norway and Switzerland to Iceland and Turkey, because its interest lies in expanding markets and forging alliances. Europe is not Russia, seeking to impose punitive economic embargoes on Ukraine and Belarus for failure to conform to its market standards. While free trade agreements usually take longer than two years to negotiate, and while the CETA agreement between the EU and Canada is a recent and relevant example of the risks for the U.K., the U.K. and EU are already highly integrated, unlike the two parties in most other bilateral trade negotiations. In addition, the U.K. is a military and geopolitical ally of key European states. The U.K.-EU negotiations are not being conducted in a ceteris paribus economic laboratory, but are occurring in 2017, a year in which Russian assertiveness, transnational terrorism, and global multipolarity are all shared risks to both the U.K. and EU. Investment Implications Since January 17 - the date of Theresa May's speech calling for the exit from the Common Market - we have argued that the worst is probably over for the U.K.9 Yes, the EU negotiations will be tough and the British press - surprisingly lacking the stiff upper lip of its readers - will make mountains out of molehills. However, by saying no to the Common Market, Theresa May plays the role of a spouse who does not want to fight over the custody of the children, thus defusing the divorce proceedings. We have been short EUR/GBP since mid-January and the trade is down only 1.96%, suggesting that the market has been in "wait and see mode" since the speech. We are comfortable with this trade regardless of our analysis on the rising probability of the Scottish referendum for two reasons: Hard Brexit is less likely: Many Tory MPs have had a tough time getting behind the "hard Brexit" policy, but until now they have had a tough time expressing their displeasure. However, the threat of Scottish independence and the dissolution of the U.K. will give the members of the Conservative and Unionist Party (as it is officially known) plenty of ammunition to push May towards a softer Brexit outcome. This should be bullish GBP in ceteris paribus terms. It's not the seventeenth century: We do not expect the EU to act like seventeenth-century France and subvert U.K. unity, at least not this early in the negotiations. For clients who expect the "knives to come out," we offer Scottish independence as a critical test of the thesis. Let's see if the EU is ready to play dirty and if it decides to alter the "Barroso doctrine" for Scotland. If they do, then our sanguine thesis is truly wrong. On the other hand, our short EUR/GBP trade may be threatened by a potential surge in bullish euro sentiment as French election risks abate and the ECB threatens hawkish rhetoric. We have just gone long EUR/USD on a three-to-six month basis for these reasons. As such, we would suggest that clients go short USD/GBP instead. To be clear, we do not have high conviction that the pound will outperform either the euro or the U.S. dollar. Instead, we offer these currency trades as a way to gauge our political thesis that the U.K.-EU negotiations will likely go more smoothly than the market expects. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phoney War Ends. Battle Begins," dated March 16, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Article 50 allows for a two-year negotiation period, after which the departing party may have an exit deal but is not guaranteed a trade deal for the future. The negotiation period can be extended with a unanimous vote in the European Council. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Brexit: The Three Kingdoms," in Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England is a power "reserved" to parliament and the crown in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act of 1998. Altering the union would therefore require the U.K. and Scottish parliaments to agree to devolve the power to Scotland using Section 30(2) of the same act, which the monarch would then endorse. This was the case in 2012 when the 2014 referendum was initiated. 6 On the other hand, demographics also works against Brexit in the long run, given that - as our colleague Peter Berezin has said in the past - many who voted to leave the EU will eventually pass away. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, and "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Geopolitical tensions in the South China Sea are here to stay; China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that tries to roll back its control; U.S. advantages in the region are significant, but declining and overrated. We put together a portfolio of stocks that give investors exposure to the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea. Dear Client, Today's Special Report is jointly authored by BCA's Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Equity Strategy services and focuses on the tail risks around the South China Sea conflict. In this report, our colleagues Matt Gertken of the Geopolitical Strategy and Oleg Babanov of the Emerging Markets Equity Sector Strategy ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors. At the end of the report, we provide detailed investment recommendations for both EM-dedicated as well as global investors. Kindest Regards, Garry Evans Senior Vice President EM Equity Sector Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President, Geopolitical Strategy "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years ... There's no doubt about that." - Steve Bannon, prior to becoming President Donald Trump's Chief Strategist, Breitbart News, March 2016 The South China Sea is a headline grabber that has failed to produce any market-disruptions despite years of rising tensions. In fact, it would appear that the issue has been relegated to the backburner, with the Trump administration laying off its earlier aggressive rhetoric and America's Asian allies focusing on building a trade relationship with China. Compared to the Koreas, in particular, where geopolitical risk is spiking due to political turmoil in the South and weapons advances in the North, the South China Sea seems relatively calm.1 We are not so sanguine, however, and advise investors to take the tail-risk of a conflict in the South China Sea seriously. First, there has been a general "rotation" of global geopolitical risk from the Middle East to Asia Pacific, as BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has chronicled over the years.2 China's transformation into a "peer" or "near-peer" competitor to the United States, and the U.S.'s various reactions, are transforming the region and sowing the seeds of a new Cold War. Second, despite a thaw in the relationship between China and the Trump Administration, the latest positive signals have not extended to the South China Sea.3 In North Korea, China is offering to enforce sanctions. In Taiwan, Trump has backed away from hints of encouraging independence. But in the South China Sea, the two sides have increased activity even as they have made reassuring statements.4 Third, fact remains that despite headline grabbers, China has managed to expand its military installations in the region over the past half-decade and now possesses a layered-defense system in the region. In this report, we ask whether China has "won" the South China Sea, and what the implications might be for investors, particularly EM-dedicated investors, on the sectoral level. We find that China has reached the ability to impose massive costs on any state that should try to roll back its control of the disputed islands. We also do not think that the U.S. is ready to accept this new Chinese "sphere of influence." This means that the two countries are in a "gray zone" in which policy mistakes could occur. This uncertainty is driving the odds of a crisis higher. China is flush with recent victories in the islands, and yet the United States will continue to insist on free passage and the defense of allies and partners. Nationalism and rising jingoism in both countries also raises the odds of misunderstanding and miscalculation. Until the Trump and Xi administrations agree to a robust strategic deal that arranges for de-escalation, the South China Sea will remain a source of low-probability, high-impact geopolitical risk for investors. It is only one aspect of a broader deterioration in U.S.-China relations that we see as the ultimate driver of a secular rise in geopolitical risk in Asia Pacific.5 Unfortunately, history also teaches us that such "strategic resets" are normally motivated by a dramatic crisis. At the end of this report, we provide investment recommendations for investors in emerging markets (and a couple for the U.S. as well). Why Not Ignore The South China Sea? Map 1Nine-Dash Line Reaches Far Beyond China Maritime territorial disputes between China and several of its neighbors - Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and partly Indonesia - have a long history. China declared its "Nine Dash Line," an expansionist claim of sovereignty over almost the entirety of the sea, in 1947 (Map 1). Since then, conflicts have flared up sporadically. The most notable skirmishes illustrate that the maritime disputes are always simmering but tend to boil over only when larger geopolitical issues heat up.6 Since the 1990s, China and the other claimants have raced to "grab what they can," particularly in the Spratly Islands. However, conflicts have especially intensified since the mid-2000s (Charts 1 and 2). A major factor has been the rise in competition for subsea resources: Chart 1Territorialism Rising In South China Chart 2Rising Number Of Confrontations Energy and minerals - Although estimates vary widely, the South China Sea contains respectable reserves of oil and natural gas (Chart 3) and there are also hopes of extracting other minerals from the sea floor. Most of the region's states are net importers. Several conflicts have been sparked by exploration, test drilling, and unilateral development.7 It is a fact that the past decade's buildup in tensions has coincided with a global bull market for energy prices and offshore energy investment and capex (Chart 4). Chart 3Not Insignificant Reserves Of Oil And Gas In South China Sea Fishing Grounds - The South China Sea holds vast fish resources, a source of food security, exports, and jobs for littoral countries. It is estimated that over 10% of global fishing catches come from here. Fishing as a whole accounts for about 1-3% of GDP for the countries involved in the disputes (Chart 5), and the South China Sea is a large chunk of that. A quick glance at recent skirmishes reveals that fishing rights are a major cause of conflict (Table 1). Chart 4Offshore Oil Production In Decline Chart 5Fisheries Non-Negligible For Asian States Table 1Notable Incidents In The South China Sea (2010-16) Nevertheless, resource extraction is not the main driver of discord. Frictions spiked in 2015-16 despite the collapse in China's and other countries' offshore rig counts (Chart 6). And fishing rights are also clearly a pretext for attempts to assert control over waters and rocks.8 Chart 6Energy Interest Declining, Tensions Still Elevated Moreover, China's conversion of the sea's various geographical features into artificial islands through a process of land reclamation, and its construction of military facilities and stationing of armaments on these islands, points not to strictly economic interests but to broader strategic security interests. Similarly, the United States' enforcement of international rights of free navigation and overflight is not related to oil and fish. What is really at stake is national security, supply-line control, and international prestige. First, the United States has long executed a grand strategy of preventing any country from forming a regional empire and denying the U.S. access. China has the long-term potential to make this happen, and the South China Sea is its earliest foray into empire-building abroad. (Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Tibet are all old news and expand Chinese hegemony into the largely useless Eurasian hinterland.) Second, the main global trading lines from Eurasia and Africa to and from Asia mostly go through the South China Sea and the Spratly Islands. We illustrate this process through our diagram of the sea as a large traffic roundabout (Diagram 1). China is attempting to control the centerpiece of the roundabout, which - in combination with China's southern mainland forces - would eventually give it veto power over transit. Diagram 1South China Sea As A Vital Supply Roundabout The economic value of the trade potentially affected by power struggles is what makes this all highly market relevant if a full-blown war ever occurs. We estimate that roughly $4.8 trillion worth of trade flowed through this area in 2015, which is comparable to the $5.3 trillion estimate from 2012 frequently cited in news media.9 Moreover, the trade does not consist merely of manufactured goods from Asian manufacturing centers but also basic commodities vital to the Asian countries' economic and political stability. Essential commodities account for about 20-35% of Northeast and Southeast Asian imports, and almost all of this by definition flows through the South China Sea (Charts 7 and 8). Chart 7Commodity Imports Go Through South China Sea... Chart 8...And Greatly Affect Asian Economies The numbers belie how vital the supply lanes are for individual countries: Japan, for instance, gets 80% of its oil via the South China Sea. A total cutoff would be devastating after strategic reserves were exhausted; and even a marginal hindrance of energy imports would bite into the current account surpluses that grease the wheels of high-debt Asian economies. The South China Sea is therefore vital even to countries like Japan and South Korea that are not party to the maritime-territorial disputes. A commerce-destroying war could strangle their economies. Military access is another reason states seek control. This is separate but related to the need to secure economic supplies. Chinese military planners are clear that they want to be able to deny access to foreign powers if need be, in order to secure the southern half of the country, or cut off Taiwan's or Japan's supply lines. American military planners are equally clear that they will not allow a state to deny them access to international commons, or to coerce others through supply-lane control.10 Finally, there are political and legal aspects to the South China Sea disputes. China's successful alteration of the status quo in the face of opposition from the U.S., Asian neighbors, and a high-profile international tribunal (the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague), has undermined international legal institutions and the U.S. prestige in the region. Over time, regional states, perceiving that "might makes right," may feel the need to cling more closely to China or the U.S., giving rise to proxy battles.11 With supply security and national defense at risk - and China in the process of "militarizing" the islands - there is a rising probability of a major "Black Swan" incident. The involvement of a number of major powers and minor allies means that a small incident could escalate into something significant. The friction between U.S. global dominance and China's rising regional sway is the chief source of instability. China could agree to a "Code of Conduct" with the Asian states possibly as early as this year. But without improvement in U.S.-China relations, the geopolitical consequences of such a code will be moot. Southeast Asian risk assets could benefit temporarily, but the chief tail-risks of the U.S. and China falling out would be unresolved. Bottom Line: He who controls the sea routes controls the traffic. China has made an overt bid for the ability to govern the sea routes and deny foreign powers access to the sea. The U.S. has threatened forceful responses to acts of "area-denial" or military coercion. Thus, geopolitical uncertainty and risks in the region remain elevated. How Do The Contenders Size Up? If China had clearly achieved full control of the waterways, airways, and geographical features of the South China Sea, then geopolitical risk over the area might decline. Countries would adjust to Beijing's rules of the game and the region would enter a period of hegemonic stability. The reason we are in a gray area today is that China has not yet reached dominance. China's advantages are significant, growing rapidly, and underrated; meanwhile the U.S.'s advantages are significant, declining, and overrated. A simple comparison of the U.S.'s and China's military advantages and disadvantages will make this clear. China Considering that the South China Sea is China's backyard, the country has a major advantage of playing on its "home court" versus the United States. China can afford to concentrate its military capabilities and planning specifically on its near seas, whereas American resources are dispersed globally and reduced to an "expeditionary force" when operating in China's neighborhood.12 Even so, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), Navy (PLAN), and Air Force (PLAAF) have major obstacles to overcome if they are to contend with American forces. Until relatively recently, China's defense buildup focused on traditional ground capabilities, creating weak spots in its ability to project military power over the South China Sea. What matters is whether China has addressed these shortfalls sufficiently to raise the costs of U.S. intervention to a prohibitive level. So far, it is attempting to do so in the following ways: Sea Power - China's naval capabilities have generally lagged far behind those of the U.S. and Japan. An important step was the commissioning of China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in 2012. It is a renovated Soviet carrier of the type that Russia has recently used in Syria. A second carrier, Shandong, is 85% complete and set to be commissioned in 2018 - it is an indigenously produced copy of the former. It is set to be stationed in Hainan, which will influence the balance of power given that the U.S. only has one carrier permanently in the region (though several more dock in San Diego). A third carrier is slated for 2022 and expected to be stationed in the South China Sea. The navy has also significantly increased China's logistic and support capabilities in the area, with amphibious warships and air cover. China has also vastly expanded its destroyers and smaller ships. Only its submarine capabilities face serious doubts about the degree of improvement and capability. Air Transport - China's naval and air force lifting capabilities, necessary to transport troops and equipment quickly to disputed territories, were initially very limited. But in recent years, China has improved these capabilities. Considering satellite pictures of the Spratly and Paracel Islands with new hangars and landing strips, China has made considerable progress toward the goal of quick material and troop supply for the islands. Of course, it is notoriously difficult to resupply small scattered islands amid enemy disruptions, but it is also difficult to disrupt without committing more than one aircraft carrier wing to the problem. Clearly China's capacity has improved. Infrastructure - China has converted Hainan, its southernmost island (and smallest province) into a major military and logistics base. Its new Yulin Naval Base can host up to 20 nuclear submarines as well as two carrier groups and several assault ships. This is China's "Pearl Harbor," and unlike the American version, it is in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, on the disputed islands, China had not built infrastructure until very recently. It was in fact the last of the island claimants to pave an airstrip. But its construction has been bigger, faster, and more ambitious - including for air transport, fighter jets, and surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, all of which have added greatly to its ability to deny the U.S. access to the sea. Air Power - One of the main issues the PLAAF had over the years was the limited radius of its fighter planes, which would not allow full air superiority in the South China Sea. Airfield infrastructure was built on the disputed islands so that fighter planes could be stationed closer to the area. China therefore does not possess just one aircraft carrier, but rather numerous ones if we think of islands as aircraft carriers. Also, Russia is delivering to China a number of multirole fighters that can cover the South China Sea from bases on the mainland. And China's fifth-generation fighter is coming along. By far the most significant military development in China's arsenal, however, is its development of short- and medium-range missiles. This development greatly increases the danger to American ships and aircraft seeking access to the region. First, China has concentrated on building short-range, DF-21D "Carrier Killer" anti-ship missiles, which pack enough punch to take out an American aircraft carrier with one hit, and which the U.S. has limited means to defend against.13 China has also paraded around the DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile, or "Guam Killer," which can reach as far as Guam, can carry a nuclear charge, and has a mobile launch platform that would be difficult for U.S. forces to detect and knock out before the launch. In turn, the U.S. has deployed Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile systems in Guam and South Korea in preparation for precisely this kind of attack.14 Second, China has amassed around 500 surface-to-air missiles on Hainan Island, waiting to be shipped to the disputed rocks. The armory consists of a combination of short-, medium-, and long-range missiles to create a layered air-defense perimeter. Satellite images of the islands show that China has also positioned short-range and medium-range missile systems on some of the islands, namely Woody Island in the Paracels. Finally, China has fielded better radar systems to gain full coverage of the South China Sea (as well as other nearby waters) in order to find or guide friendly or hostile ships or planes and to support the various activities of its air and ship defenses. This combination of radar and missile capabilities amounts to a game changer. They make it possible for China to raise the costs of conflict to such a level that the United States might balk. Will the U.S. seek to change the balance of power with force? No. But Washington has reaffirmed its "red lines" in the region, namely freedom of passage. This was the takeaway from Secretary of Defense James Mattis's first foreign trip, not incidentally to Japan and South Korea. Mattis indicated that freedom of passage is "absolute" not only for the U.S. merchant fleet but also for the navy. However, he also said the U.S. will exhaust "diplomatic efforts" and eschew "any dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea, while maintaining the U.S.'s neutrality on sovereignty disputes. This is status quo, and the status quo favors China's rapidly growing ability to deny others' access to the area. The United States The U.S. has several bases in the Indo-Pacific area, with ground, air, naval, and marine assets. It also has extensive experience conducting wars and special operations in East Asia. Yet despite this dispersed and historic basing, China poses a challenge the likes of which it has not seen in the region. The distances to be covered, the complexities of the logistics, and China's growing strengths, make any U.S. intervention in the South China Sea harder than is typically assumed. The U.S.'s key five bases make these advantages and disadvantages clear: Guam, with almost 6,000 troops, will most likely be the first base to respond to a threat in the South China Sea, or to become engaged in a conflict there. It hosts part of the Seventh Fleet, including a ballistic-missile submarine squadron. It would be a key launch pad for regional operations. It could also be an early target for China's long-range ballistic missiles in a major conflict. Guam sits almost 3,000km from the South China Sea. South Korea hosts one of the U.S.'s oldest and largest regional deployments, with about 28,000 troops. Korea hosts the Eighth U.S. Army and Seventh Air Force, as well as Special Operations Command Korea. Its chief advantage is its proximity to China. However, assuming a conflict involves no direct engagement with mainland China, Korea comes with some disadvantages. Most of the ground staff is located around the North Korea border. The U.S. command in the region will be wary of lifting troops from the border and exposing its northern flank. North Korea (or conceivably China itself) could take advantage of U.S. distraction in the South China Sea. At the same time, the operational radius of planes on the Osan Air Base would not allow direct engagement in the South China Sea, though they could cover the southeast to hinder any maneuvers of the Chinese air force. Japan is the United States' largest overseas deployment with about 49,000 troops - heavily tilted toward naval and air power. The Fifth U.S. Air Force is spread across three main bases in Misawa, Yokota, and Kadena, while the Seventh Fleet is the largest forward-deployed U.S. fleet. It has several powerful task forces including the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and naval special warfare, amphibious assault, mine warfare, and marine expeditionary forces. The strong presence and firepower of this fleet as well as its maneuverability make it the prime candidate for any sort of engagement in the South China Sea (or East China Sea for that matter). The air bases around Tokyo and Okinawa can provide air support down to Taiwan and run airlift operations down to China's Hainan Island, the base of China's southern fleet. The only disadvantages stem from vulnerability to layered air defense and long supply lines for the navy, which will become targets after any lengthy engagement. Moreover, U.S. Forces Japan lack large ground units to organize landing operations, which will need to be sourced from South Korea or Hawaii. Hawaii is the home of the U.S. Pacific Command, which oversees regional forces, and contains sizable ground units to reinforce regional bases. It hosts the U.S. Army Pacific, U.S. Pacific Air Forces, and the U.S. Pacific Fleet stationed in Pearl Harbor (with a second base in San Diego). Hawaii has a large ground troop presence, which, together with U.S. air-lift capabilities, would provide the main ground forces for offensive operations. The large fleet secures U.S. presence in the region. Hawaii would host and resupply the core of any naval operations in the South China Sea. The only disadvantage is geographic: the distance to any U.S. ally's territory is significant, and main operational areas in the South China Sea cannot be reached in a single lift. This means that troop and equipment movement will take time and will not go unmolested. In any scenario involving land operations, the redeployment of troops will give the other side time to prepare. Alaska is also worth mention as it houses infantry brigades and air force combat units, albeit no significant naval presence. We only give small consideration to the base here because of its proximity to Russia. Assuming the neutrality of Russia during a hypothetical conflict, the U.S. would still be unlikely to draw resources from Alaska to aid operations in the South China Sea, since that would leave its own territory exposed to some degree. Other Allied Bases - We do not feature other allied bases in the region mainly because of the small numbers of troops that can be deployed and the low capabilities of U.S. allies. Some countries, such a Singapore, which has a respectably army, could disappoint the U.S. by trying to remain neutral. The most reliable help would come from Japan and Australia, but even Australia would face a very intense internal dilemma as a result of its economic dependency on China. South Korea would also be preoccupied with North Korea's ability to take advantage. A quick survey of the "order of battle" of the U.S. and China in the region would make our assertion that China has gained supremacy laughable. Then again, geopolitics does not work in ceteris paribus terms. Yes, the U.S. maintains military hegemony in the region, but China's abilities to impose real pain on American naval forces creates a complicated political dilemma for the U.S.: is Washington prepared to expend blood and treasure to defend allies and their supply lines in case of a conflict over this area? China is not yet looking to project power globally. It is not actively trying to compete for supremacy with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, or Caribbean Sea. As such, it can concentrate its forces in the South and East China Seas and dedicate its entire naval strategy to the sole purpose of denying the U.S. navy access there. The U.S., meanwhile, has to plan for a global confrontation and then dedicate a portion of its forces to China's home court. Japan may very well hold the balance of power in a potential conflict over the region. Its import dependency is at the core of its national psyche and it would view a Chinese blockade of the South China Sea as an existential threat - not unlike the American threat of oil embargo that precipitated war in the early 1940s. Japan is not likely to go rogue, but it would be a tremendous addition to the American effort, even in a situation where other states refrained from action out of fear. However, while China will see the above as a reason not to initiate armed conflict with the United States, it will not be able to retrench in the South China Sea in the face of domestic nationalism either. These pressures virtually ensure that it is locked into the assertive foreign policy it has pursued over the past ten years. Bottom Line: A simple analysis of the current disposition shows that the military capabilities of the two countries - in this limited theater - are not as disparate as one might think. Both sides have weaknesses: the U.S. is bound to a handful of distant bases and has a global range of obligations and constraints, while China lacks technology, experience, and cooperation among its military branches. Nevertheless, China is approaching full air and sea cover of the area within the Nine Dash Line (Map 1) and is rapidly gaining greater ability through radar and missiles to inflict politically unacceptable damage on the U.S. The U.S.'s interest in the South China Sea is ultimately limited to free passage and the defense of treaty allies. The Trump administration is primed to strengthen the country's rights and deterrence, namely through a large increase in defense spending that focuses heavily on the navy - aiming at a 600-ship fleet - and likely on Asia Pacific. In the context of a massive new assertion of U.S. regional presence and power, it is significant that China has not yet given any concrete indication of slowing down its island reclamation, militarization, or control techniques. Investment Implications BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been warning clients of the rising risks in the South China Sea, and East China in general, since 2012. However, it has been a challenge to construct an investment strategy based on our view. For starters, it is unclear when the crisis could emerge. It is difficult to know when accidents and miscalculations will happen. What we can say with some degree of certainty, however, is that the window of opportunity for any realistic campaign to reverse the militarization of the disputed islands will probably be closed by the end of this year. By "realistic," we mean operations that would promise control over the disputed territory with a calculated degree of risk and an acceptable degree of casualties. At the same time, the U.S. still has the ability to win a full-blown war with China. We have not addressed scenarios like cutting off China's oil supplies at the Strait of Hormuz, for instance, but have limited our discussion to a conflict in the South China Sea over control of the newly militarized islands. In that context, the American threshold for pain is low and its military advantages are narrowing. We are therefore entering a danger zone now because both China and the U.S. stand at risk of becoming overly assertive in the near future: Chart 9Will Trump Seek Political Recapitalization Via Conflict? China because it has domestic nationalist pressures that the Communist Party needs to vent as the economy slows; The U.S. because it has an unpopular (Chart 9), nationalist leadership that seeks to increase its defense presence in the region and may fall to brinkmanship in order to extract major trade concessions from Beijing. The tail-risk in the South China Sea suggests that global investors should also continue to hedge their exposure to risk assets with exposure to safe-haven assets receptive to geopolitical risk, like gold, Swiss bonds, though perhaps not U.S. Treasuries. The persistence of Sino-American distrust - beyond whatever happy encounter Trump and Xi may have at Mar-a-Lago in April - suggests that Chinese economic policy uncertainty will remain elevated and global financial volatility to rise. U.S.-China tension also feeds our broader narrative of rising mercantilism and protectionism. Investors will want to overweight domestic-oriented economies, consumer-oriented sectors, and small cap companies relative to their export-oriented, manufacturing, and large cap counterparts. We also recommend that EM-dedicated investors be wary about Asian states caught in the middle of de-globalization and vulnerable to geopolitical tail-risks. We are neutral to bearish on South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines. Our long Vietnam equities trade has been downgraded to tactical. We prefer Thailand and Japan, U.S. allies that are removed from conflict zones (Thailand) or domestically oriented and reflationary (Japan). We are also long China relative to Hong Kong and Taiwan, given the risks of both de-globalization and Chinese political troubles for the latter two. We are bullish on U.S. defense stocks.15 The U.S. defense establishment is conducting extensive reviews of the navy's force structure and future strategic needs - the fleet peaked in 1987 and fell below 300 battle force ships in 2003, but has projected that 355 battle force ships is necessary. This would require a major injection of funds in the coming decade. The Trump administration has endorsed this assessment in principle and is planning a significant increase in defense spending, marked by a requested increase of $50 billion in his first annual budget. Trump has signaled that defense manufacturing, notably shipbuilding, will be one of the ways in which he seeks to boost American manufacturing and jobs. This plays to his blue-collar base of support and could move the needle in battleground states like Virginia. It should be beneficial on the margin for U.S. defense companies.16 Below are our corporate-level recommendations for both EM-dedicated and global investors. The Companies Given the likelihood that tensions in the SCS will continue, and the projected build up in defense spending in both the U.S. and China, EMES recommends investors look to take exposure to defense stocks. We have put together a portfolio of such stocks that is intended to give exposure to the developments between China and the U.S. in the South China Sea. We recommend the following basket of companies: AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). The basket consists of four Chinese defense companies, mostly centered around the aviation industry. The choice of listed companies in China is constrained and hence we have been forced to gain exposure through aviation companies rather than naval. We recommend two companies in the U.S. that are involved in military vessel production for the U.S. Navy. We believe that the main ramp-up in defense spending from the U.S. side will come through a significant increase in the number of ships in the Asian region. Chart 10Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AviChina Vs. MSCI EM AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK): Chinese aviation holding company (Chart 10). AviChina is the listed subsidiary of the government-controlled Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). Airbus is another large shareholder, with over 11% of the free float. The company produces dual-purpose aircraft - civil and military -- including helicopters, trainers, parts and components (including radio-electronic), avionics and electrical products and components. AviChina itself is a holding company with a rather complicated structure, which makes it difficult for investors to access its market value. Listed subsidiaries include AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH), China Avionics (600372 CH), AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH) and Hongdu Aviation (600316 CH). In terms of the revenue stream, 49% is generated from whole aircraft production, 28% from engineering services and another 23% from parts and components manufacturing. The company reports semi-annual results. The latest full-year report released on March 15 came out mixed. Revenues were strong, up 39% year over year, but costs accelerated at a faster pace (+45% year over year). Operating income was still strong, growing 12.3% year over year, but margins declined across the board. EBITDA margin contracted by 257 basis points to 9.94%, while operating margin fell by 170 basis points to 7.32%. Despite this, the bottom line still managed to grow by 18.75% year over year. AviChina is currently trading at a forward P/E of 21.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 9.5% for the next three years. Chart 11Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Jonhon Optronic Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH): Profiting from growing military and EV spending (Chart 11). A subsidiary of AVIC and AviChina, the company specializes in production of optical and electric connectors (third largest in China), and cable components. Jonhon is unrivalled in the defense market. It profits from rising electronic content and from supplying major components to other parts of the AVIC group, shipbuilders, railways and aerospace. It is also successfully developing its civil offering, specifically for the fast-growing electric vehicle market and the 4G space in the telecoms industry. Looking at the revenue composition, 54% is generated by sales of electric connectors, a further 24% from fiber-optic cables, and 19% from conventional cable and assembly products. As for the civil-military split, the company is expected to receive 60% of total revenues from its civil applications, growing approximately 10% per annum. Jonhon Optronics reported its full-year results on March 15. Revenues saw a strong increase, jumping 23.7% year over year. Cost growth was also higher, though it slowed from the previous year (up 23.8% year over year). This led to an operating profit increase of 19.7%, but slight margin deterioration. EBITDA margin fell by 77 basis points to 16.98%, and operating margin was down 5 basis points to 14.32. On the other hand, profit margins improved to 12.6% (up 54 basis points) as the bottom line grew by 29.8% year over year. Jonhon Optronics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 24.4x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 15.2% for the next three years. Chart 12Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Helicopter Company Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH): AVIC's helicopter arm (Chart 12). As the name already suggests, the company specializes in helicopter production, which accounts for almost 100% of the overall revenue stream. The main helicopters currently marketed are from the AC series, in particular the AC311, AC312 and AC313, the Z series - Z-8, Z-9 and Z-11. We expect further tailwinds for the company stemming from China's future defense budget. The country's helicopter fleet is still only a tenth of the size of the U.S.'s fleet. It will continue to ramp up production. Export contracts will also support revenue growth for AVIC Helicopter Co. With a strong advance on the Asian military helicopter market, the company is looking to expand in the region. Furthermore, we see some promising developments in the civil helicopter space, with Chinese emergency services and the Civil Aviation Administration ramping up demand. The main headwind might come from the transition to new models, with the new production cycle to be in full force in 2018. AVIC Helicopter Co reported full year results on March 15, which came out weaker than expected. Revenues were virtually flat, contracting by 0.3% year over year, while cost of revenue grew 1.3% year over year. Operating income was also stable relative to last year, contracting 0.4% year over year, helped by an operating expense reduction of 12% year over year. Nevertheless, EBITDA margin declined slightly by 19 basis points to 6.77%, while operating margin fell by 131 basis points to 13.99%. A marginally lower income tax in FY16 allowed the firm to eke out 1.3% year-over-year bottom-line growth. AVIC Helicopters is currently trading at a forward P/E of 48.2x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13.8% for the next two years. Chart 13Performance Since March 2016: ##br## AVIC Aviation Engine Vs. MSCI EM AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH): Sole leader in Chinese engine production (Chart 13). Aviation Engine Corporation is part of the government-controlled Aeroengine Corporation of China (AECC), which was established in August 2016 and contributes just under 50% to Being in a monopolistic position on the Chinese market, the company profits from rising military aircraft procurement and prices. As part of the AECC, the company also receives tailwinds from scale effects within the company as well as cost savings in the supply chain. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation reported weak full year results on March 16. Revenue slid 5.5% year over year, but management kept costs under control (down 7.3% year over year). Operating expenses grew only marginally (up 5.2% year over year), which left operating profit flat compared to last year. Margin trends have been strong; EBITDA margin improved by 78 basis points to 13.05%, while operating margin grew by 42 basis points to 7.78%. However, high net interest expense depressed the bottom line, which fell 13.3% year over year. At the same time the company managed to decrease its debt level for the fourth year in a row. AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation is currently trading at a forward P/E of 52.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 14.4% for the next two years. Chart 14Performance Since March 2016: ##br## China Avionics Systems Vs. MSCI EM China Avionics Systems (600372 CH): Leading developer and producer of avionics equipment (Chart 14). China Avionics Systems is also a subsidiary of AviChina, which controls 43% of the free float. The company is active in R&D, running several research institutes in the fields of radar, aviation and navigation control as well as aviation computers and software. China Avionics enjoys a near-monopoly on the Chinese aviation electronics market, and also controls over 90% of the military market for air data systems. Looking at the revenue breakdown, 80% of total revenues come from military contracts, while it is expected that the share of civil revenues will increase with the development of civil aircraft in the country. Aircraft data acquisition devices contribute the most to overall revenue, at 25% of total, followed by airborne sensors at 15%, auto-pilot systems at 14%, distance-sensing alarm systems at 9.5%, and air data systems at 9%. The company reported full year results on March 16. Revenues experienced a mild increase of 1.9% year over year, while costs increased at the same pace (2% year over year). On the operating side, costs increased by 3% year over year, suppressing income by 1% year over year. EBITDA margin fell 37 basis points to 15.15%, while operating margin contracted 30 basis points to 10.60%. The bottom line contracted 3.5% year over year. China Avionics Systems is currently trading at a forward P/E of 55.0x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 13% for the next two years. Chart 15Performance Since March 2016: ##br## Huntington Ingalls Industries Vs. S&P 500 Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US): Largest listed U.S. military shipbuilder (Chart 15). Initially a part of Northrop Grumman, Huntington was spun off and listed in 2011. Huntington enjoys a monopolistic market position, as over 70% of the current U.S. Navy fleet was designed and built by the company's Newport News or Ingalls divisions in Virginia and Mississippi. Huntington is currently the sole designer, builder and re-fueler of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the U.S. In the nuclear submarines space, the company has one competitor: the Electric Boat unit of General Dynamics. The company also provides a range of services through its Technical Solutions division, centered around fleet support, integrated missions solutions and nuclear and oil and gas operations. Huntington reported full-year results on February 16. Full year revenue was virtually flat (+1% on quarterly basis), while costs increased slightly by 1.6% year over year. The company managed to reduce operating expenses, which fell by 16% to the lowest level since 2010. This helped boost operating profit by 13% year over year. EBITDA margin improved by an impressive 125 basis points to 14.77%, and operating margin was up by 119 basis points to 12.14%. New orders grew by US$5.2 billion, bringing the total pipeline to US$21 billion. The bottom line jumped by 45% year over year, helped by a lower income tax bill and a one-off after-tax adjustment. Huntington Ingalls Industries is currently trading at a forward P/E of 18.1x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 4.2% for the next two years. Chart 16Performance Since March 2016: ##br## General Dynamics Vs. S&P 500 General Dynamics (GD US): Primary contractor for U.S. Navy submarines (Chart 16). General Dynamics is a multinational defense corporation and currently the fourth-largest defense company in the world. The company has four business segments, from which we are mainly interested in the marine systems segment, contributing 25% of overall group revenue. The marine systems segment is represented by General Dynamics' unlisted subsidiary, GD Electric Boat. Electric Boat has long been the main builder of nuclear submarines for the U.S. Navy out of Connecticut, and is expected to be one of the main beneficiaries of the U.S. Navy expansion program under the Trump administration. General Dynamics reported full-year results on January 27, which generally came in flat. Revenue fell by a marginal 0.4% year over year (after the adoption of a new revenue-recognition standard), but the company did a good job in managing costs, which contracted by 1% year over year. Operating income grew by 4% year over year, helped by lower operating costs. Margins improved across the board; EBITDA margin went up 45 basis points to 15.19%, while operating margin was up 54 basis points to 13.74%. The bottom line grew 5% year over year. Management seem confident in their guidance through 2020, including detailed but conservative estimates. Especially promising was the good pipeline visibility in the marine segment, driven by the company's Columbia-class submarine sales. General Dynamics is currently trading at a forward P/E of 19.3x, whilst the market estimates an EPS CAGR of 6.5% for the next two years. How To Trade? The GPS/EMES team recommends gaining exposure to the sector through a basket of the listed equities, which would consist of five Chinese companies and two U.S. companies. The main goal is active alpha generation by excluding laggards and including out-of-benchmark plays, to avoid passive index hugging via an ETF. Direct: Equity access through the tickers (Bloomberg): AviChina Industry & Technology (2357 HK); AVIC Jonhon Optronic (002179 CH); AVIC Helicopter Company (600038 CH); AVIC Aviation Engine Corporation (600893 CH); China Avionics Systems (600372 CH); Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII US); General Dynamics Corporation (GD US). ETFs: At current time there is one listed ETF covering the China defense sector: Guotai CSI National Defense ETF (512660 CH); And three listed ETFs covering the U.S. defense sector: iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (ITA US); SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR US); PowerShares Aerospace & Defense Portfolio (PPA US). Funds: At current time there are no funds with significant defense sector exposure. Please note that the trade recommendation is long-term (1Y+) and based on a straight long trade. We don't see a need for specific market timing for this call (for technical indicators please refer to our website link). For convenience, the performance of both market cap-weighted and equally-weighted equity baskets will be tracked (please see upcoming updates as well as the website link to follow performance). Risks To The Investment Case The largest risk to our investment case - leaving aside company-specific risks - would be an unexpected fading away of the tensions in China's near seas, and of China's and America's military spending ambitions. Such a development - which would require a robust diplomatic agreement and an about-face from what the leaders have stated - would hit the weapons producers. Though such a settlement would not necessarily occur overnight, or receive immediate publicity, it would be observable over the course of negotiations between the Trump and Xi administrations. A key event to watch is the upcoming April summit between the two leaders. At the same time, the large momentum in the defense industry (with very long production pipelines), and the very low flexibility of defense budgeting, means that we are comfortable in terms of timing an exit should geopolitical tensions begin to recede. Another risk might come from a slowdown in economic growth in China or the U.S., which could lead to cuts in defense budgets. Nevertheless, in a case of a further escalation in China's near-abroad, we would most likely see defense spending continue to grow despite any weak economic performance, warranted by strategic needs. This is a key dynamic that investors should understand. Strategic distrust between the U.S. and China has worsened since the Great Recession, indicating that the preceding period of strong growth helped keep a lid on U.S.-China tensions. Now the two countries have entered a dilemma in which relations have soured despite their economic recoveries, since both sides are using growth to fuel military development, yet an economic relapse would fuel further distrust. Only a high-level political settlement can break this spiral and such settlements between strategic rivals traditionally require a "crisis." Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Oleg Babanov, Editor/Strategist obabanov@bcaresearch.co.uk Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The United States sent the USS Carl Vinson carrier group to the South China Sea as part of Freedom of Navigation Operations that the Trump administration may intensify; China is involved in a new spat about "environmental" monitoring stations in the Paracel Islands and in Scarborough Shoal, and is also increasing activity east of the Philippines; it is threatening to impose a new law that would govern foreign ships' access; the question of a Chinese Air Defense Identification Zone lingers; and China has also begun sending large tourist groups to the Paracels. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013 and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Most notably in 1971, 1974, 1988, 1995, 2001, and 2011-14. In the two biggest "battles," 1974 and 1988, China kicked Vietnamese forces out of the Paracel Islands and parts of the Spratly Islands, respectively. These conflicts took place in the context of Vietnam's wars with itself, the U.S., and China, just as the recent rise in tensions takes place in the context of China's emergence as a global power - in other words, international tensions are the cause and maritime-territorial disputes are but a symptom. 7 Most notably the HS981 showdown between China and Vietnam in 2014, which occurred when China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) moved a large mobile drilling rig into the farthest southwest island of the Paracel Islands, near Triton Island, triggering a months-long skirmish with Vietnamese coast guard ships and fishermen that involved Chinese warships and aircraft and the sinking of at least one Vietnamese fishing boat. 8 In fact, officers from China's People's Liberation Army-Navy's southern fleet have recently written publicly and approvingly of the well-known Chinese tactic of fighting "behind a civilian front" to establish control over the sea - which has involved a host of private and public actions covering fishing, energy, coast guard, administration, science and environment, and tourism. Please see "Chinese Military's Dominance in S. China Sea Complete: Report," Kyodo News, March 20, 2017. 9 Please see Bonnie S. Glaser, "Armed Clash In The South China Sea," Council on Foreign Relations, Contingency Planning Memorandum No. 14, April 2012, available at cfr.org. Separately, an American diplomatic estimate from 2016 claims that "more than half the world's merchant fleet tonnage" passes through these waters; see Colin Willett, "Statement ... Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee ... 'South China Sea Maritime Disputes,'" July 7, 2016, available at docs.house.gov [http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS28/20160707/105160/HHRG-114-AS28-Wstate-WillettC-20160707.pdf]. A Chinese study estimates that 47.5% of China's total foreign trade in goods transited the sea in 2014; see Du D. B., Ma Y. H. et al, "China's Maritime Transportation Security And Its Measures Of Safeguard," World Regional Studies 24:2 (2015), pp. 1-10. 10 When President Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clarified remarks at his senate confirmation hearing in which he threatened that the U.S. would deny China's access to the islands in the South China Sea, he reformulated his statement to say that in the event of a contingency the U.S. needed to be "capable of limiting China's access to and use of its artificial islands" to threaten the U.S. and its allies and partners. 11 Please see footnote 3 above. Another potential implication might be a weaker U.S. position in the partition of the Arctic shelf (which has far more hydrocarbon reserves than the South China Sea), which U.S. rivals like Russia will pursue next against the claims of the U.S. and its allies Norway, Canada, and Denmark. 12 Please see Robert Haddick, Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2014). 13 It is understood by multiple sources that these missiles cannot be defended successfully against by current anti-missile technology, with one potential exclusion - the recently tested SM-6 Dual I. Otherwise, possible defense methods would lie in the realm of electronic countermeasures. 14 We believe, with medium conviction, that the incoming administration in South Korea will remove the THAAD missile defense sometime in 2017 or 2018 in what would be a major diplomatic quarrel between Seoul and Washington. This is because the soon-to-be ruling Minjoo Party (Democratic Party) will seek to engage North Korea and mend relations with China, and the latter countries' top demand will be removal of the missile defense system that was only put in place in a rushed manner in the final days of the discredited and impeached Park Geun-hye administration. Such a removal would illustrate the U.S.'s disadvantages relative to China in having to deal with alliances, basing, and force structure in a foreign region. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Joint Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated January 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "2016 Navy Force Structure Assessment (FSA)," dated December 14, 2016, and Ronald O'Rourke, "Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress," Congressional Research Service, September 21, 2016.

Highlights Spread Product: Any near-term correction in risk assets is likely to be fleeting. Investors should take the opportunity to increase credit exposure and maintain overweight spread product allocations on a 6-12 month horizon. Duration: Our 2-factor Global PMI model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.54%. Economy: U.S. economic growth will remain solidly above-trend this year, helped along by renewed strength in both residential and non-residential investment. Above-trend growth will ensure that inflation remains in its current gradual uptrend. Feature Chart 1Back Above 400 bps The reflation trade has come under question during the past couple of weeks. The S&P 500 is 1.7% off its recent high, the VIX has bounced and the average spread on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is back above 400 basis points (Chart 1). After such a move, it is reasonable to ask if the economic landscape has changed enough to warrant a reversal of our current overweight spread product allocation. We think not, and we advise investors to buy the dips, adding credit risk to their portfolios from more attractive levels. This week we examine why risk assets are vulnerable to a near-term correction, but also why these corrections are likely to be short lived. On a 6-12 month investment horizon we continue to recommend a pro-risk portfolio characterized by: below-benchmark duration, overweight spread product, curve steepeners and TIPS breakeven wideners. Three Catalysts For A Near-Term Sell Off... Three main factors suggest that risk assets might continue to correct in the near-term. The first is that Fed rate hike expectations might be increasing too quickly. Chart 2 shows the fed funds rate that is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the end of this year. The lower dashed horizontal line is the level consistent with one more rate hike between now and the end of the year. The higher dashed horizontal line is the level consistent with two more rate hikes between now and the end of the year. We see that risk assets were able to handle the shift in rate expectations up to the lower dashed line with no trouble. The yield curve steepened and the cost of inflation compensation rose (Chart 2, bottom panel). But now, as rate expectations approach the higher dashed line, the reflation trade is starting to fray. The yield curve has started to flatten and TIPS breakevens are rolling over. A second reason why risk assets might sell-off in the near-term is the still elevated level of economic policy uncertainty (Chart 3, top panel). Last Friday, markets hung on every word related to the likelihood of a new healthcare bill being passed. Now that the bill has failed, attention will turn quickly to tax reform. It is very likely that risk assets will suffer if it appears as though tax reform will be delayed or scrapped altogether. Importantly, it is the opinion of our Geopolitical Strategy service that tax reform will be passed before the end of the year.1 Chart 2How Much Hawkishness Can Markets Take? Chart 3Correction Catalysts? A third reason why risk assets are vulnerable to a near-term correction is that investors have bought into the reflation trade, and sentiment is extremely bullish (Chart 3, bottom panel). Surveys of investors conducted by Yale University show that 99% of investors expect the Dow to increase during the coming year, while simultaneously only 47% of investors characterize the stock market as "not too high" relative to its fundamental value. The divergence in itself suggests that the equity rally is built on a shaky foundation. It seems likely that either confidence needs to wane or valuations need to correct for the rally to be prolonged. ...But The Fed Cycle Trumps Them All In previous reports2 we outlined the four phases of the Fed Cycle (see Box), and observed that in all likelihood we are currently in Phase I. Box: The Four Phases Of The Fed Cycle Chart 4Stylized Fed Cycle The four phases of the Fed Cycle are illustrated in Chart 4 and defined as follows: Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above its equilibrium (or neutral) level. Phase II represents the late stage of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in an effort to slow the economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate descends to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. In Phase I, the Fed has begun to remove monetary accommodation but still needs inflation to rise back to target. In other words, if risk assets sell off and financial conditions start to tighten the Fed will adopt a more dovish policy stance to ensure that the recovery persists and inflation continues to trend higher. We note that core PCE inflation is running at 1.74% year-over-year, still below the Fed's 2% target. Further, the St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure3 is signaling only a 19% chance that PCE inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next twelve months, and market-based measures of inflation compensation are well below levels that are consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 5). Chart 5Fed Still Needs Higher Inflation In this environment, if risk assets sell off because of overly aggressive rate hike expectations, fiscal policy disappointments or over-extended sentiment, the Fed will quickly adopt a more dovish policy stance, lending support to the reflation trade. Of course, if any of the catalysts for the market correction also cause a severe contraction in economic growth, then the reflation trade would face a more lasting setback. However, none of the three reasons for a market correction listed above seem likely to have significant pass-through effects on the economy. Even if fiscal stimulus turns out to be much less than was previously anticipated, there appears to be sufficient momentum in economic growth to maintain inflation on its upward trajectory (see section titled "Above-Trend Growth: Aided By Housing & Capex" below). It follows from this analysis of the Fed Cycle that a strategy of "buying the dips" should work whenever we are in an environment where the Fed needs inflation to move higher. It is only when inflation is more firmly anchored around the Fed's target that the Fed will be less willing to support markets, making a "buy the dips" strategy less effective. To test this theory, we devised a trading rule for high-yield bonds where we buy the High-Yield index whenever spreads widen by 20 bps or more during a month. We then hold that position for a period ranging from 1 to 3 months and calculate excess returns relative to duration-matched Treasuries during that period. Our goal is to see if the effectiveness of this "buy the dips" strategy differs depending on the stage of the Fed Cycle. For this test we define the stages of the Fed Cycle using the aforementioned St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure, which we split into four ranges: 0% to 15%: An environment of very limited inflation pressure most consistent with Phase IV of the Fed Cycle. 15% to 30%: Still muted inflation pressures. Roughly consistent with Phase I of the Fed Cycle. 30% to 50%: Rising inflation pressures, but still less than a 50% chance that PCE will exceed 2.5% in the coming 12 months. This likely coincides with some Phase I periods and some Phase II periods of the Fed Cycle. 50% to 70%: Strong inflation pressures, and a good chance of inflation overshooting the Fed's target. Most likely coincides with Phase II or Phase III of the Fed Cycle. We indeed find that a "buy the dips" strategy is more effective when inflation pressures are lower (Table 1). A strategy of buying the junk index after spreads widen by at least 20 bps and holding it for three months produces positive excess returns 65% of the time when the St. Louis Fed Price Pressures Measure is between 0% and 15%. This same strategy works 59% of the time when the Price Pressures Measure is between 15% and 30%, 44% of the time when the Measure is between 30% and 50% and only 25% of the time when the Measure is between 50% and 70%. Table 1High-Yield Corporate Bond Returns* Achieved By Holding The Junk Index Following ##br##A 20 BPs Widening In High-Yield Corporate OAS** Under Different Ranges##br## Of The St. Louis Fed Price Pressure Measure*** (February 1994 To Present) With the Price Pressures Measure at only 19% currently, we advise investors to increase exposure to spread product on any near-term correction. Bottom Line: Any near-term correction in risk assets is likely to be fleeting. Investors should take the opportunity to increase credit exposure and maintain overweight spread product allocations on a 6-12 month horizon. Above-Trend Growth: Aided By Housing & Capex For the analysis of the Fed cycle performed above to be applicable, we must have confidence in the view that GDP will continue to grow at an above-trend pace. That is, growth must at least be strong enough to remove slack from the labor market and cause inflation to trend gradually higher. This has mostly been the case since measures of core inflation bottomed in early 2015 and we see no evidence at the moment to suggest it is about to change. In fact, measures of global growth most relevant for Treasury yields have hooked up strongly in recent months, and our model now suggests that fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is 2.54% (Chart 6). At the time of publication the 10-year yield was 2.40%. The fair value reading from our model moved higher during the past month even though PMIs in both the U.S. and Japan ticked down. This negative move was offset by an acceleration in Eurozone PMI and a decline in bullish sentiment toward the dollar (Chart 6, bottom two panels). Less bullish dollar sentiment is a signal that the global recovery is becoming more synchronized which means that U.S. Treasury yields must rise more quickly for a given level of global growth.4 Returning to the U.S. growth outlook specifically, a recent BCA Special Report 5 showed that cyclical spending as a percent of overall GDP is an excellent leading indicator of economic downturns (Chart 7). Cyclical spending has been relatively firm as a percent of GDP during the past couple of years, and would have been stronger if not for stagnant residential investment (Chart 7, panel 3) and contracting non-residential investment in equipment & software (Chart 7, bottom panel). However, leading indicators suggest that both of these factors should shift from being sources of disappointment to sources of strength in the coming months. Chart 610-Year Treasury Fair Value Model Chart 7Cyclical Spending Is Firm... Chart 8 shows the year-over-year change in each of the three cyclical components of GDP as a percent of overall growth alongside a reliable leading indicator. Consumer confidence suggests that consumer spending on durables will remain firm (Chart 8, panel 1). Our composite indicator of New Orders surveys also points to a rebound in nonresidential investment on equipment & software (Chart 8, panel 2). In prior reports we observed that nonresidential investment was held back by the 2014 oil price shock and should recover now that oil prices have found a floor.6 Also, any potential benefit from a more favorable tax and regulatory environment under the new federal government would only increase the upside for capex. Residential investment as a percent of GDP also rolled over last year, but homebuilder confidence has been trending sharply higher during the past few months (Chart 8, bottom panel). Home construction will be strong this year, despite the recent increase in mortgage rates. As was recently observed by our U.S. Investment Strategy service,7 the constraint on housing demand since the financial crisis has not come from un-affordable monthly mortgage payments. In fact, we calculate that even if mortgage rates rise by another 200 bps from current levels, the mortgage payment as a percent of income for the median household would still be below its long-run average (Chart 9). Chart 8...And Likely To Increase Chart 9Higher Rates Won't Kill Housing Rather, the constraint on housing demand has come from insufficient savings on the part of potential first time homebuyers relative to required down payments. This constraint can only subside as household savings increase and mortgage lending standards ease, two trends that are ongoing. Finally, housing supply is approaching historically low levels relative to demand (Chart 9, bottom panel) even including the "shadow inventory" from foreclosed properties which has now mostly vanished in any case. With supply at such depressed levels and demand likely to remain firm, it is no wonder that homebuilders are feeling more confident. Bottom Line: U.S. economic growth will remain solidly above-trend this year, helped along by renewed strength in both residential and non-residential investment. Above-trend growth will ensure that inflation remains in its current gradual uptrend. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was", dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 A composite of 104 economic indicators designed to capture the probability of PCE inflation exceeding 2.5% during the subsequent 12 month period. https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2015/11/06/introducing-the-st-louis-fed-price-pressures-measure 4 A more detailed explanation of the inverse relationship between dollar sentiment and Treasury yields can be found in the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Another Update", dated January 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession", dated March 7, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Housing: What Comes Next?", dated March 27, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Special Report

Highlights The years since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis have been dominated by the major central banks emptying their toolkits to fight off deflationary pressures and sustain even modest nominal growth rates. Extraordinary policy measues like quantitative easing, negative interest rates and "forward guidance" were all intended to be signals to expect nothing but stimulative monetary policy, even if there were brief pickups in growth or realized inflation rates. This helped suppress both bond yields and volatility, forcing investors to take on more risk to generate acceptable returns in fixed income markets. Now, however, there are signs that the world economy may finally be becoming a bit more "normal" after the years of malaise. While growth can hardly be described as booming, there are a growing number of countries that appear to have passed the worst phase of the excess capacity/deflation pressures that dominated the post-crisis era. This is creating more two-way risk with regards to central bank decisions than we have seen for some time. In this Special Report, we update one of our favorite tools to assess the potential for monetary policy changes, the BCA Central Bank Monitors. We present them in a chartbook format with a focus on the relationship to government bond yields. Feature An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators that are designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future central bank policy decisions. We created Monitors for the major developed economies: the U.S., Euro Area, Japan, the U.K., Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The list of data series used to construct the Monitors is not the same for each country, but the components generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand pressures, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc) Right now, the Monitors are rising in a coordinated fashion for the first time since 2011 (Chart 1 on Page 1). What is different in 2017 is that there is much less spare capacity in the developed economies than there was six years ago. For central bankers who still adhere to the Phillips curve tradeoff of unemployment versus inflation, tight labor markets alongside highly accommodative policy settings pose a problem. In the rest of this report, we show the individual Central Bank Monitors, along with measures of spare capacity and inflation for each country. We also show the correlations between the Monitors and changes in government bond yields, both before and after the 2008 Crisis. Correlations have shifted in the post-crisis era, but there are still some reliable relationships that can provide signals for bond investors. The broad conclusions: Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) are the ideal country overweight in a world where all other developed economy central banks are witnessing rising cyclical pressures, while bonds in the U.K., Australia and New Zealand are likely to struggle as central banks in those regions become increasingly hawkish (Chart 2). Chart 1More Central Banks Are Under Pressure To Tighten Chart 2Tightening Pressures (Ex-Japan) ##br##Can Push Bond Yields Higher The Fed Monitor Is Pointing To Additional U.S. Rate Hikes Our Fed Monitor has just recently pushed above the zero line, indicating the need for the Fed to tighten policy (Chart 3A). The Fed already began raising the funds rate back in late 2015, but this was the beginning of normalizing the crisis-era policy settings rather than a move to offset improving U.S. cyclical conditions. The latter is now indeed happening, and it is perhaps no surprise that the Fed has just delivered 50bps of rate hikes in a span of three months. Chart 3AU.S.: Fed Monitor Chart 3BNo Spare Capacity In The U.S. Chart 3CThe Fed Monitor Is Most Correlated To ##br##Shorter Maturity U.S. Treasuries We still see the Fed pursuing a relatively gradual process of raising rates further in 2017, but in line with the current FOMC projections of another 50bps of tightening before year-end. Measures like the output gap and the unemployment gap (unemployment relative to the level consistent with stable inflation) show no spare capacity in the U.S. economy (Chart 3B). At the same time, core inflation continues to only grind higher and inflation expectations are also drifting up towards the Fed's 2% target. This can hardly be qualified as an "overheating" economy that needs a sharp tightening of monetary conditions, particularly with the still-expensive U.S. dollar not providing any stimulus. The correlations between our Fed Monitor and the year-over-year changes in U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 3C) have been extremely low since the 2008 Crisis - unsurprising with the Fed keeping the funds rate near zero for most of that period while also buying large amounts of Treasuries. While the correlations appear to be shifting on the margin, we still see the Treasury curve steepening first (via rising inflation expectations), then flattening later (through tighter monetary conditions). BoE Monitor Calling For Tighter U.K. Policy Our Bank of England (BoE) Monitor is at very elevated levels (Chart 4A), driven by a combination of improving production data and high inflation. There is much more bubbling beneath the surface, however. The more domestically-focused components of the Monitor are losing some upward momentum, while the inflation elements are also starting to top out as the big post-Brexit depreciation of the Pound is losing momentum. Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BTight Capacity In The U.K. Chart 4CGilts Are At Risk From A More Hawkish Turn From The BoE This is creating a dilemma for the BoE - respond to high U.K. inflation with tighter monetary policy, or focus on the slowdown in domestic demand and do nothing? The BoE signaled in February that the biggest concern for policy was a slump in consumer spending led by lower real income growth on the back of rising inflation. Yet at the March policy meeting, one BoE member even voted to raise rates and others raised concerns about the elevated level of U.K inflation. With even policymakers unsure about their next move, the marginal swings in U.K. growth should have an even greater impact on Gilt yields. The U.K. economy is running around full capacity and both headline and core inflation are rising (Chart 4B). Somewhat surprisingly, the correlations between changes in Gilt yields and our BoE Monitor have actually increased since the 2008 Crisis (Chart 4C). This raises a potential risk for the Gilt market if the BoE decides that the U.K. economy is not slowing as much as it is expecting. For now, we continue to recommend a neutral stance on Gilts until there is greater clarity on the state of the economy. ECB Monitor Reflects A Less Deflationary Backdrop In Europe Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has recently crept above the zero line for the first time in three years (Chart 5A). This is driven mostly by the current uptrend in headline inflation in the Euro Area, but also by the steady improvement in economic growth. Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BExcess Capacity in Europe Dwindling Fast Chart 5CStable Correlations Between The ECB Monitor & The Front End Of The Yield Curve The Euro Area is the one economy presented in this report where no indicator (either the output gap or unemployment gap) is pointing to a lack of spare capacity (Chart 5B). All of the rise in headline Euro Area inflation can be attributable to base effects related to last year's rise in oil prices and decline in the euro. The latest ECB projections call for core inflation to return to just under 2% in 2019, suggesting that there is no hurry to begin tightening monetary policy. Yet the ECB remains in an asset purchase program which is set to expire at the end of this year, so a policy decision must be made in the next 3-6 months. We expect the ECB to begin tapering its bond buying in the first quarter of 2018, with interest rate hikes to follow after the tapering has been completed. The ECB could raise rates before tapering to try and minimize the impact on Peripheral sovereign and corporate bond yields (it is buying both), although that would likely create a greater degree of tightening than the ECB would like before full employment is reached. Given the strong correlations between our ECB Monitor and much of the Euro Area yield curve (Chart 5C), however, we anticipate moving soon to an underweight stance on Euro Area bonds after our recent downgrade to neutral. BoJ Monitor: Nothing To See Here Our BoJ Monitor has been in the "easier policy required" zone for most of the past 25 years, barring a brief blip above the zero line that heralded the rate hikes in 2006/07 (Chart 6A). Inadequate growth and excess capacity remain the biggest problem with Japan's economy, preventing any meaningful upturn in inflation beyond that caused by higher commodity prices or a weaker yen. Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BTight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation Chart 6CLonger-Maturity JGB Yields Have No Correlation To The BoJ Monitor Even with Japan operating at full employment, with an unemployment rate at 3%, there has barely been any acceleration in wages or core inflation (Chart 6B). The only way out of this for Japan is to keep monetary policy settings as easy as possible to ensure that there is enough growth to eat away at the remaining spare capacity in the Japanese economy. That means keeping both policy rates and the yen as low as possible, and hoping that this will cause enough of a rise in inflation expectations to lower real interest rates and boost domestic demand. As an added "kicker", the BoJ is even anchoring the long end of the Japan yield curve by targeting a 0% yield level on 10-year government debt - a policy that we do not expect to change anytime soon. We see Japan as a low-beta "safe haven" government bond market in an environment where other central banks are seeing some tightening pressures and Japanese bonds have virtually no correlation to the BoJ Monitor (Chart 6C). We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japan within an overall defensively positioned government bond portfolio with below-benchmark duration exposure. BoC Monitor: No Big Need To Tighten In Canada Our Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has recently moved into positive territory (Chart 7A) , primarily due to some improvement in growth and higher commodity prices. Given the close linkages between the U.S. and Canadian economies, we include some U.S. growth variables in our BoC Monitor and these are also helping boost the indicator. However, there are no signs that the Canadian economy is overheating - unless you are trying to buy a home in Toronto - with both the output gap and unemployment gap not yet in positive territory (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BStill Not Much Inflation In Canada Chart 7CThe BoC Monitor Is Highly Correlated To Shorter-Maturity Canadian Bonds The BoC is maintaining a dovish bias at the moment. Some of that has to do with the uncertainty over the U.S. economic outlook, especially with regards to the fiscal and trade policies of the Trump administration. While a boost to U.S. growth via a fiscal easing could help support Canadian exports to the U.S., any move to renegotiate trade agreements involving the two countries could end up hurting the Canadian economy. Add to that the concerns over the bubbly valuations of Canadian real estate that could be pricked by even modest rate increases, and the BoC will likely not want to contemplate any early tightening of monetary policy. The higher correlations between our BoC Monitor and the front end of the Canadian yield curve (Chart 7C) suggest that a bear flattener would be the appropriate trade if and when the BoC does contemplate a rate hike. For now, however, we see that as a low-probability event and we are maintaining a neutral stance on Canadian bonds until there is greater clarity on U.S. growth and Trump's policy agenda. RBA Monitor: Higher Because Of Growth, Not Inflation Our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor has surged into the "tighter policy required" territory in recent months (Chart 8A), driven by higher commodity prices and stronger Asian export demand. Survey-based measures of inflation expectations are also part of the Monitor, and those have also been rising despite a lack of realized inflation in Australia (Chart 8B). The low inflation readings have been causing a bit of a problem for the RBA, given the tight labor market and that boost to Aussie demand from better Asian growth. This is especially true given the surprisingly soft readings on employment growth, consumer confidence and spending, all occurring against a persistent deceleration in core inflation. The RBA was focusing on the inflation story last year when it delivered some surprise rate cuts, and we still suspect that a lack of inflation pressure will keep the RBA on hold for at least the next few months. We are currently at a neutral stance on Australian government bonds, given these conflicting forces of better export growth but weakening domestic demand. The lack of an inflation threat could make Australia an outperformer in a world of rising bond yields. Given the surge in our RBA Monitor, however, we see some risk in looking at Aussie bonds as a potential safe haven market given upward pressures on yields in the U.S. and Europe. The correlations between Australian yields and the RBA Monitor are extremely high (Chart 8C), and have actually gone up in the post-crisis era. Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BNo Inflation Pressures On The RBA Chart 8CAussie Bonds Across The Curve Are Highly Correlated To The RBA Monitor RBNZ Monitor: A Strong Case For A Rate Hike Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor is strongly in positive territory (Chart 9A), led by the components focused on commodity prices and global growth. However, there is a fairly solid structural case for an RBNZ rate hike, given the lack of any spare capacity in New Zealand and inflation on the rise (Chart 9B). Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BFull Employment & Rising Inflation In NZ Chart 9ANZ Bonds Are Vulnerable To Current Cyclical Pressures The RBNZ has been maintaining a dovish bias of late, although it has chosen to sight more "international" risks related to geopolitics, rather than domestic economic conditions. Perhaps this is nothing more than a fear of a potential shock outcome in the upcoming French elections, although it could also be worries that tensions between the Trump White House and China (or, worse yet, North Korea) could trigger a hit to demand for New Zealand exports to Asia. In the end, we think the RBNZ will be forced to a hike off the current record low interest rates as the next policy move. While we do not include New Zealand government bonds as part of our model fixed income portfolio, we do currently have a bearish rates trade on in our list of Tactical Overlay Trades, choosing to pay 12-month NZD OIS rates. We will maintain that recommendation, but we may look to add some bearish New Zealand bond trades, as well, given the strong correlation between our RBNZ Monitor and bond yields (Chart 9C). Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Internal dynamics warn that a broad market consolidation phase has begun. The jump in growth vs. value stocks has provided an opportunity to shift to a neutral style bias. Transports have sold off sharply, but downside risks have not yet been fully expunged, especially for the airline group. Recent Changes Growth Vs. Value - Shift to a neutral stance. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature The perceived dovish Fed shift and doubts about the achievability of Trump's policy goals are causing equity market consternation. To the extent that the run up in stocks has largely reflected an improvement in sentiment and other 'soft' economic data, the lack of follow through in 'hard' data has created a validation void. While a weaker U.S. dollar, lower oil prices and less hawkish Fed imply easier monetary conditions, which are ultimately positive for growth, profits and the stock market, a digestion phase still looms. Financials, and banks in particular, had been market leaders, driven up by hopes for a meaningful upward shift in the yield curve and unleashing of animal spirits. But these assumptions are being challenged and there is limited fundamental support. Indeed, bank lending growth remains non-existent and there is no tailwind from improving credit quality. Our view remains that banks carry the most downside risk of all financial groups (please see the March 6 Weekly Report for more details). Regional banks are now down on a year-to-date relative performance basis (Chart 1). In fact, our newly constructed gauge of the equity market's internal dynamics suggests that additional tactical broad market turbulence lies ahead. A composite of relative bank stock, relative transport, small/large cap and industrials/utilities share prices has been a good coincident to leading market indicator in recent years (Chart 2). While no indicator is infallible, the message is that overall market risk is elevated and a choppy period lies ahead, reinforcing our defensive vs. cyclical bias. Nevertheless, it will be important to put any corrective action into a longer-term context. Over the years, we have kept an eye on several qualitative 'unconventional indicators' that have helped time major market turning points. They are meant to augment rather than replace fundamental factors. Chart 1Market Leaders Are Stumbling Chart 2A Yellow Flag From Internal Dynamics Below we highlight five critical variables to gauge whether a correction will devolve into a sustained sell-off. Each of the indicators measures either; profits; business confidence; investor confidence; and/or reflects how liquidity conditions are impacting market dynamics. Investor confidence can be measured through margin debt. While extremely elevated (Chart 3), there is no concrete sign that access to funds is being undermined by the modest backup in interest rates. When the cost of borrowing becomes too onerous, it will manifest in reduced margin debt and forced selling, which will be a serious threat to stocks given that leverage is challenging levels experienced at prior peaks, as a share of nominal income. M&A activity is losing momentum (Chart 4). A peak in merger activity typically coincides with a rising cost of capital. If corporate sector capital availability becomes a pressing issue, then M&A activity will decline further, signaling that the corporate sector is facing growth headwinds. Economic signals are mostly positive. Durable goods orders have tentatively perked back up (Chart 5), reinforcing that profits and confidence have improved after a soft patch. Temporary employment continues to rise (Chart 5). When temp workers shrink, it is often an early warning sign that companies are entering retrenchment mode, given the ease and low cost of reducing this source of labor costs. If temporary employment falls at the same time as share prices, that would be a red flag. The relative performance of consumer discretionary to consumer staples can provide a read on purchasing power and/or the marginal propensity to spend. This share price ratio does not suggest any consumption concerns exist (Chart 4, bottom panel). If consumer staples begin to outperform, then it would warn of a more daunting economic outlook. Chart 3Borrowing Costs Are Not Yet Restrictive Chart 4M&A Is Starting To Labor Chart 5Economic Signals Are Decent In all, these indicators suggest that any pullback will be corrective rather than a trend change. If the profit cycle continues to improve and the Fed has no inflationary need to become restrictive, then any broad market correction could provide an opportunity to selectively add cyclical exposure to portfolios in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we are revisiting our growth vs. value view and providing an update on transports. Growth Vs. Value: Shifting To Neutral Our last style bias update in the December 19 Weekly Report concluded that we would likely recommend moving to a neutral stance over the coming weeks/months from our current growth vs. value (G/V) stance, but expected to do after growth stocks had staged a comeback. That recovery is now well underway and so we are revisiting the outlook. Growth indexes have outperformed value since the depths of the Great Recession. The preference for growth reflected central bank interest rate suppression, which boosted the multiple investors were willing to pay for perceived growth at a time when growth was scarce. In addition, the composition of the growth index is much longer duration than that of the value space. The surge in long-term earnings growth expectations suggests that investors have increased conviction in the durability of the expansion, which has aided the G/V recovery (Chart 6). That monetary experiment has recently begun to pay off, as global economic growth has finally demonstrated evidence of self-reinforcing traction, led by developed countries. As a result, most central banks are well past the point of maximum thrust, which would mean the loss, albeit not a reversal, of the primary support for the secular advance in growth vs. value indexes. Keep in mind that growth benchmarks have a massive technology sector weight, at just over 1/3 of the total index capitalization. Value indices carry only a 7% weight. As shown in previous research, the technology sector underperforms when economic growth is fast enough to create inflationary pressure and therefore, the interest rate structure. Furthermore, value benchmarks have more than 25% of their weight in the financials sector vs. less than 5% for growth indexes. The upshot is that a meaningful interest rate increase would pad the profits of financials-rich value indices while having little to no impact on growth benchmarks by virtue of their tech-dependence. It is no surprise that the G/V ratio trends with technology/financials relative sector performance (Chart 7). The latter has clearly peaked, with an assist from the renormalization in Fed policy. Chart 6Time To Shift Chart 7Two Key Sector Influences These sector discrepancies mean that a critical question for the style decision is what is the path for government bond yields? The U.S. economy is exhibiting signs of self-reinforcing behavior. The small business sector's hiring plans have surged, and the ISM employment index remains solid (Chart 8). Chart 8Economy No Longer Favors Growth Chart 9A Mixed Bag While at least a modest employment slowdown is probable given that the corporate sector is feeling the profit margin pinch from higher wage costs, these gauges do not suggest a major crunch is imminent. The personal savings rate is drifting lower, supporting consumption growth (Chart 8). Value indexes have a higher economic beta than growth benchmarks, owing to their exposure to shorter duration sectors. The gap between growth and value operating margins tends to close when the economy enjoys a meaningful acceleration (Chart 8). Chart 10Volatility Is A Style Driver Other markers of global economic growth are more mixed. The global manufacturing PMI survey is very strong, but oil and other commodity prices have started to diverge negatively (Chart 9). That may soon change if the U.S. dollar has crested, which would provide a much needed fillip to emerging markets and remove a source of deflationary pressure. Real global bond yields are grinding higher, suggesting that in all, economic prospects have improved, and alleviating a major constraint on value stocks. Against this backdrop, it is timely to shift to a neutral style preference after the sharp rebound in the G/V ratio since late last year. Why not a full shift into value indexes? Developing countries are conspicuously lagging developed countries, which caps the outlook for commodities and their beneficiaries. EM capital spending is still very weak in real terms. Deep cyclical sectors are much more heavily-weighted in value benchmarks. A global recovery that has a greater thrust from consumption than investment, at least at the outset, argues against expecting value stocks to outperform. Moreover, the fallout from potentially protectionist U.S. trade policies remains unknown, which could restrain economic growth momentum and unleash volatility in the equity markets. The latter has been incredibly muted in recent months. In fact, BCA's VIX model, which incorporates corporate sector health and interest rate expectations, is heralding a higher VIX. Clearly, elevated volatility has supported the G/V ratio over meaningful periods of time (Chart 10). Bottom Line: Shift to a neutral style bias. A full shift to a value preference would require BCA to forecast a much weaker U.S. dollar and/or demand-driven inflationary pressure. Transports: Stuck In Neutral The S&P transports index peaked in mid-December versus the broad market, the first major sub-group to fizzle after the post-election sugar high (Chart 11). The recent setback has been broad-based. We had been overweight both the rails and air freight & logistics industry sub-groups, but booked gains in both prior to their respective pullbacks. Is it time to get back in? Transportation equities are ultra-sensitive to swings in global economic growth. Chart 12 shows that the relative share price ratio is an excellent leading indicator of both the ISM manufacturing survey and Citi's economic surprise index. The message is that at least a mild mean reversion in both of these indexes looms in the coming months, i.e. beware of some form of economic cooling. Chart 11Transports Have Cracked... Chart 12... Signaling Economic Cooling Ahead Against this backdrop, we are revisiting our last remaining underweight, the S&P airlines index. While rails and air freight & logistics stocks are directly linked to global trade, the same does not hold true for the S&P airlines index. Business and consumer travel budgets are the key drivers of industry demand. A revival in animal spirits and a healthy U.S. consumer could be clear positives for air travel. Moreover, the recent pullback in fuel costs should cushion profit margins for unhedged airline operators (Chart 13). Finally, renowned investor Warren Buffett has recently become a major shareholder in the U.S. airline industry, raising its profile. While betting against Buffett is always fraught with risk, our cautious take on the airline industry boils down to our view that excess capacity will continue to hold back profitability. If the overall transport index is accurately signaling that some loss of economic momentum looms, then a rapid expansion in business and travel spending may not be quick to materialize. A pricing war has already gripped the industry, as airlines are scrambling to fill up planes. Revenue-per-available-seat-mile and U.S. CPI airfare are contracting (Chart 14), reflecting a fight for market share. That is a serious impediment to profit margins. Chart 13Airlines Are Losing Altitude... Chart 14... As Price Wars Persist The headwinds extend beyond the U.S. Chart 15 shows that global airfare deflation also bodes ill for top line industry growth. The lags from previous U.S. dollar strength could compound this source of drag. Absent a decisive recovery in total travel spending, there does not appear to be any catalysts to reverse deflationary conditions. Carriers are still allocating an historically high portion of cash flow to capital spending. While upgrading aging fleets to become more fuel-efficient in an era of low interest rates is a long-term positive, the payback period may be extended. Revenue has failed to keep up with the increase in capital expenditures (Chart 16, bottom panel), suggesting that capacity growth continues to outpace industry demand, a recipe for ongoing pricing pressure. Chart 15Deflation Is Global Chart 16Too Much Capacity This difficult backdrop has begun to infect analyst earnings estimates. Net earnings revisions have nosedived. Relative performance momentum is tightly lined with the trend in earnings estimates (Chart 16). The message is that the breakdown in cyclical momentum has further to run. Indeed, the 52-week rate of change rarely troughs until it reaches much lower levels, warning of additional downside relative performance risks. Bottom Line: The S&P transports group is heralding a period of economic cooling, but the airline sub-component has not yet fully discounted such an outcome. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P airlines index are: UAL, AAL, DAL, LUV & ALK. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.

Special Report

Highlights A gradual rise in interest rates will not be problematic for the housing market. Throughout the cycle, it has been potential homebuyers' lack of savings, and tougher lending standards, that has held back the housing expansion. A steady improvement in household balance sheets is now allowing more households to qualify for loans. We assign low odds that housing policy reform will have a direct impact on the market over the next year; macroeconomic forces will be the primary driver for residential real estate activity and prices. Feature Since 2013, the U.S. housing market has enjoyed a relative period of calm after the bubble (2004-2007), bust (2008-2011) and prolonged clean-up period (2011-2014). Indeed, since 2013, the residential real estate market has made steady gains both in terms of construction and price returns. Rock-bottom interest rates, an improving labor market, and tight supply have provided good conditions for the housing market to expand. But these conditions are changing. Both residential investment and home prices are procyclical and highly sensitive to interest rates. With the Fed now beginning to deliberate its fourth rate hike of the cycle, investors should wonder whether this poses a risk to housing. Meanwhile, there is much talk about tax reform from Washington. This Special Report focuses on the top questions relating to the U.S. housing market. Question #1: Won't rising mortgage rates kill the nascent recovery in mortgage activity? Throughout this expansion, the level of interest rates has not been the major hurdle to the housing recovery; it was a lack of savings and tighter credit conditions that kept potential homebuyers out of the market. Table 1 is a breakdown of the National Association of Realtors' Affordability of First-time Homebuyers. The median price of a starter home is currently $199,800 and the qualifying income on such a home (assuming 10% down payment) is $42,000. Since the median family income is currently $46,040, this implies that at today's interest rates, potential first-time homebuyers do have the required income to enter the housing market. Earlier in the recovery, the problem had been the 10% down payment. According to the Federal Reserve's triennial survey of Consumer finances in 2014, median net worth for non-homeowners (i.e. renters) was $5,400, i.e. far short of the down payment required. A meaningful rise in the homeownership rate was always going to be difficult to pull off until consumers built sufficient savings for a down payment and/or mortgage lending standards loosened significantly. Table 1Potential Homebuyers: Savings A Bigger Hurdle Than Rates We do not have up-to-date median renter savings data (the next Federal Reserve survey of consumer finances will only be published in September), but the savings rate has risen over the past several years. It is likely that an improvement in renter finances is alleviating the major hurdle that exists for potential home buyers. Outside of the down payment issue, housing affordability is very good even under an aggressive interest rate scenario. In Chart 1, we stress-test housing affordability under different rate scenarios. Even if mortgage rates rise by 200bps, mortgage payments relative to income will remain well below their long-term average. The bottom line is that we do not see a rise in interest rates as overly problematic for the housing market. Throughout the cycle, it has been potential homebuyers' lack of savings, and tougher lending standards that have held back the expansion. A steady improvement in household balance sheets is now allowing more households to qualify for loans. Question #2: And how are lending standards today? Historically, lending standards always swung between very tight at the beginning of an economic cycle and very loose at the height of the expansion. This time, it appears that banks have kept a more cautious attitude toward consumers relative to past cycles (Chart 2). This shouldn't be a surprise, given that this was the area of greatest excesses during the past business cycle. Chart 1Higher Rates Won't Kill ##br##The Housing Recovery Chart 2Improved Household Balance Sheets Mean ##br##More Qualifying Borrowers As mentioned above, consumers' balance sheets have largely been mended over the course of this cycle. In fact, the average U.S. FICO score is now at an all-time high. This is great news, although still perhaps not great enough for banks. According to Deutsche Bank, the average credit score required is 750, and this number has not changed much since 2007. The average FICO score for the total U.S. population is still considerably below this. However, as scores improve, over time more and more people are qualifying. Overall, while it appears that banks have not drastically changed lending standards, more prospective buyers are meeting the criteria. Question #3: Is there still a supply glut? No- as Chart 3 shows, on a national basis, traditional measures of housing inventory for sale are near-record lows. Of course, geography is very important for real estate and some markets are tighter than others, but aggregate data does not show any meaningful imbalances. If anything, a catch-up building phase may be required in some areas. Question #4: How will Trump affect the housing market? We do not anticipate that any direct policy measures will impact the housing market in 2017. If interest rates rise over the next year because the Fed believes that monetary policy needs to tighten in the face of expansive fiscal policy, then this will surely provide a mild brake on lending activity. We address the impact of higher rates in Question #1. As for direct policy measures, perhaps the most impactful one would be a change to the mortgage interest deduction. Recall that U.S. taxpayers currently can deduct the interest expense on their mortgage to reduce their taxable income. Trump had previously floated the idea to adjust the cap on the amount of eligible debt (currently at $1 million for married couple jointly filing taxes). But earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin dismissed this idea. Tax cuts or broader tax reform are unlikely to pass until the second half of the year at earliest. Until the legislation is written it is impossible to know what aspects of the Trump or House GOP proposals will be included. Similarly, Mnuchin has voiced that he is keen to privatize the GSEs. But that is unlikely to occur this year and the implications of such a development are unclear. The bottom line is that we assign low odds that housing policy reform will have a direct impact on the market over the next year; macroeconomic forces will be the primary driver for residential real estate activity and prices. Question #5: How much will residential real estate contribute to GDP? Residential investment currently stands at 4% of GDP (Chart 4). This is way above the low reached in 2009, but is still short of the pre-recession high of 6% of GDP and is still significantly shy of the thirty year average of 5%. Based on the still low level of inventories, and the potential for household formation to rise, a reasonable expectation is that construction climbs back to 5% of GDP over the next several years. If that occurs, then the contribution to GDP growth from construction should rise toward 0.8% this year and stay at a high level. Chart 3Inventory Is Tight Chart 4Construction Will Be A More Significant GDP Contributor Question #6: 4% of GDP is pretty small. How else does the housing market contribute to growth? The housing market affects the economy through multiple channels; even a casual observer of the 2008/09 meltdown can attest to that! Besides the banking system, it is especially homeownership that affects consumer spending patterns. First, the overall wealth effect - the change in spending that accompanies a change in perceived wealth - is driven primarily by the change in the value of housing assets, rather than financial assets (Chart 5). On average, a one-dollar decline in housing wealth tends to reduce consumption by 12 cents. This is two-to-four times as large as the impact on consumption from a one-dollar increase in housing wealth, and much larger than the impact from a one-dollar decline in stock market wealth.1 Second, homeownership impacts spending decisions through the collateral effect. Real consumption and real debt growth have been strongly correlated since 1960. As the top panel of Chart 5 shows, greater credit availability for households has been associated with lower saving rates -and thus higher consumption (this process went into reverse during the GFC).2 Since homeownership is the most significant means for households in the U.S. to access credit (over 80% of household debt is held as mortgage debt), it is really the trend in homeownership and its accompanying mortgage debt that drives the changes in household debt positions, and therefore their ability to boost spending above incomes. Now that there are reasons for the homeownership rate to rise, this wealth effect could play a larger role than during the past few years. Question #7: And how much will prices rise? The U.S. housing recovery has closely followed the classic cycle - our stylized roadmap based on the experience of countries that previously recovered from a housing/financial crisis (Chart 6). If the path of home prices continues to follow this roadmap, then real home price appreciation will be around 4% in 2017 (6% in nominal terms). Chart 5Homeownership = Leverage Chart 6More Price Gains Ahead Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Case, Quigley and Shiller. "Wealth Effects Revisited". February, 2011. 2 The Fed has done extensive work on this topic. A comprehensive background piece is available here: http://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/sympos/2007/PDF/Muellbauer_0415.pdf