Fixed Income
Highlights Trump's Win: The Republican sweep of both the White House and Congress in the U.S. elections will allow President-elect Donald Trump to implement much of his planned policies, including a major fiscal stimulus package. Trump Stimulus & The Yield Curve: Trump's proposed aggressive fiscal stimulus package will continue to put bear-steepening pressure on the U.S. Treasury curve. However, the future direction of global bond yields will be more influenced by the upcoming monetary policy decisions in the U.S. & Europe. Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance, while exiting curve flattening positions in the U.S. U.S. High-Yield: U.S. junk bond valuations have improved slightly in recent weeks, especially in light of an improving U.S. nominal growth outlook for 2017 that will reduce default risk to some degree. Upgrade U.S. high-yield allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) from maximum underweight. Feature Chart of the WeekTrump Turmoil For Bonds America has been treated to a pair of major shocking events over the past couple of weeks. The Chicago Cubs won baseball's World Series for the first time in 108 years. And now, Donald Trump - real estate tycoon, reality TV star, Twitter addict - has become the 45th President of the United States. In the aftermath of that stunning election victory, investors are being treated to one more shocker that seemed impossible even just a few months ago - rapidly rising bond yields. Trump's victory has not only changed the political power structure in the U.S., but has seemingly altered many of the familiar financial market narratives as well. The idea of "deficit spending" by the government to boost growth has not been heard for many years in Washington, but Trump has made it clear that a big fiscal stimulus is coming soon to America. He has laid out a combination of large tax cuts and infrastructure spending that could result in both a surge in U.S. Treasury issuance in the coming years and a more structural rise in inflation - again, developments that have not been seen in the U.S. in quite a while. The prospect of fiscal easing amid still-accommodative monetary conditions in the U.S., with the economy running at full employment, has sent Treasury yields surging back to pre-Brexit levels, wiping out six months of positive bond returns in the process (Chart of the Week). While many details are still to be worked out with regards to Trump's proposed fiscal policy shift, the markets have taken its pro-business tilt as a bullish sign for growth and a bearish sign for bonds. There is more scope for yields to rise in the near term, in the U.S. and elsewhere, with the Fed likely to deliver another rate hike next month and the global economy now in a cyclical upswing. Duration risk remains the biggest immediate threat for bond investors, and we continue to recommend a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. A New Sheriff In Washington Chart 2Markets Cheer Trump 'Bigly' The consensus opinion among investors going into the U.S. election was that a Trump victory would result in considerable market turmoil. This was a reasonable argument, as Trump ran a disruptive, anti-status-quo campaign that, by definition, would be expected to generate far more changes and uncertainty than a victory by Hillary Clinton. Yet outside of a few shaky moments in the wee hours of Election Night as markets began to realize that Trump would win, the big bond-bullish/equity-bearish risk-off moment never arrived. Perhaps Trump's more conciliatory tone in his victory speech helped to calm investors' fears that his caustic campaign demeanor would continue in the White House. More likely, investors saw the results in the U.S. Congressional elections and realized that the Republican Party had won a clean sweep in D.C. that would allow Trump to implement many of his campaign promises. Markets have been rapidly pricing the potential implications of a Trump presidency into many financial assets (Chart 2), from bank stocks (which would gain from Trump's proposed rollback of the Dodd-Frank regulations on bank activities and, more importantly, from the impact of higher bond yields and a steeper yield curve on profitability) to the U.S. dollar (which would benefit from Trump's protectionist trade agenda through narrower U.S. trade deficits and stronger U.S. growth that would raise the future trajectory of U.S. interest rates). Higher-quality USD-denominated credit spreads have been surprisingly well behaved, given the moves higher in U.S. yields and the USD itself. This may reflect an optimistic belief that Trump's pro-business, pro-growth policies can offset the negative impact on corporate profits from higher yields and a stronger USD. Markets are right to assume that Trump can actually deliver on his economic agenda. A detailed analysis of the implications of the Trump victory was laid in a Special Report sent last week to all BCA clients by our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy.1 One of their main conclusions was that Trump's ability to enact his plans will not be hindered much by the U.S. Congress. Republicans now control both the House of Representatives and Senate after last week's elections and Trump has been strongly supported even by the small government fiscal conservatives in Congress. After delivering such a stunning victory for the Republicans, Trump shouldn't face much serious resistance to his economic initiatives. Investors are starting to price in the potential inflationary implications of a President Trump, with the 5-year inflation breakeven, 5-years forward from the U.S. TIPS market now sitting at 1.84%. This is still well below the Fed's 2% inflation target (after adjusting for the usual historical difference between the CPI used to price TIPS and the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, the PCE deflator, which is around 0.4-0.5%). This measure can keep moving higher over the medium-term, given the timing of Trump's proposed fiscal stimulus. Bottom Line: The Republican sweep of both the White House and Congress in the U.S. elections will allow President-elect Donald Trump to implement much of his planned policies, including a major fiscal stimulus package. The 1980s Called - They Want Their Economic Policy Back The U.S. economy is now showing few internal imbalances that would require wider government deficits as a counter-cyclical policy measure. The private sector savings/investment balance is close to zero, as the post-crisis household deleveraging phase has ended and corporate sector borrowing has skyrocketed in recent years (Chart 3, top panel). Also, measures of spare capacity in the U.S. economy like the output gap or the unemployment gap are also near zero (bottom panel), suggesting that any pickup in aggregate demand from current levels could trigger a rise in wage inflation and domestically-focused core inflation. Chart 3Deficit Spending At Full Employment: Back To The Future? The last time that such a combination of fiscal stimulus and full employment occurred was in the mid-1980s during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Trump's plans for aggressive tax cuts and sharp increases in discretionary government spending do echo the policies of Reagan, who presided over one of the nation's largest peacetime run-ups in discretionary government budget deficits and debt (Chart 4). Perhaps there was a kernel of truth in the Trump/Reagan comparisons made during the election campaign! Chart 4Less Fiscal Space Than In The 1980s Clearly, a sharp run-up in federal budget deficits could have a much greater impact on longer-term interest rates and the shape of the yield curve, given the much higher starting point for federal debt/GDP now (74%) compared to the beginning of the Reagan presidency (26%). Especially given the potentially large budget deficits implied by Trump's campaign promises. Back in June, Moody's undertook an economic analysis of Trump's economic policies based on publically available information (i.e. Trump's campaign website) and their own assumptions based on Trump's campaign speeches.2 Moody's ran policies through its own U.S. economic model, which is similar to the forecasting and policy analysis models used by the Fed and the U.S. Congressional Budget Office. This model allows feedback from fiscal policy changes to the expected swings in growth and inflation and the likely shifts in monetary policy. The Moody's analysts used a variety of scenarios, ranging from full implementation of Trump's proposals3 to a heavily watered-down version if he faced a hostile Congress (which is clearly not the case now). We show the Moody's model forecasts for the U.S. Federal budget deficit as a percentage of GDP in Chart 5, along with the slope of the very long end of the U.S. Treasury curve. We also show the 10-year/30-year slope versus a measure of the Fed's policy stance, the real fed funds rate. According to Moody's, a full implementation of the Trump platform would push the U.S. budget deficit to double-digit levels by 2020, and would add nearly $7 trillion in debt over that time, pushing the federal debt/GDP ratio to 100%. The less extreme scenarios show smaller increases in deficits and debt, but the main point is that even if Trump implements only some fraction of his policies, the U.S. budget deficit will go up significantly during his first term in office. Looking at the historic relationship between the deficit and the slope of the Treasury yield curve, this implies that Trump's policies should put steepening pressures on the long-end of the curve as the bond market prices in greater Treasury issuance and higher future inflation rates. Of course, the bottom panel of Chart 5 shows that Fed policy also matters for the shape of the curve, and this is where the current debate over the Fed's next moves comes into play. Chart 5Trump's Deficits Will Steepen The Curve (Fed Permitting) The market is currently discounting a 70% probability that the Fed will hike at the December FOMC meeting, which has been our call for the past few months. The Fed has been projecting an increase next month and another 50bps of hikes in 2017, but these were forecasts made in the BT (Before Trump) era. The pricing from the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve shows that the market's expectations have started to shift upward towards the Fed's forecasts, in contrast to the BT dynamic where the Fed was having to cut its forecasts down towards the lower levels implied by the market (Chart 6). Will the Fed now look at the fiscal stimulus proposed by Trump as a reason to hike rates higher, or faster, than their latest set of projections? A big fiscal stimulus at full employment would certainly give the FOMC cover to raise its forecasts for growth and inflation, which would require a shift upwards in its interest rate projections. We do not expect that outcome at next month's FOMC meeting, as the Fed would likely want to see more specific budget details from the Trump administration in the New Year. More importantly, the Fed will want to avoid any additional strength in the U.S. dollar by moving to a more hawkish stance too soon, which would turn the dollar once again into a drag on U.S. growth, inflation and corporate profits, potentially disrupting financial markets. With the Fed unlikely to become more hawkish in the near term, the Treasury market will remain focused on the fiscal implications of Trump, placing bear-steepening pressures on the Treasury curve. For that reason, we are exiting our current Treasury curve flattener positions (2-year vs 10-year, 10-year vs 30-year) this week and moving to a neutral curve posture. We continue to maintain a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, as well as an underweight bias toward U.S. Treasuries within the developed market bond universe (on a currency-hedged basis). Treasuries are still not cheap, despite the recent run-up in yields, according to our global PMI model which incorporates variables for growth, U.S. dollar sentiment and policy uncertainty (Chart 7). Fair value has risen to 2.25% on the back of improving global growth and reduced uncertainty post-Brexit, with rising dollar bullishness providing a downward offset. Chart 6Markets Moving UP To The Fed Forecasts Chart 7USTs Not Yet Cheap If the Fed were to move too quickly to a more hawkish stance, dollar bullishness would increase and limit the cyclical rise in yields. At the same time, greater policy uncertainty under a new President could also limit yield increases although, as we have laid out above, the nature of the Trump uncertainty is not bond-bullish if it results in rising levels of government debt. For now, it is best to maintain a cautious investment stance until there is greater clarity on the U.S. policy front, while being aware that Treasuries are no longer as sharply undervalued as they were just a week ago. Looking ahead, this bond bear phase could end if the ECB announces an extension of its bond-buying program beyond the March 2017 deadline. As we discussed in a recent Weekly Report, the ECB will not be able to credibly declare that European inflation will soon return to the 2% target.4 This will force the ECB to extend the bond buying for at least another six months, with some changes to the rules of the program to allow for smoother implementation of future purchases. If, however, the ECB does indeed announce a tapering of bond purchases starting in March, bond yields will reprice higher within the main developed bond markets, led by rising term premiums (Chart 8). Given the global bond market's current worries about the inflationary implications of a switch away from extremely accommodative monetary policy to greater fiscal stimulus, a spike in yields related to a less-accommodative ECB could turn nasty fairly quickly. Chart 8A Dovish ECB Will Prevent A Deeper Global Bond Rout Bottom Line: Trump's proposed aggressive fiscal stimulus package will continue to put bear-steepening pressure on the U.S. Treasury curve. However, the future direction of global bond yields will be more influenced by the upcoming monetary policy decisions in the U.S. & Europe. Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance, while exiting curve flattening positions in the U.S. U.S. High-Yield: More Growth, Fewer Defaults In recent discussions with clients, many have asked whether the implications of Trump's pro-growth policies, coming at a time of a cyclical upturn in the U.S. economy and inflation, should provide a boost to corporate profits that will, by extension, reduce the default risk in U.S. high-yield bonds. Chart 9Higher Nominal Growth Is Good For Junk (During Expansions) Chart 10High-Yield Valuations Have Improved Slightly It is a valid question to ask, as the excess returns on U.S. junk bonds have been historically been higher during expansions when nominal GDP growth (currently 2.8%) has been 4% or greater (Chart 9).5 With real U.S. GDP growth likely to expand by at least 2.5% in 2017, with moderately higher inflation, nominal growth should accelerate to a pace that has historically been friendlier for junk returns. Chart 11Corporate Balance Sheets Are Still A Problem Of course, the state of the corporate leverage cycle matters too, and that remains the biggest problem for high-yield. We have been maintaining an extremely cautious stance on U.S. junk bonds over the past few months, as a combination of highly-levered balance sheets and unattractive valuations led us to expect an underwhelming return performance from junk, especially with a volatility-inducing Fed rate hike likely to occur by year-end. That has not been case, however, as junk spreads declined steadily as the summer turned to autumn and have been relatively stable during the U.S. election uncertainty. Our colleagues at our sister publication, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, recently introduced a simple model to predict junk bond excess returns as a function of lagged junk spreads and realized default losses.6 That model had been predicting excess returns over the next year of close to zero, but at today's spread levels the expected excess return over duration-matched U.S. Treasuries during the next year is closer to 157bps (Chart 10). While this is not the usual return that investors expect from an allocation to high-yield, it is better than the previous model prediction. Given this slightly more attractive level of spreads, a bond market now more prepared for a Fed rate hike, and with the default risks potentially narrowing somewhat on the back of a better nominal growth outlook for 2017, we no longer see the case for a maximum underweight position in high-yield. We still have our concerns about the state of the corporate credit cycle, and the valuations have not improved enough to justify a move back to neutral (Chart 11). Thus, we are only moving our U.S. high-yield allocation to below-benchmark (2 of 5) from maximum underweight (1 of 5). We are maintaining our below-benchmark stance on Euro Area and Emerging Market high-yield within our model portfolio, in line with our stance on U.S. junk. Bottom Line: U.S. junk bond valuations have improved slightly in recent weeks, especially in light of an improving U.S. nominal growth outlook for 2017 that will reduce default risk to some degree. Upgrade U.S. high-yield allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) from maximum underweight. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf 3 Aggressive income tax cuts, no changes to entitlement spending, increased defense outlays, and even the more controversial protectionist promises such as a 46% tariff on Chinese imports and the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrant workers. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Excess returns are the highest during low growth or recession periods, as this is when credit spreads are at their widest and companies are deleveraging and actively acting to reduce default risks. That is not the case at the moment. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Duration: We continue to advocate a below benchmark duration stance, but the bond bear market is likely to take a pause once market rate expectations have fully converged with the Fed's forecasts. TIPS: The Fed will be reluctant to offset any inflationary fiscal impulse until TIPS breakevens have recovered closer to pre-crisis levels. Yield Curve: An upward re-rating of the market's assessment of the equilibrium level of monetary conditions is necessary for the curve to steepen further from current levels. Spread Product: Slightly wider spreads and a steeper yield curve make us marginally more positive on corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield). Conversely, the sharp rise in yields turns us more cautious on MBS. Municipal Bonds: A Trump presidency is full-stop negative for municipal bonds. Downgrade munis from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Feature We had expected any flight to quality related to a Donald Trump victory to be brief, but would never have anticipated how brief it actually was. Treasury yields declined for about four hours as the results came in on election night, but since midnight EST last Tuesday the bond bear market has been supercharged. BCA's fixed income publications have maintained a below benchmark duration stance since July 19 with a year-end target of 1.95-2% for the 10-year Treasury yield. The 10-year yield is now above our year-end target, as Trump's surprise victory caused investors to question many long-held assumptions. Chief among them is the thesis of secular stagnation - the idea that a chronic imbalance between savings and investment has resulted in an extremely depressed equilibrium interest rate. The secular stagnation theory has ruled the day in U.S. bond markets, but even Larry Summers, who popularized the theory in recent years, has admitted that "an expansionary fiscal policy by the U.S. government can help overcome the secular stagnation problem and get growth back on track." 1 The market has been quick to take on board President Trump's promises of massive debt-financed infrastructure spending, and is now questioning the idea of permanently low interest rates. While much uncertainty about President Trump still abounds, one thing for certain is that the path of Treasury yields next year and beyond will be determined by whether Trumponomics can successfully tackle secular stagnation. As of now, we are cautious optimists. Last week BCA sent a Special Report2 to all clients that describes the likely outcomes of a Trump presidency. One of those outcomes is that a sizeable fiscal stimulus will be enacted next year. In this week's report we explore its potential impact on bond markets and re-assess our U.S. bond portfolio in light of this surprise change in the economic landscape. Duration The expected path of future rate hikes has moved sharply higher during the past week (Chart 1). If we assume that U.S. monetary conditions reach our estimate of equilibrium3 by the end of 2019, then the shaded region in Chart 1 shows a range of possible outcomes for the federal funds rate based on different scenarios for the U.S. dollar. The upper-bound of the shaded region corresponds to the path of the fed funds rate assuming the dollar depreciates by 2% per year, while the lower-bound assumes the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The market's expected fed funds rate path has shifted into the upper-half of the shaded region, which assumes the U.S. dollar will depreciate. The thick black line corresponds to the assumption of a flat dollar. Chart 1The Market's Rate Hike Expectations: Pre- And Post-Election Since the U.S. dollar is very likely to appreciate in the event that a Trump administration enacts growth-enhancing fiscal stimulus, it would appear as though the market's expected interest rate path is already too high. However, we must consider the possibility that large-scale government investment could shift the savings/investment balance in the economy and lead to a higher equilibrium level of monetary conditions or that the U.S. economy reaches monetary equilibrium more quickly under President Trump. In that event, Treasury yields still have room to rise. Chart 2Not Much Gap Between Market & Fed Similarly, the gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart 2). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.05%, only about 80bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Meanwhile, our 12-month discounter - the market's expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months - is already at 44bps. If there are no revisions to the Fed's interest rate forecasts at next month's meeting, then a level of 50bps on our discounter will be consistent with the Fed's expectations. This would be the first time the market and dots were lined up since 2014. The key point is that the balance of risks in the Treasury market has shifted. Prior to the election, Treasury yields had been under-estimating the potential for fiscal stimulus in 2017. Now, for Treasury yields to continue their move higher, we need to transition from a world where the Fed is continuously revising its interest rate forecasts lower to one where it is making upward revisions. To be clear, we do expect this transition to occur in 2017 but probably not during the next few months. Now that the Treasury market has reacted to the promise of fiscal stimulus, the next step is that it will demand to see some results. On that note, while Trump's infrastructure spending plan is assumed to be huge, at this point details are scarce. Further, our U.S. Investment Strategy service4 has pointed out that the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus depends critically on how well fiscal multipliers are working, and that estimates of fiscal multipliers can vary widely (Table 1). Table 1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Another risk to the bond bear market comes from a rapid increase in the U.S. dollar. Our modeling work shows that Treasury yields tend to rise alongside improvements in global growth (as proxied by the global manufacturing PMI), but that the impact of improving global growth on Treasury yields is dampened if bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar is also increasing (Chart 3). At present, the 10-year Treasury yield is very close to the fair value reading from our model, but the worry is that continued upward pressure on the dollar will cause the model's fair value to roll over in the months ahead. Another risk is the impact of a stronger dollar on emerging markets. A rebound in emerging market growth has contributed significantly to the strength in the overall global PMI since early this year (Chart 4). A strengthening dollar correlates with a weaker emerging market PMI (Chart 4, panel 2), and weakness on this front will weigh on the global growth component of our Treasury model. The possibility that President Trump will classify China as a "currency manipulator" once he takes office only exacerbates the risk from emerging markets. Chart 3Global PMI Model Chart 4EM Could Derail The Bond Bear Bottom Line: We continue to advocate a below benchmark duration stance, but the bond bear market is likely to take a pause once market rate expectations have fully converged with the Fed's forecasts. We therefore take this opportunity to book +35bps of profits on our tactical short December 2017 Eurodollar trade. Longer run, we expect Donald Trump will be able to deliver a sizeable fiscal stimulus package and that Treasury yields will be higher at the end of 2017. TIPS Chart 5TIPS Breakevens Still Depressed Our overweight recommendation on TIPS versus nominal Treasuries has also benefitted from Trump's win. The 10-year breakeven rate has increased +15bps since last Tuesday, but still has a long way to go before reaching levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its inflation target (Chart 5). Trump's main economic policies - increased fiscal spending and more protectionist trade relationships - are both inflationary. The most likely candidate to derail the widening trend in breakevens would be a quicker pace of Fed rate hikes that offsets the inflationary fiscal impulse. We think a much more hawkish Fed policy is unlikely in the near term. With TIPS breakevens still so low the Fed will want to nurture their recovery toward pre-crisis levels. It is only once TIPS breakevens are much more firmly anchored at pre-crisis levels that the Fed will be enticed to significantly quicken the pace of hikes. Bottom Line: The Fed will be reluctant to offset any inflationary fiscal impulse until TIPS breakevens have recovered closer to pre-crisis levels. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Yield Curve We had been positioned in Treasury curve flatteners on the view that the curve would flatten in advance of a December Fed rate hike, much as it did last year. Trump's surprise win has steepened the curve dramatically, and today we close both our curve trades taking losses of -86bps on our 2/10 flattener and -42bps on our 10/30 flattener. The best determinant of the slope of the yield curve in the long run is the deviation from equilibrium of our monetary conditions index (MCI). The curve tends to flatten as monetary conditions are being tightened toward equilibrium and steepen when monetary conditions are easing away from equilibrium. Chart 6 shows a model of the 2/10 Treasury slope versus the deviation from equilibrium of our MCI. The model works well over both pre- and post-crisis time intervals, and the trailing 52-week beta between the slope of the curve and the MCI's deviation from equilibrium is in line with the beta estimated for the entire post-1990 time interval (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6The Yield Curve & Monetary Conditions The curve had appeared too flat relative to fair value prior to last week's steepening, but now appears slightly too steep (Chart 6, panel 3). Since the dollar is unlikely to depreciate substantially and the fed funds rate is unlikely to be cut, the only way that the curve can continue steepening from current levels is if the market starts to revise up its assessment of the equilibrium level of monetary conditions. This is consistent with the dynamic we observed with the level of Treasury yields. Given the rapid moves we've seen in the past week, to be confident that further curve steepening is in store we need to forecast that Trump's fiscal measures will conquer secular stagnation and that the Fed will start revising up its assessment of the equilibrium rate. Much like with the level of Treasury yields, we are reluctant to bet on further steepening in the near term, before we have seen some action on Trump's fiscal policies. However, the steepening trade has gathered enough momentum at this juncture that betting on flatteners equally does not seem wise. Bottom Line: We advocate a laddered position across the Treasury curve at the moment, while we await clarity on President Trump's fiscal proposals. The Treasury curve has room to steepen further if sizeable fiscal stimulus is implemented next year. Spread Product In recent weeks we have advocated a maximum underweight (1 out of 5) allocation to high-yield and a neutral allocation (3 out of 5) to investment grade corporates, while also avoiding the Baa credit tier. This cautious stance on corporate debt was in place for two reasons. First, the junk spread had tightened in recent months despite a slight increase in the VIX and there was a sizeable risk that a Fed rate hike in December could prompt a spike in implied volatility, with a knock-on effect on spreads. Junk spreads have since widened to be more in-line with the VIX (Chart 7), and the much steeper Treasury curve tells us that the market is now less likely to consider a Fed rate hike in December - which we still expect - a policy mistake. Consequently, we are marginally less worried about a large spike in the VIX index that would translate into wider high-yield spreads. Second, high-yield spreads were simply too low relative to our forecast for default losses in 2017 (Chart 8). A model consisting of lagged junk spreads and realized default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in excess junk returns over 12-month periods.5 Previously, this model had predicted excess junk returns of close to zero, but today's spread levels are consistent with excess junk returns of +157bps during the next 12 months. Not inspiring by any means, but still better than nothing. Given the slightly better entry level for spreads and less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event, we upgrade our allocation to high-yield from maximum underweight (1 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). We maintain our neutral (3 out of 5) recommendation on investment grade corporates, but remove the recommendation to avoid the Baa credit tier. The past week's large increase in Treasury yields also leads us to downgrade our allocation to MBS from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). The low level of option-adjusted spreads makes the long-term outlook for MBS uninspiring, but we had expected that the option cost component of spreads would tighten as Treasury yields moved higher (Chart 9). Now that Treasury yields have risen sharply and the option cost has tightened, we take the opportunity to adopt a more cautious outlook on the sector. Chart 7Spreads Re-Converge With VIX Chart 8Expect Low But Positive Excess Returns Chart 9Allocate Away From MBS Bottom Line: Slightly wider spreads and a steeper yield curve make us marginally more positive on corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield). Now that the MBS option cost has tightened in response to higher Treasury yields, the outlook for the sector is less inspiring. Municipal Bonds A Donald Trump presidency is full-stop negative for the municipal bond market. Further, as we highlighted in a recent Special Report,6 no matter the election result the outlook for state & local government health is likely to turn more negative in the second half of next year. Trump's tax cuts de-value the tax advantage of municipal debt and will drive flows out of the sector leading to wider Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratios. We had been overweight municipal bonds since August 9, anticipating that a Clinton victory might provide us with a very attractive level from which to downgrade the sector heading into 2017. It was not to be, but municipal bond yields have still not quite kept pace with the sharp increase in Treasury yields, so we are able to downgrade today with M/T ratios not far off the low-end of their post-crisis range (Chart 10). In addition to tax cuts, Trump's infrastructure plan could also be a large negative for the muni market depending on how much of it is financed at the state & local government level. While the specifics of Trump's plan are not yet known, historically, most public infrastructure spending is financed at the level of state & local government (Chart 11). Another potential risk is that if large scale tax reform is on the table in 2017, then there is always the possibility that municipal bonds will lose their tax exemption altogether. At the moment it is difficult to assign odds to such an outcome. Chart 10Municipal / Treasury ##br##Yield Ratios Chart 11State & Local Government ##br##Drives Public Investment Bottom Line: A Trump presidency is full-stop negative for municipal bonds. Downgrade munis from overweight (4 out of 5) to underweight (2 out of 5). Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 http://larrysummers.com/2016/02/17/the-age-of-secular-stagnation/ 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on how we estimate the equilibrium level of monetary conditions please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Peak Policy Divergence And What It Means For Treasury Valuation", dated February 9, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy, Polls, Probability", dated November 7, 2016, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 5 For further details on this modeling framework please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Trump's election victory means that there is potential for policy settings to flip from "easy money, tight fiscal" to "tight money, easy fiscal" The market implications of that shift are dollar bullish, bond bearish and equity mixed. The major risk is that violent currency and bond market moves rekindle emerging market stress and/or choke off the recovery before fiscal spending kicks in. Trump's trade reform risks being a tax on growth. Businesses may opt to automate instead of hire. A variety of factors now make small caps appealing relative to large caps. Feature Contrary to the pre-election consensus, Donald Trump's election victory has prompted a risk-on rally, based on the notion that Trump's vision of fiscal largesse will be realized (Chart 1). Ultimately, it will only become clear what policy changes are on the table once Trump takes office in January. The consensus at BCA is that Trump will be "unbound" in his first two years as President. Thus, if Trump lives up to his campaign promises, fiscal stimulus and trade restriction will be tabled early in 2017. Chart 1Trump Moves As we argue below, trade restrictions should be viewed as a tax on growth. We have doubts about the link between job creation and tariffs. If anything, imposing tariffs on imports could incite a more intense wave of automation. After all, the cost of capital is still attractive relative to labor costs. Meanwhile, fiscal spending - if delivered even close to the size and scope that Trump has hinted at in his pre-election speeches - will boost GDP growth well above trend in 2017. If that occurs, the dynamic that has existed since 2010, i.e. "tight fiscal, exceptionally easy money policy" will rapidly flip to "easy fiscal, tight money". For the bond market and the U.S. dollar, the investment implications are clear: Treasuries are likely to head higher, and the pressure will be for the U.S. dollar to rise. Implications for equities are less certain. If the U.S. dollar rises, it might rekindle emerging world financial stress and undermine U.S. corporate profits. The rapid rise in yields may not easily be digested by the equity market and it is notable that corporate spreads have not rallied along with other risk assets in recent days. We are comfortable maintaining a defensive stance. Donald Trump said a lot of things to a lot of people during the campaign process. He can't possibly deliver on all of his promises, but earlier this week, BCA sent out a Special Report to all clients, outlining the implications of the election results and what we expect he can accomplish.1 We believe there are three that are especially important for investors to monitor: the potential for trade restrictions, gauging fiscal stimulus and monetary policy settings in this possibly new environment. Stagflation? Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade and the U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Trump can also impose tariffs. All of this is of course inflationary, and it's the nasty kind. We have repeatedly written in this publication that, historically, the U.S. economy only falls into recessions for two reasons. The first is growth-restrictive monetary policy and the second is an adverse supply shock that acts like a tax on growth, e.g. an oil price spike. Tariffs are akin to the latter. Chart 2 shows that as import penetration rose over the past 30 years, tradeable goods price inflation steadily fell. A simple read of the chart suggests that with barriers in place and as import penetration recedes, the process of the past 30 years will reverse and consumer goods prices will rise. This can easily be absorbed if it is accompanied by rising wages via the "onshoring" of jobs. But that is not a foregone conclusion. Instead of bringing manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., a more logical decision might be for businesses to further automate production. After all, earlier studies have already concluded that nearly half of all existing jobs are at high risk of being automated over the next decade or so.2 As Chart 3 shows, with the price of capital equipment and software still falling and the cost of capital so low relative to the cost of labor, the incentive to automate instead of hire is high. Chart 2Trade And Inflation Chart 3Tariffs May Lead To Robots, Not Jobs The bottom line is that increased tariffs will increase prices in the near term. But it is hardly clear that this will improve the lives of voters or create a more virtuous economic recovery. Opening The Fiscal Taps... In last week's report, we explored the potential for fiscal spending to turbocharge the U.S. economy. We warned that fiscal multipliers are probably not overly high in the current environment and the effectiveness of fiscal spending is highly dependent on the type of fiscal stimulus. Trump has called for significantly lowering both income and corporate taxes, although his main pitch has been infrastructure spending. The latter tends to have the highest multiplier effects, but can often take a long time to get underway. However, one important point is that Trump will face little political restraint, at least in his first two years in office. Gridlock will not be a problem given that all three Houses are now in GOP hands. And it will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Moreover, the GOP has historically not been that fiscally conservative. Overall, a Trump government will more than make up for the drag from weak state and local spending that we wrote about last week. Exactly how big of an impulse will only become clear once Trump takes office. ...And Tightening The Money Supply? Forecasts about the impact of fiscal spending on 2017 GDP growth are premature, since it is impossible to decipher an action plan from campaign rhetoric. And the severity of stagflation due to trade restrictions will be highly dependent on the form and scope of trade reform. Ergo, it is too early to make bold new assumptions about the path of Fed rate hikes. An aggressive fiscal plan that boosts GDP well above trend growth would force policymakers to revise their expected path of rate hikes higher. That would be a sea change from the past four years, when policymakers have consistently revised the neutral rate down. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked Janet Yellen and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that investigating the Fed will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Market Action The bond market has already priced in more inflation and more growth for 2017 since Trump's victory. 10-year Treasury yields have surged to 2.15% and momentum selling could lift the 10-year Treasury yield even further into oversold territory. But that is not a case to become aggressively underweight duration. Dollar strength and rising bond yields have already tightened financial conditions significantly over the past several weeks. The risk is that these trends go too far in the near term, inflicting economic damage before fiscal spending kicks in. Given the easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth outperformance in the U.S. and rising interest rates, the dollar should rise in the medium term. We remain dollar bulls. We have been surprised by the equity market action since November 8. Although we repeatedly wrote that a Trump victory was unlikely to have meaningful negative consequences for risk asset prices, we did not anticipate a rally. As for equities, our cautiousness toward risk assets in 2016 has been primarily focused on the ongoing headwinds for profits in a demand-deficient economy, especially while margins are falling and valuations are elevated (Chart 4). Greater fiscal spending would surely help to alleviate our concern, although that conclusion seems premature given the lack of contour to Trump's plans so far. Perhaps the greatest downside risk is a reaction from China. After all, Trump's anti-trade rhetoric has been pointed (mostly) at China and Asia. Recall that in August, 2015, the RMB was devalued just weeks ahead of an expected rate hike from the Fed. That devaluation sent shock waves through financial markets and ultimately delayed the Fed rate hike until the end of the year (Chart 5). A similar proactive policy move from Chinese policymakers should be on investors' radars. Overall, we remain comfortable with our cautious equity stance, albeit recent market action has created an entry point in favor of small relative to large cap stocks. Chart 4Equity Fundamentals Still Poor Chart 5China: Global Stability Risk? Enter Small Cap Bias We upgraded small caps relative to large caps to neutral in August. We now recommend investors make the full switch to a small cap bias relative to large caps. Small cap stocks were hit harder than large caps in the weeks leading up to the election, as investors shed riskier assets; we believe this provides a good entry point to a cyclical uptrend in small cap performance (Chart 6). True, at first glance, advocating for small cap exposure appears inconsistent with our overall defensive equity strategy. After all, small cap outperformance tends to be associated with risk-on phases. However, small cap stocks have a variety of other characteristics that currently make them appealing relative to larger caps. Chart 6(Part I) Favor Small/Large Caps Chart 7(Part II) Favor Small/Large Caps Small cap companies tend to be more domestically focused. We expect that U.S. growth will continue to outpace growth overseas. And particularly important, small cap companies, with their domestic focus, are better insulated from dollar strength (Chart 7). Small cap weightings are no longer geared toward cyclical sectors. As part of our cautious strategy, we remain focused on defensive vs. cyclical sectors. There are no major differences between large and small cap defensive and cyclical sector weightings (Table 1). Trump corporate tax reform, if implemented, will favor small, domestic firms. Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates, any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then this would diminish their current tax advantage vis-Ã -vis smaller companies. Table 1Similar Weightings For Small And Large Cap Cyclicals And Defensives Bottom Line: Small cap outperformance is typically associated with risk-on equity phases. However, valuations now favor small caps. Importantly, small caps are better insulated from dollar strength and are one way to play the domestic vs. global theme. Additionally, smaller firms will be the relative winners from corporate tax reform. Small caps are set to outperform large caps. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 "The Future Of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To Computerisation?" Carl Frey and Michael Osborne, September 2013. Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process Chart 8. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes remained unchanged this month: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The neutral portfolio recommendation for equities is in line with our qualitative defensive stance, in place since August 2015. Although the technical component of the equity model still has a "buy" signal, the breadth indicator has moved into less favorable territory relative to the momentum indicator. The monetary component has also slightly weakened but retains its positive bias for equities. The earnings-driven component continues to warrant caution as expectations for the outlook of corporate profits would need to be bolstered through stronger economic stronger growth over the medium term. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model. Even so, despite that the "buy signals" of the cyclical and technical components of the bond model still persist, the preference for Treasuries has diminished to some extent. Nevertheless, the valuation component continues trending towards expensive territory and a "buy signal" remains in place Chart 9. Chart 8Portfolio Total Returns Chart 9Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009.
Highlights De-globalization is accelerating. Europe is holding together, with populism in check. China power consolidation reflects extreme risks. Brexit is more likely, not less, after court ruling. Feature Chart I-1America Has Soured On Globalization The world woke up on Wednesday to President-elect Donald J. Trump. It will take time for the markets to digest the new regime in Washington D.C., but something tells us that it will not be business-as-usual over the next four years. We give our post-mortem assessment in the enclosed In Focus Special Report, starting on page 28. The divisive campaign reached epic lows in decorum and polarization, but both candidates did have one major thing in common: They shared a negative view of globalization, representing a paradigm shift in geopolitics and macroeconomics. Investors often take policymakers to be agents of political supply. Political rhetoric is taken seriously, analyzed, and its implications for various assets are discussed with confidence. But this approach gets the causality all wrong. Politicians are merely supplying what the political marketplace is demanding. In those terms, Donald Trump was not an agent of change. He was merely a product of his environment. So what is the American median voter demanding? Judging by the success of Donald Trump - and Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary race - the answer is less free trade, more government spending, and a promise to keep entitlement spending at current, largely unsustainable levels. Americans empirically support globalization at a lower level than the average of advanced, emerging, or developing economies (Chart I-1). What is the problem with globalization? In our 2014 report titled "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," we argued that globalization was under assault due to three dynamics:1 Deflation is politically pernicious: Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history and thus exerted a strong deflationary force (Chart I-2). A persistently low growth environment that flirts with deflation is unacceptable for the majority of the population in advanced economies. Citizens have already experienced a combination of wage suppression and debt escalation. And while globalization produced disinflationary forces on the price of labor and tradeable goods, it has done little to check the rising costs of education, health care, child care, and housing (Chart I-3), which cannot be outsourced to China or Mexico. Chart I-2Globalization Was A Major Supply-Side Shock Chart I-3You Can't Ship Daycare To China The death of the Debt Supercycle: The 2008 Great Recession shifted the demand curve inward. BCA coined the "debt supercycle" framework in the 1970s to characterize the overarching trend of rising debt in a world where political leaders, with the Great Depression and Second World War in the back of their mind, continually resorted to reflationary policies to overcome each new recession. However, the 2008 economic shock permanently shifted household preferences in the West, reducing demand by turning consumers into savers (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B). This contributes to the global savings glut and reinforces the deflationary environment. Chart I-4AGlobal Demand Engine ... Chart I-4B...Is Not Coming Back Multipolarity: Global leadership by a dominant superpower can overcome ideological challenges and demand deficiencies by providing a consumer of last resort. In game-theory terms, such a global hegemon acts as an exogenous coordinator, turning a non-cooperative game into a cooperative one. But in today's world, geopolitical and economic power is becoming more diffuse. We know from history that intense competition between a number of leading nations imperils globalization (Chart I-5). This is particularly the case in a low-growth environment. Geopolitical and economic multipolarity increase market risk premiums. Chart I-5Multipolarity Imperils Globalization These factors imperiled globalization well before Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and Nigel Farage came to dominate the news flow in 2016. The macroeconomic and geopolitical context guaranteed that anti-globalization rhetoric would prove successful at the ballot box. Chart I-6Sino-American Macroeconomic Symbiosis Ended##br## In 2008 Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over In addition to these structural challenges to globalization, the next U.S. administration will also have to handle the increasingly complex Sino-American relationship. The future of the post-Bretton Woods macroeconomic and geopolitical system will be decided by these two great powers. And we fear that both economic and geopolitical tensions will worsen.2 China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart I-6). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth - moving the economy up the value chain. Or, they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers to trade - to defend their domestic market from competition.3 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West. The problem with this choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into global trade (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open up its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle class, which makes China potentially the world's second largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism.4 What should investors expect in a world that has less globalization, more populism, and rising Sino-American tensions? We think there are five structural investment themes afoot: Chart I-7Globalization And MNCs: A Tight Embrace Inflation is back: Globalization has been one of the most important pillars of a multi-decade deflationary era. If it is imperiled, political capital will swing from capitalists to the owners of labor. Sovereign bonds are not pricing in this paradigm shift, which is why investors should position themselves for the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market."5 We are long German 10-year CPI swaps as a strategic play on this theme. USD strength: The market got the USD wrong. Trump is not bad for the greenback. More government spending and higher inflation will allow U.S. monetary policy to be tighter than that of its global peers. Furthermore, U.S. policymakers will not look to arrest the dollar bull market. "Main street" loves a strong dollar, particularly U.S. households and consumers. King Dollar will be the righteous agent of plebeian retribution against the patrician corporations used to getting their way on Capitol Hill. And finally, more geopolitical risk will mean more safe haven demand. RMB weakness: China needs to depreciate its currency in order to ease domestic monetary policy and is therefore constrained by its slowing and over-leveraged economy. But in doing so, it will export deflation and ensure that a trade war with the U.S. ensues. In addition, China's EM peers will suffer as their competitiveness vis-à -vis their main export market - China - declines. We expect that China will hasten its ongoing turn towards protectionism itself. This means that if investors want to take advantage of China's rise, they should buy Chinese companies, not the foreign firms looking to grab a share of China's middle-class market. Long defense stocks: Global multipolarity is correlated with armed conflict. We have played this theme by being long U.S. defense / short aerospace equities. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, recommends investors initiate a structural overweight in the global defense index.6 Long SMEs / Short MNCs: A world with marginally less free trade, and marginally more populism, will favor domestically oriented sectors. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the U.S., for example. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have particularly benefited from free trade and laissez faire economics. The relationship between globalization and S&P 500 operating earnings has been tight for the past 50 years (Chart I-7). Not anymore. In the new environment, investors will want to be long domestically-oriented sectors and economies against externally-oriented ones. These are structural themes supported by structural trends. We would have recommended these five investment themes irrespective of who won the U.S. election. In this Monthly Report, we focus on leadership races around the world. Our In Focus section gives a post-mortem on the U.S. presidential election. The rest of this Global Overview focuses on upcoming elections in Europe (as well as the December 4 Italian constitutional referendum) and the impending Chinese leadership rotation in 2017. We also give our two cents on recent developments related to Brexit in the U.K. Europe: Election Fever Continues Chart I-8Italian Referendum: Likely A 'No' The Netherlands, France, Germany, and potentially, Italy could all hold elections over the next 12 months, a recipe for market volatility. These four countries are part of the EMU-5 and account for 71% of the currency union's GDP and 66% of its population. Should investors expect a paradigm shift? We think the answer is yes, but surprisingly, not towards more Euroskepticism. Our view is that continental Europe - unlike its Anglo-Saxon peers, the U.K. and the U.S. - is actually moving marginally towards the center.7 The median voter in Europe is not becoming more Euroskeptic and even appears to support modest, pro-business, structural reforms! Wait... what? Indeed. Read on. Italy The constitutional referendum being held on December 4 remains too close to call, although we suspect that it will fail (Chart I-8). However, we doubt very much that the defeat of the government's position will initiate a sequence of events that takes Italy out of the euro area. As we argued in a recent Special Report titled "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," Italian policymakers are using Euroskepticism to extract concessions from Europe. But Italy is structurally constrained from exiting European institutions because of its bifurcated economy.8 Moreover, a failed referendum outcome is not a strategic risk to Europe: Euro support: Italians continue to support euro area membership, albeit at a lower level than in the past (Chart I-9). As such, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) has political reasons to become less opposed to euro area membership, as its anti-establishment peers have done in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Bicameralism: If the constitutional referendum fails, then the Senate will remain a fully empowered chamber in the Italian Parliament. Given Italy's complicated electoral laws, M5S will be unable to capture both houses in Italy's notoriously bicameral legislative body, unless it does very well in the next election. But M5S has consistently trailed the incumbent, pro-establishment Democratic Party (PD) in the polls (Chart I-10). Sequence: As Diagram I-1 shows, the contingent probability of the December constitutional referendum leading to an Italian exit from the euro area is 1.2%. Chart I-9Italy & Euro: OK (For Now) Chart I-10Italy: Euroskeptics Peaking? Diagram I-1From Referendum To Referendum: Contingent Probability Of Italy ##br##Leaving The Euro Area Following The Constitutional Referendum Vote Investors should not translate our sanguine view into a positive view of Italy. As we outlined in the above-cited Special Report, we remain skeptical that Italy can improve its potential growth rate by boosting productivity. But there is a big leap between more-of-the-same in Italy and a euro area collapse. The Netherlands The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) is set to perform poorly in the upcoming March 15 Dutch election. Polls suggest that it will roughly repeat its 10% performance from the 2012 election (Chart I-11). This is extremely disappointing given its polling earlier in the year. PVV's support has collapsed recently, most likely the result of the immigration crisis abating (Chart I-12) and the Brexit referendum in June. Many Dutch may be interested in casting a protest vote against the establishment, but a large majority still support euro area membership (Chart I-13). As such, they are put off by the vociferous Euroskepticism represented by the PVV. Chart I-11The Netherlands: Euroskeptics Collapsing Chart I-12Read Our Chart: Migration Crisis Is Over Chart I-13The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair The Netherlands is a very important euro area member state. Its economy is large enough that its views matter, despite its small population. Euroskepticism in the Netherlands is notable, but it does not mean that the country's leadership will contemplate a referendum on membership. More likely, the establishment will seek to counter the populist PVV by becoming stricter on immigration and looser on budget discipline. Investors can live with both. France The French election is a two-round affair that will be held on April 23 and May 7. The key question is who will win the November 20 primary of the center-right party, Les Républicains, formerly known as the Union for a Popular Movement. According to the latest polls, former Prime Minister (1995-1997) Alain Juppé is set to win the primary over former President Nicolas Sarkozy (Chart I-14). Who is Alain Juppé? The 70-year old has been the mayor of Bordeaux since 2006, but he is better remembered for the failed social welfare reforms (the Juppé Plan) that caused epic strikes in France back in 1995. He is pro-euro, pro-EU, and pro-economic reforms. In other words, he is everything that Brexit and Trump/Sanders/Corbyn are not. According to the latest polls, Juppé is a heavy favorite against the anti-establishment candidate Marine Le Pen (Chart I-15). This is unsurprising as Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013, as we have been stressing to clients for years (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Please Google Alain Juppe... Chart I-15...The Next President Of France Chart I-16Le Pen's Popularity In A Secular Decline Why has Le Pen struggled to gain traction in an era of terrorism, migration crises, and the success of anti-establishment peers such as Brexiters and Donald Trump? There are two major reasons. First, she continues to oppose France's membership in the euro area, despite very large support levels for the common currency in the country (Chart I-17). Second, she is holding together a coalition of northern and southern National Front (FN) members. This coalition pins together a diverse group. Northern right-wing FN members are more akin to their Dutch peers, or the "alt-right" movement in the U.S. They are anti-globalization, anti-political correctness (PC), and anti-immigration - specifically, further immigration of Muslims to France. However, this northern FN faction is ambivalent on social issues such as homosexuality (in fact, many of Le Pen's closest advisors from the north of France are openly gay), and they oppose Islam from a position that Muslim immigrants are incompatible with French liberal values. The southern FN faction is far more traditionally conservative, drawing their roots from the old anti-Gaullist, staunchly Catholic right wing. When Le Pen loses the 2017 presidential election, it will spell doom for the National Front. The only thing holding the two factions together is her leadership. Therefore, not only is France likely to elect a pro-reform president from the political establishment, but also its anti-establishment, Euroskeptic movement may be facing an internal struggle. Germany The German federal election is expected to be held sometime after August 2017. Chancellor Angela Merkel faces a decline in popularity (Chart I-18) and a challenge from the populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which performed well in two Lander (state) elections this year. Nonetheless, the migration crisis that rocked Merkel's hold on power has abated. As Chart I-12 shows, migrant flows into Europe peaked at 220,000 last October and began to plummet well before the EU-Turkey deal that the press continues to erroneously cite as the reason for the reduction in migrant flows. As we controversially explained at the height of the crisis, every migration crisis ultimately abates as border enforcement strengthens, liberal attitudes towards refugees wane, and the civil wars prompting the flow exhaust themselves.9 Germany's centrist parties maintain a massive lead over the upstart AfD and Die Linke, the left-wing successor of East Germany's Communist establishment (Chart I-19). However, AfD's successes in Mecklenburg West Pomerania and Berlin have prompted investors to ask whether it will garner greater national support in the general election. Chart I-17France & Euro: Loveless Marriage,##br## But Together For The Kids Chart I-18Merkel's Popularity Has Suffered,##br## But Stabilized Chart I-19There Is A##br## Lot Of Daylight... We doubt it. Both states are sort of oddballs in German politics. For example, Mecklenburg West Pomerania is known for a strong anti-establishment sentiment. AfD largely took votes away from the National Democratic Party (ultra-far-right, neo-Nazis) and Die Linke. These two parties won a combined 25% of the vote in 2011. In 2016, the combined anti-establishment vote, including AfD, was 33%. Clearly this is a notable gain for the non-centrist parties, but it is hardly a paradigm shift. In Berlin, the AfD gained a solid 14% of the vote, but the sensationalist media conveniently avoided mentioning that it came in fifth in the final count. By our "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, AfD managed to take only about 8% of the vote from establishment parties. The bulk of its success once again came from taking votes from other populist parties. For example, Berlin's Pirate Party - yes, "pirates" - took 8% of the vote in the last election and none in 2016. Nonetheless, we suspect that time may be running out for Angela Merkel. She has been in power since 2005 and many voters have lost confidence in her. Merkel may choose not to contest the election at the CDU party conference in early December, or she may step aside as the leader following the election. Why? Because polls suggest that Merkel's CDU will have to once again rely on a Grand Coalition with its center-left opponent, the SPD, to govern. Politically, this is a failure for Merkel as the Grand Coalition was always intended to be a one-term arrangement. If Merkel decides to retire, how will the ruling CDU choose its successor? The process is relatively closed off and dominated by the party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU selects the candidates for chairperson and the party delegates must choose the leader with a majority. The outcome is largely preordained, and Merkel has typically won above 90% of the party congress delegate vote. The possibility of a chancellor from the CDU's Bavarian sister-party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), is also decided by the elites. Therefore, the likelihood of an anti-establishment candidate hijacking the CDU/CSU leadership is minimal. How will the markets react to Merkel's resignation? Investors are overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of euro area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent euro area fiscal backstop mechanism due to upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. In addition, her likely successor will not mark a paradigm shift in terms of Germany's pro-euro outlook (Box I-1). Bottom Line: Investors may wake up in mid-2017 to find that the U.K. is firmly on its way out of the EU and that the U.S. is embroiled in deepening political polarization. Meanwhile, France and Spain will be led by reformist governments, Italy will remain in the euro area, and Germany will be mid-way through a rather boring electoral campaign featuring pro-euro establishment parties. What is keeping the European establishment in power? In early 2016, we argued that it was its large social welfare state. Unlike the laissez-faire economies of the U.S. and the U.K., European "socialism" has managed to redistribute the gains of globalization sufficiently to keep the populists at bay. As such, European voters are not flocking to populist alternatives, despite considerable challenges such as the migration crisis and terrorism. Populists are gaining votes in Europe nonetheless. To counter that trend, we should expect to see Europe's establishment parties turn more negative towards immigration, positive on fiscal activism, and more assertive towards security and defense policy. But on the key investment-relevant issue of euro area membership and European integration, we see the consensus remaining with the status quo. China: Xi Is A "Core" Leader... So What? Chinese President Xi Jinping's recent designation as the "core" of the Chinese leadership should be seen as a marginally market-positive event in an otherwise bleak outlook. Not because the president has a new title, but because of the underlying reality that he is consolidating power ahead of the 19th National Party Congress. Set for the fall of 2017, the Congress will feature a major rotation of top Communist Party leaders and mark the halfway point of his 10-year administration. The new title was not a surprise when it trickled out of the Chinese Communist Party's Sixth Plenary meeting on October 24-27. But the media took the opportunity once again to decry President Xi's "ever-expanding power."10 As our readers know, we do not think there has been a palace coup in China. That is, we do not think Xi has overthrown the "collective leadership" model, i.e. rule by the Politburo Standing Committee, established after the death of Chairman Mao.11 Instead, we think he is presiding over a major centralization phase in Chinese politics. Xi's status as the "core" feeds into the broader idea of re-centralization that we identified as a key theme for this administration when it began its term back in 2012.12 The Sixth Plenum reinforced this view in various ways:13 Xi is clearly in charge: A smattering of local party officials started calling him the core leader earlier this year, but now it has been endorsed in official documents at the highest level. Again, it is not the title itself that matters, but the fact that Xi compelled the whole party to give him the title. This distinguishes him from his two predecessors, Presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, and in this way he resembles his mighty predecessor Deng Xiaoping. Xi already developed a strong track record for re-centralizing the political system prior to receiving the new title.14 Collective leadership persists: Deng invented the idea of the "core" leader specifically as a way to assert the need for a top leader or chief executive without reverting to Maoist absolutism. The core leader is the supreme leader within a collective leadership system. This interpretation was expressly reaffirmed by the communique issued at the Sixth Plenum, which denounced ruling by a single person and praised the current system.15 Corruption purge has not split the party: The focus of the plenum was the Communist Party's rules for disciplining its own members. This specifically highlighted Xi's harsh anti-corruption campaign, which has netted numerous party officials, and has not yet concluded (Chart I-20). The fact that this campaign has continued longer than expected without prompting significant resistance shows that centralization is acceptable to the party (and anti-corruption is positive for the party's public image). Policy coherence could improve: A rash of rumors suggest that Xi will not only promote his allies but also tweak party rules and norms in order to ensure he retains a factional majority on the Politburo Standing Committee after 2017. This should be positive for policymaking since the cohort of leaders ready to rise up the ranks is weighted against his faction as a result of the previous administration's appointments. These developments would be negative if Xi avoids appointing successors next year and thus appears ready to cling to power beyond 2022.16 Unified government is a plus amid crisis: Deng initiated the "core leader" concept in the dark days after the Tiananmen massacre, when the party faced internal rifts and potential regime collapse. In other words, it is in times of crisis that the party needs to reaffirm that rule-by-committee still requires a final arbiter at the top. This latter point is the most relevant for investors. It suggests that China's party leadership perceives itself to be in the midst, or on the brink, of a crisis. Why should this be the case? There has been an improvement in China's economic situation in 2016 - stimulus efforts have stabilized the economy and growth momentum is picking up (Chart I-21). Economic relations with Asian nations are also improving. All of this information has supported the China bulls, who argue that China is not particularly overleveraged, still has a long way to go in terms of economic development, and needs to stimulate demand in order to outgrow any problems it faces from debt and overcapacity (Chart I-22). Chart I-20Anti-Corruption ##br##Campaign Reaccelerating Chart I-21Chinese Economy##br## Improved This Year Chart I-22Chinese Capacity Utilization: ##br##A Historical Perspective Nevertheless, the latest reflation efforts have peaked (Chart I-23), and there are clear warning signs for what lies ahead. The RMB continues to weaken, capital outflows may reaccelerate as a result, the yield curve is flattening, and economic policy uncertainty remains markedly elevated (Chart I-24). As such, the China bears argue that exorbitant credit growth cannot continue indefinitely (Chart I-25). When credit growth slows, the credit-reliant economy will slow too, and China will face a cascade of bad loans and insolvent companies and banks. Chart I-23Latest Mini-Stimulus##br## Is Over Chart I-24China:##br## Who Is Driving This Bus? Chart I-25China's Corporate And Household Credit: ##br##The Sky's The Limit? While economists can argue over the nature of things, politicians do not have that luxury: China's government must be prepared for the worst-case scenario. The China bears may be right even if their economic analysis proves overly pessimistic or poorly timed, because policymakers may eventually decide they must do more to tackle excessive leverage and overcapacity. Chart I-26Rebalancing Is Slowing Down An optimistic long-term assumption about Xi's consolidation of power has been that he eventually intends to use that power to pursue painful structural reforms, as outlined at the Third Plenum in 2013.17 However, the intervening three years have shown that he is pragmatic and does not want to impose aggressive reforms that would undercut an already weak and slowing economy (Chart I-26). Thus, deep reforms are only going to occur if they are forced upon the leaders as a result of an intense bout of instability, uncertainty, and market riots. The implication of this is that Xi is concentrating power in preparation for further crisis points that may be thrust upon his administration. For instance, if recent efforts to tamp down on property prices end up bursting the bubble, then eventually China could be plunged into socio-political (as well as financial) turmoil. By that time, the party would not be able to re-centralize and consolidate power carefully and gradually. It would either have loyal tools at its disposal already, or would lose precious time (and likely make mistakes) trying to assemble them. Thus Xi's moves to consolidate power are marginally market-positive in an overall negative climate. He is making himself and the Politburo Standing Committee better prepared to handle a crisis, which suggests that he believes that a crisis is either occurring or close at hand. In short, the Communist Party is girding for war; a war for regime stability if and when the massive credit risks materialize. What about the 19th National Party Congress, set to take place next fall? We will revisit this topic in the future, but for now the key point is this: It would require a surprise and/or a new political dynamic to prevent Xi from getting his way in forming the Politburo Standing Committee next year. While there is a mixed record of policy stimulus for the years preceding the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle, we certainly do not expect aggressive structural reforms to occur before then (Chart I-27). Policy tightening in the real estate sector and SOE restructuring efforts will be gradual. Chart I-27Unimpressive Record Of Stimulus Before Five-Year Party Congresses Only around the time of the party congress will it be possible to find out whether Xi wants his administration to be remembered for anything other than power consolidation - such as ambitious reforms. One reform effort we are confident will continue amid rising centralization, however, is tougher government policy against pollution. Pollution threatens social stability, especially among the restless new middle class, and stimulus efforts perpetuate the heavily polluting industries. Environmental spending has been the biggest growth category in government spending under Premier Li Keqiang.18 To capitalize on the darkening short-term outlook for stocks and Xi's policy momentum, we suggest shorting Chinese utilities, whose profit margins and share prices trade inversely with rising environmental spending (Chart I-28). Bottom Line: We remain overweight China relative to EM: The government has resources and is unified. However, the long-term outlook is mixed. Investors should steer clear of Chinese risk assets in absolute terms. Short utilities as a play on rising environmental spending and regulation, and stay short the RMB. Brexit Update: The "Legion Memorial" Is Alive And Well Chart I-28Anti-Pollution Push Hurts Utilities The Brexit movement encountered its first apparent setback last week when the country's High Court ruled that parliament must vote on invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to initiate the withdrawal from the European Union. We have always held a high-conviction view that parliament approval would ultimately be necessary, as we wrote in July.19 But, politically, it matters a great deal whether parliament votes before or after the exit negotiations. The High Court ruling is an obstacle to the government's Brexit plan because it could result in (1) the parliament's outright blocking Brexit, though this outcome is highly unlikely; (2) the parliament's insisting on a "soft Brexit" that leaves U.K.-EU relations substantially the same as before the referendum on matters like immigration and market access. However, the saga is nowhere near finished. The government is appealing the ruling, the Welsh assembly is contesting the appeal, and the Supreme Court will decide the matter in December. Until then, we expect U.K. markets to benefit marginally, ceteris paribus, from the belief that the odds of a soft Brexit are rising. Investors could be encouraged by the continuation of monetary stimulus and a new blast of fiscal stimulus, which we think will surprise to the upside on November 23 when the annual Autumn Statement is released by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The High Court-prompted rebound in U.K. assets will remain vulnerable for the following reasons: The Supreme Court has not yet ruled: It is not certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court's insistence on a parliamentary role. Both views have legitimate arguments and the issue is not settled until the Supreme Court rules. Parliament's role is political, not merely legal: Assuming parliament gets to vote on whether to trigger the process of leaving the EU, the decision will depend on politics. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the Commons will flatly reject the popular referendum, and the House of Lords can at best delay it. Yes, parliament is sovereign, but that is because it represents the people. While the 1689 Glorious Revolution established the Bill of Rights and parliamentary supremacy, in as early as 1701 there was a crisis over whether parliament should flatly overrule popular will. At that time, the writer Daniel Defoe, representing "the people," delivered the so-called Legion Memorial directly to the Speaker of the Commons. It read: "Our name is Legion, for we are Many."20 Parliament backed down. The politics of the moment favor the government: Polling shows a stark divergence in popular opinion since the referendum in favor of the Tories (Chart I-29). This is a clear signal - on top of the referendum outcome and the sweeping Tory election win in 2015 - that the popular will favors leaving the European Union. It is also a clear signal that Prime Minister Theresa May has the mandate to do it her way. Her approval rating has waned a bit (Chart I-30), but she is still supported by nearly half the population. If the government fails to win parliamentary support on Brexit, it would likely lead to a vote of no confidence and early elections. Yet the current dynamics suggest an early election would return a Conservative majority with a clear mandate to vote for Brexit. Until those dynamics undergo a change, "Brexit means Brexit." Economics favor the government: One danger for the anti-Brexit coalition is that the Supreme Court may compel a parliamentary vote in the near future. The economy has not yet suffered much from Brexit, whatever it may do in future, so there is little motivation for widespread "Bregret," i.e. the desire to reverse course and stay in the EU. By contrast, in two years' time, the negative economic consequences and uncertainties of the actual exit plan, combined with ebbing popular enthusiasm, would likely give parliament a stronger position from which to soften or reverse Brexit. Although Article 50 is arguably irrevocable, it seems hard to believe that the EU would not find a way to allow the U.K. to stay in the union if its domestic politics shifted in favor of staying, since that is clearly in the EU's interest. The President of the European Council Donald Tusk has implied as much.21 Chart I-29Brexit Helped Tories, Hurt Labour Chart I-30Prime Minister May's Popularity Still Strong From the arguments above we can draw three conclusions. First, parliament will not simply repudiate the popular referendum. Second, if parliament must vote, the political context suggests it will vote on a bill that substantially favors the government's approach toward Brexit. If that happens, the High Court ruling this week will be only a pyrrhic victory for the Bremain camp. However, parliamentary involvement does imply a softer Brexit than otherwise, and it is possible that parliament could extract major concessions. Third, the High Court ruling makes Brexit more, not less, likely. This is because it is forcing parliamentarians to vote on Brexit so early in the process, when Brexit's negative consequences are yet not evident. What do the latest Brexit twists and turns portend for European and global growth? We do not see them as particularly damaging. The British turn toward greater fiscal spending adds yet another to the list of those countries supporting one of our key investment themes: "The Return of G," or government spending.22 As we predicted, Canada is overshooting its budget deficits, Japan is engaging in coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, and Italy is expanding spending and daring Germany and the European Council to stop it, especially in the face of badly needed earthquake reconstruction and the ongoing immigration crisis (Chart I-31). Chart I-31G7 Fiscal Thrust Is Going Up This leaves the United States and Germany as two outstanding questions. The U.S. election means that Trump will launch potentially large spending increases with a GOP-held Congress. As for Germany, the CDU/CSU appears to be shifting toward more government spending, but the direction will not be clear until the election in the fall of 2017. Bottom Line: The High Court ruling has made Brexit more rather than less likely. By forcing the parliament to make a ruling on Brexit before the economic damage is clear, the High Court has put parliamentarians in the difficult position of going against the public. We are closing our long FTSE 100 / short FTSE 250 Brexit hedge in the meantime. The market may, incorrectly, price a lower probability of Brexit, while domestic stimulus will aid the home-biased FTSE 250. Nonetheless, we remain short U.K. REITs to capitalize on the long-term uncertainty, as well as negative cyclical and structural factors that are affecting commercial real estate. We also expect the GBP/USD to remain relatively weak and vulnerable relative to the pre-Brexit period. We would expect the GBP/USD to retest its mid-October-low of 1.184 over the next two years. BOX I-1 Likely Successors To German Chancellor Angela Merkel If Merkel decides to retire, who are her potential successors? Wolfgang Schäuble, Finance Minister (CDU): The bane of the financial community, Schäuble is seen as the least market-friendly option due to his hardline position on bailouts and the euro area. In our view, this is an incorrect interpretation of Schäuble's heavy-handedness. He is by all accounts a genuine Europhile who believes in the integrationist project. At 74 years old, he comes from a generation of policymakers who consider European integration a national security issue for Germany. He has pursued a tough negotiating position in order to ensure that the German population does not sour on European integration. Nonetheless, we doubt that he will chose to take on the chancellorship if Merkel retires. He suffered an assassination attempt in 1990 that left him paralyzed and he has occasionally had to be hospitalized due to health complications left from this injury. As such, it is unlikely that he would replace Merkel, but he may stay on as Finance Minister and thus be as close to a "Vice President" role as Germany has. Ursula von der Leyen, Defense Minister (CDU): Most often cited as the likely replacement for Merkel, Leyen nonetheless is not seen favorably by most of the population. She is a strong advocate of further European integration and has supported the creation of a "United States of Europe." Leyen has gone so far as to say that the refugee crisis and the debt crisis are similar in that they will ultimately force Europe to integrate further. As a defense minister, she has promoted the creation of a robust EU army. She has also been a hardliner on Brexit, saying that the U.K. will not re-enter the EU in her lifetime. While the markets and pro-EU elites in Europe would love Leyen, the problem is that her Europhile profile may disqualify her from chancellorship at a time when most CDU politicians are focusing on the Euroskeptic challenge from the right. Thomas De Maizière, Interior Minster (CDU): Maizière is a former Defense Minister and a close confidant of Chancellor Merkel. He was her chief of staff from 2005 to 2009. Like Schäuble, he is somewhat of a hawk on euro area issues (he drove a hard bargain during negotiations to set up a fiscal backstop, the European Financial Stability Fund, in 2010) and as such could be a compromise candidate between the Europhiles and Eurohawks within the CDU ranks. However, he has also been implicated in scandals as Defense Minister and may be tainted by the immigration crisis due to his position as the Interior Minister. Julia Klöckner, Executive Committee Member, Deputy Chair (CDU): A CDU politician from Rhineland-Palatinate, Klöckner is a socially conservative protégé of Merkel. While she has taken a more right-wing stance on the immigration crisis, she has remained loyal to Merkel otherwise. She is a staunch Europhile who has portrayed the Euroskeptic AfD as "dangerous, sometimes racist." We think that she would be a very pro-market choice as she combines the market-irrelevant populism of anti-immigration rhetoric with market-relevant centrism of favoring further European integration. Hermann Gröhe, Minister of Health (CDU): Gröhe is a former CDU secretary general and very close to Merkel. He is a staunch supporter of the euro and European integration. Markets would have no problem with Grohe, although they may take some time to get to know who he is! Volker Bouffier, Minister President of Hesse (CDU): As Minister President of Hesse, home of Germany's financial center Frankfurt, Bouffier may be disqualified from leadership due to his apparent close links with Deutsche Bank. Nonetheless, he is a heavyweight within the CDU's leadership and a staunch Europhile. Fritz Von Zusammenbruch, Hardline Euroskeptic (CDU): This person does not exist! Section II: U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications Highlights Trump won by stealing votes from Democrats in the Midwest. His victory implies a national shift to the left on economic policy. Checks and balances on Trump are not substantial in the short term. U.S. political polarization will continue. Trump is good for the USD, bad for bonds, neutral for equities. Favor SMEs over MNCs. Close long alternative energy / short coal. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." — Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and a potential Secretary of State pick), was asked on NBC's Meet the Press two days before the U.S. election whether he still thought that "competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." Gingrich made the original statement in January 2001, merely weeks after one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history was resolved by the Supreme Court. Gingrich's answer in 2016? "I think, tragically, we have drifted into an environment where ... it will be a continuing fight for who controls the country." Despite an extraordinary victory - a revolution really - by Donald J. Trump, the fact of the matter remains that the U.S. is a polarized country between Republican and Democratic voters. As of publication time of this report, Trump lost the popular vote to Secretary Hillary Clinton. His is a narrower victory than either the epic Richard Nixon win in 1968 or George W. Bush squeaker in 2000. Over the next two years, the only thing that matters for the markets is that the U.S. has a unified government behind a Republican president-elect and a GOP-controlled Congress. We discuss the investment implications of this scenario below and caution clients to not over-despair. On the other hand, we also see this election as more evidence that America remains a deeply polarized country where identity politics continue to play a key role. What concerns us is that these identity politics appear to transcend the country's many cultural, ethical, political, and economic commonalities. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are fusing into almost ethnic-like groupings. To bring it back to Gingrich's quote at the top, that would suggest that the U.S. is no longer that much different from Bosnia or Northern Ireland.23 Election Post-Mortem Chart II-1Election Polls Usually##br## Miss By A Few Points Donald Trump has won an upset over Hillary Clinton, but his campaign was not as much of a long-shot as the consensus believed. U.S. presidential polls have frequently missed the final tally by +/- 3% of the vote, which was precisely the end result of the 2016 election (Chart II-1). Therefore, as we pointed out in our last missive on the election, Trump's victory was not a "wild mathematical oddity."24 Why Did Trump Win The White House? Where Trump really did beat expectations was in the Midwest, and Wisconsin in particular. He ended up outperforming the poll-of-polls by a near-incredible 10%!25 His victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were well within the range of expectations. For example, the last poll-of-polls had Trump leading in both Florida (by a narrow 0.2%) and Ohio (by a solid 3.5%), whereas Clinton was up in Pennsylvania by the slightest of margins (just 1.9% lead). He ended up exceeding poll expectations in all three (by 2% in Florida, 6% in Ohio, and 3% in Pennsylvania), but not by the same wild margin as in Wisconsin. When all is said and done, Trump won the 2016 election by stealing votes away from the Democrats in the traditionally "blue" Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This was a far more significant result than his resounding victories in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) or Florida (where Obama won only narrowly in 2012). Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the Global Investment Strategy, correctly forecast that Trump would be competitive in all three Midwest states back in September 2015! We highly encourage our clients to read his "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," as it is one of the best geopolitical calls made by BCA in recent history.26 As Peter had originally thought, Trump cleaned up the white, less-educated, male vote in all of the three crucial Midwest states. He won 68% of this vote in Michigan, 71% in Pennsylvania, and 69% in Wisconsin. To do so, Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to the blue-collar white voter by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Instead, Trump promised to outspend Clinton and protect entitlements at their current levels. This mix of an outsider, anti-establishment, image combined with a left-of-center economic message allowed Trump to win an extraordinary number of former Obama voters. Exit polls showed that Obama had a positive image in all three Midwest states, including with Trump voters! For example, 30% of Trump voters in Michigan approved of the job Obama was doing as president, 25% in Pennsylvania, and 27% in Wisconsin. That's between a quarter and a third of eventual people who cast their vote for Trump. These are the voters that Republicans lost in 2012 because they nominated a former private equity "corporate raider" Mitt Romney as their candidate. Romney had famously argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that he would have "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama repeatedly attacked Romney during the 2011-2012 campaign on this point. Back in late 2011, we suspected that this message, and this message alone, would win President Obama his re-election.27 Why is the issue of the Midwest Obama voters so important? Because investors have to know precisely why Donald Trump won the election. It wasn't his messages on immigration, law and order, race relations, and especially not the tax cuts he added to his message late in the game. It was his left-of-center policy position on trade and fiscal spending. Trump is beholden to his voters on these policies, particularly in the Midwest states that won him the election. Final word on race. Donald Trump actually improved on Mitt Romney's performance with African-American and Hispanic voters (Table II-1). This was a surprise, given his often racially-charged rhetoric. Meanwhile, Trump failed to improve on the white voter turnout (as percent of overall electorate) or on Romney's performance with white voters in terms of the share of the vote. To be clear, Republicans are still in the proverbial hole with minority voters and are yet to match George Bush's performance in 2004. But with 70% of the U.S. electorate still white in 2016, this did not matter. Table II-1Exit Polls: Trump's Win Was Not Merely About Race Congress: No Gridlock Ahead Republicans exceeded their expectations in the Senate, losing only one seat (Illinois) to Democrats. This means that the GOP control of the Senate will remain quite comfortable and is likely to grow in the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats. Of the 25 Senate seats they will defend, five are in hostile territory: North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and Missouri. In addition, Florida is always a tough contest. Republicans, on the other hand, have only one Senate seat that will require defense in a Democrat-leaning state: Nevada (and in that case, it will be a Republican incumbent contesting the race). Their other seven seats are all in Republican voting states. As such, expect Republicans to hold on to the Senate well into the 2020 general election. In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain its comfortable majority. The Tea Party affiliated caucuses (Tea Party Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus) performed well in the election. The Tea Party Caucus members won 35 seats out of 38 they contested and the House Freedom Caucus won 34 seats out of 37 it contested. The race to watch now is for the Speaker of the House position. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the incumbent House, is likely to contest the election again and win. Even though his support for Donald Trump was lukewarm, we expect Republicans to unify the party behind Trump and Ryan. A challenge from the right could emerge, but we doubt it will materialize given Trump's victory. The campaign for the election will begin immediately, with Republicans selecting their candidate by December (the official election will be in the first week of January, but it is a formality as Republicans hold the majority). Bottom Line: Trump's victory was largely the product of former Obama voters in the Midwest switching to the GOP candidate. This happened because of Trump's unorthodox, left-of-center, message. Trump will have a friendly Congress to work with for the next four years. How friendly? That question will determine the investment significance of the Trump presidency. Investment Relevance Of A United Government Most clients we have spoken to over the past several months believe that Donald Trump will be constrained on economic policies by a right-leaning Congress. His more ambitious fiscal spending plans - such as the $550 billion infrastructure plan and $150 billion net defense spending plan - will therefore be either "dead on arrival" in Congress, or will be significantly watered down by the legislature. Focus will instead shift to tax cuts and traditional Republican policies. We could not disagree more. GOP is not fiscally conservative: There is no empirical evidence that the GOP is actually fiscally conservative. First, the track record of the Bush and Reagan administrations do not support the adage that Republicans keep fiscal spending in check when they are in power (Chart II-2). Second, Republican voters themselves only want "small government" when the Democrats are in charge of the White House (Chart II-3). When a Republican President is in charge, Republicans forget their "small government" leanings. Chart II-2Republicans Are##br## Not Fiscally Responsible Chart II-3Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For Opposition Presidents get their way: Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Congress can block some but probably not all of president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed in their second term. Clinton lost on healthcare, but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). Median voter has moved to the left: Donald Trump won both the GOP primary and the general election by preaching an unorthodox, left-of-center sermon. He understood correctly that the American voter preferences on economic policies have moved away from Republican laissez-faire orthodoxies.28 Yes, he is also calling for significant lowering of both income and corporate tax rates. However, tax cuts were never a focal point of his campaign, and he only introduced the policy later in the race when he was trying to get traditional Republicans on board with his campaign. Newsflash: traditional Republicans did not get Trump over the hump, Obama voters in the Midwest did! Investors should make no mistake, the key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalization, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. And he will pursue all three with GOP allies in Congress. What are the investment implications of this policy mix? USD: More government spending, marginally less global trade, and pressure on multi-national corporations (MNCs) to scale back their global operations should be positive for inflation. If growth surprises to the upside due to fiscal spending, it will allow the Fed to hike more than the current 57 bps expected by the market by the end of 2018. Given easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, and lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth surprise in the U.S. should be positive for the dollar in the long term. At the moment, the market is reacting to the Trump victory with ambivalence on the USD. In fact, the dollar suffered as Trump's probability of victory rose in late October. We believe that this is a temporary reaction. We see both Trump's fiscal and trade policies as bullish. BCA's currency strategist Mathieu Savary believes that the dollar could therefore move in a bifurcated fashion in the near term. On the one hand, the dollar could rise against EM currencies and commodity producers, but suffer - or remain flat - against DM currencies such as the EUR, CHF, and JPY.29 Bonds: More inflation and growth should also mean that the bond selloff continues. In addition, if our view on globalization is correct, then the deflationary effects of the last three decades should begin to reverse over the next several years. BCA thesis that we are at the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" should therefore remain cogent.30 As one of our "Trump hedges," our colleague Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, suggested a 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener. This hedge is now up 18.7 bps and we suggest clients continue to hold it. Fed policy: Trump's statements about monetary policy have been inconsistent. Early on in his campaign he described himself as "a low interest rate guy", but he has more recently become critical of current Federal Reserve policy - and Fed Chair Janet Yellen in particular - claiming that while higher interest rates are justified, the Fed is keeping them low for "political reasons." What seems certain is that Janet Yellen will be replaced as Fed Chair when her term expires in February 2018. Yellen is unlikely to resign of her own volition before then and it would be legally difficult for the President to remove a sitting Fed Chair prior to the end of her term. But Trump will get the opportunity to re-shape the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors as soon as he is sworn in. There are currently two empty seats on the Board need to be filled and given that many of Trump's economic advisers have "hard money" leanings, it is very likely that both appointments will go to inflation hawks. Equities: In terms of equities, Trump will be a source of uncertainty for U.S. stocks as the market deals with the unknown of his presidency. In addition, markets tend to not like united government in the U.S. as it raises the specter of big policy moves (Table II-2). However, Trump should be positive for sectors that sold off in anticipation of a Clinton victory, such as healthcare and financials. We also suspect that he will continue the outperformance of defense stocks, although that would have been the case with Clinton as well. Table II-2Election: Industry Implications In the long term, Trump's proposal for major corporate tax cuts should be good for U.S. equities. However, we are not entirely sure that this is the case. First, the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at its multi-decade lows (Chart II-4). As such, any corporate tax reform that lowers the marginal rate will not really affect the effective rate. Why does this matter? Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates. Any lowering of the marginal rate will therefore benefit the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then Trump's policy will not necessarily benefit all firms in the U.S. equally. Chart II-4How Low Can It Go? Investors have to keep in mind that Trump has not run a pro-corporate campaign. He has accused American manufacturing firms of taking jobs outside the U.S. and tech companies of skirting taxes. It is not clear to us that his corporate tax reform will therefore necessarily be a boon for the stock market. In the long term, we like to play Trump's populist message by favoring America's SMEs over MNCs. If we are ultimately correct on the USD and growth, then export-oriented S&P 500 companies should suffer in the face of a USD bull market and marginally less globalization. Meanwhile, lowering of the marginal corporate tax rate will benefit the SMEs that do not get the benefit of K-street lobbyist negotiated tax loopholes. Global Assets: The global asset to watch over the next several weeks is the USD/RMB cross. China is forced by domestic economic conditions to continue to slowly depreciate its currency. We have expected this since 2015, which is why we have shorted the RMB via 12-month non-deliverable forwards (NDF). Risk to global assets, particularly EM currencies and equities, would be that Beijing decides to depreciate the RMB before Trump is inaugurated on January 20. This could re-visit the late 2015 panic over China, particularly the narrative that it is exporting deflation. Our view is that even if China does not undertake such actions over the next two months, Sino-American tensions are set to escalate. It is much easier for Trump to fulfill his de-globalization policies with China - a geopolitical rival with which the U.S. has no free trade agreement - than with NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. This will only deepen geopolitical tensions between the two major global powers, which has been our secular view since 2011. Finally, a quick note on the Mexican peso. The Mexican peso has already collapsed half of its value in the past 18 months and we believe the trade is overdone. Investors have used the currency cross as a way to articulate Trump's victory probability. It is no longer cogent. We believe that the U.S. will focus on trade relations with China under a Trump presidency, rather than NAFTA trade partners. Our Emerging Markets Strategy believes that it is time to consider going long MXN versus other EM currencies, such as ZAR and BRL. Investors should also watch carefully the Cabinet appointments that Trump makes over the next two months. Since Carter's administration, cabinet announcements have occurred in early to mid-December. Almost all of these appointments were confirmed on Inauguration Day (usually January 20 of the year after election, including in 2017) or shortly thereafter. Only one major nomination since Carter was disapproved. These appointments will tell us how willing Trump is to reach to traditional Republicans who have served on previous administrations. We suspect that he will go with picks that will execute his fiscal, trade, and tax policies. Bottom Line: After the dust settles over the next several weeks, we suspect that Trump will signal that he intends to pursue his fiscal, trade, immigration, and tax policies. These will be, in the long term, positive for the USD, negative for bonds (including Munis, which will lose their tax-break appeal if income taxes are reduced), and likely neutral for equities. Within the equity space, Trump will be positive for U.S. SMEs and negative for MNCs. This means being long S&P 600 over S&P 100. Lastly, close our long alternative energy / short coal trade for a loss of -26.8%. Constraints: Don't Bet On Them Domestically, the American president can take significant action without congressional support through executive directives. Lincoln raised an army and navy by proclamation and freed the slaves; Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese; Truman tried to seize steel factories to keep production up during the Korean War. Truman's case is almost the only one of a major executive order being rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The Reagan and Clinton administrations have shown that a president thwarted by a divided or adverse congress will often use executive directives to achieve policy aims and satisfy particular interest groups and sectors. Though the number of executive orders has gone down in recent administrations (Chart II-5), the economic significance has increased along with the size and penetration of the bureaucracy (Chart II-6). The economic impact of executive orders is always debatable, but the key point is that the president's word tends to carry the day.31 Chart II-5Rule By Decree Chart II-6Executive Branch Is Growing Trade is a major area where Trump would have considerable sway. He has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade. The U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Congressionally approved agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cannot be revoked by the president, but Trump could obstruct its ongoing implementation.32 He would also have considerable powers to levy tariffs, as Nixon showed with his 10% "surcharge" on most imports in 1971.33 Bottom Line: Presidential authority is formidable in the areas Trump has made the focus of his campaign: immigration and trade. Without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override him, or an activist federal court, Trump would be able to enact significant policies simply by issuing orders to his subordinates in the executive branch. Long-Term Implications: Polarization In The U.S. Does the Republican control of Congress and the White House signal that polarization in America will subside? We began this analysis by focusing on the investment implications when Republicans control the three houses of the American government. But long-term implications of polarization will not dissipate. Investors may overstate the importance of a Republican-controlled government and thus understate the relevance of continued polarization. We doubt that Donald Trump is a uniting figure who can transcend America's polarized politics, especially given his weak popular mandate (he lost the popular vote as Bush did in 2000) and the sub-50% vote share. And, our favorite chart of the year remains the same: both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have entered the history books as the most disliked presidential candidates ever on the day of the election (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level since World War II (Chart II-8). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension.34 Chart II-8The Widening Ideological Gulf In The U.S. Congress Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study has shown that Republicans and Democrats are moving further to the right and left, respectively. Chart II-9 shows the distribution of Republicans and Democrats on a 10-item scale of political values across the last three decades. In addition, "very unfavorable" views of the opposing party have skyrocketed since 2004 (Chart II-10), with 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now seeing the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being"! Chart II-9U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-10Live And Let Die Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the mounting polarization in America.35 Our view remains that politics in a democracy operates on its own supply-demand dynamic. If there was no demand for polarized politics, especially at the congressional level, American politicians would not be so eager to supply it. We believe that five main factors - in our subjective order of importance - explain polarization in the U.S. today: Income Inequality and Immobility The increase in political polarization parallels rising income inequality in the U.S. (Chart II-11). The U.S. is a clear and distant outlier on both factors compared to its OECD peers (Chart II-12). However, Americans are not being divided neatly along income levels. This is because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to fix income inequality. For Donald Trump voters, the solutions are to put up barriers to free trade and immigration while reducing income taxes for all income levels. For Hillary Clinton voters, it means more taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, while putting up some trade barriers and expanding entitlements. This means that the correlation between polarization and income inequality is misleading as there is no causality. Rather, rising income inequality, especially when combined with a low-growth environment, shifts the political narrative from the "politics of plenty" towards "politics of scarcity." It hardens interest and identity groups and makes them less generous towards the "other." Chart II-11Inequality Breeds Polarization Chart II-12Opportunity And Income: Americans Are Outliers Generational Warfare The political age gap is increasing (Chart II-13). This remains the case following the 2016 election, with 55% Millennials (18-29 year olds) having voted for Hillary Clinton. The problem for older voters, who tend to identify far more with the Republican Party, is that the Millennials are already the largest voting bloc in America (Chart II-14). And as Millennial voters start increasing their turnout, and as Baby Boomers naturally decline, the urgency to vote for Republican policymakers' increases. Chart II-13The Age Gap In American Politics Chart II-14Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Geographical Segregation Noted political scientist Robert Putnam first cautioned that increasing geographic segregation into clusters of like-minded communities was leading to rising polarization.36 This explains, in large part, how liberal elites have completely missed the rise of Donald Trump. Left-leaning Americans tend to live in a left-leaning community. They share their morning cup-of-Joe with Liberals and rarely mix with the plebs supporting Trump. And of course vice-versa. University of Toronto professors Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander have more recently shown in their "Segregated City" research that "America's cities and metropolitan areas have cleaved into clusters of wealth, college education, and highly-paid knowledge-based occupations."37 Their research shows that American neighborhoods are increasingly made up of people of the same income level, across all metropolitan areas. Florida and Mellander also show that educational and occupational segregation follows economic segregation. Meanwhile, the same research shows that Canada's most segregated metropolitan area, Montreal, would be the 227th most segregated city if it were in the U.S.! This form of geographic social distance fosters increasing polarization by allowing voters to remain aloof of their fellow Americans, their plight, needs, and concerns. The extreme urban-rural divide of the 2016 election confirms this thesis. Immigration Much as with income inequality, there is a close correlation between political polarization and immigration. The U.S. is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country, with the percent of the white population expected to dip below 50% in 2045 (Chart II-15). Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to continue rising for the rest of the century. For many Americans facing the pernicious effects of low-growth, high debt, and elevated income inequality, the rising impact of immigration is anathema. Not only is the country changing its ethnic and cultural make-up, but the incoming immigrants tend to be less educated and thus lower-income than the median American. They therefore favor - or will favor, when they can vote - redistributive policies. Many Americans feel - fairly or unfairly - that the costs of these policies will have to be shouldered by white middle-class taxpayers, who are not wealthy enough to be indifferent to tax increases, and may be unskillful enough to face competition from immigrants. There is also a security component to the rising concern about immigration. Although Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population, many voters perceive radical Islam to be a vital security threat to the nation. As such, immigration and radical Islamic terrorism are seen as close bedfellows. Media Polarization The 2016 election has been particularly devastating for mainstream media. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly." This is the lowest level in Gallup polling history. The decline is particularly concentrated among Independent and Republican respondents (Chart II-16). With mainstream media falling out of favor for many Americans, voters are turning towards social media and the Internet. Facebook is now as important for political news coverage as local TV for Americans who get their news from the Internet (Chart II-17). Chart II-15Racial Composition Is Changing Chart II-16A War Of Words Chart II-17New Sources Of News Not Always Credible The problem with getting your news coverage from Facebook is that it often means getting news coverage from "fake" sources. A recent experiment by BuzzFeed showed that three big right-wing Facebook pages published false or misleading information 38% of the time while three large left-wing pages did so in nearly 20% of posts.38 The Internet allows voters to self-select what ideological lens colors their daily intake of information and it transcends geography. Two American families, living next to each other in the same neighborhood, can literally perceive reality from completely different perspectives by customizing their sources of information. Chart II-18Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats In addition to these five factors, one should also reaffirm the role of redistricting, or "gerrymandering." Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter) have redrawn geographical boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart II-18). This improves job security for incumbent politicians and legislative-seat security for the party; but it also discourages legislators from reaching across the ideological aisle in order to ensure re-election. Instead, the main electoral challenge now comes from the member's own party during the primary election. For Republicans, this means that the challenge is most often coming from a candidate that is further to the right. Incumbent GOP politicians in Congress therefore have an incentive to maintain highly conservative records lest a challenge from the far-right emerges in a primary election. Given that the frequency of elections is high in the House of Representatives (every two years), legislators cannot take even a short break from partisanship. Redistricting deepens polarization, therefore, by changing the political calculus for legislators facing ideologically pure electorates in their home districts. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is a product of structural factors that are here to stay. Trump's narrow victory will in no way change that. But How Much Worse? Chart II-19Party Is The Chief Source Of Identity Political polarization is not new. Older readers will remember 1968, when social unrest over the Vietnam War was at its height. Richard Nixon barely got over the finish line that year, beating Vice-President Hubert Humphrey by around 500,000 votes.39 Another contested election in a contested era. Our concern is that the Republican and Democrat "labels" - or perhaps conservative and liberal labels - appear to be ossifying. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats. This has not always been the case, as Chart II-19 shows. We suspect that the data would be even starker today, especially after the divisive 2016 campaign that has bordered on hysterical. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become real and almost "sectarian" in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Why is this happening? We suspect that the shift in urgency and tone is motivated at least in part by the changing demographics of America. Two demographic groups that identify the most with the Republican Party - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are in a structural decline (the first in absolute terms and the second in relative terms). Both see the writing on the political wall. Given America's democratic system of government, their declining numbers (or, in the case of suburban whites, declining majorities) will mean significant future policy decisions that go against their preferences. America is set to become more left-leaning, favor more redistribution, and become less culturally homogenous. Not only are Millennials more socially liberal and economically left-leaning, but they are also "browner" than the rest of the U.S. As we pointed out early this year, 2016 was an election that the GOP could reasonably attempt to win by appealing exclusively to white and older voters. The "White Hype" strategy was mathematically cogent ... at least in 2016.40 It will get a lot more difficult to pursue this strategy in 2020 and beyond. Not impossible, but difficult. We suspect that conservative voters know this. As such, there was an urgency this year to lock-in structural changes to key policies before it is too late. Donald Trump may have been a flawed messenger for many voters, but it did not matter. The clock is ticking for a large segment of America and therefore Trump was an acceptable vehicle of their fears and anger. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is likely to increase. Two key Republican/conservative constituencies - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are backed into the corner by demographic trends. But it also means that a left counter-revolution is just around the corner. And we doubt that the Democratic Party will chose as centrist of a candidate the next time around. Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned 1. Economics trump PC: Civil rights remain a major category of the American public's policy concerns. However, the Democratic Party's prioritization of social issues on the margins of the civil rights debate has not galvanized voters in the face of persistent negative attitudes about the economy. More specifically, the surge in cheap credit since 2000 that covered up the steady decline of wages as a share of GDP has ended, leaving households exposed to deleveraging and reduced purchasing power (Chart II-20). American households have lost patience with the slow, grinding pace of economic recovery, they reject the debt consequences of low inflation with deflationary tail risks, and they resent disappointed expectations in terms of job security and quality. Concerns about certain social preferences - as opposed to basic rights - pale in comparison to these economic grievances. Chart II-20Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income 2. Polls are OK, but beware the quant models that use them: On two grave political decisions this year, in two advanced markets with the "best" quality of polling, political modeling turned out to be grossly erroneous. To be fair, the polls themselves prior to both Brexit and the U.S. election were within a margin of error. However, quantitative models relying on these polls were overconfident, leading investors to ignore the risks of a non-consensus outcome. As we warned in mid-October - with Clinton ahead with a robust lead - the problem with quantitative political models is that they rely on polling data for their input.41 To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." But combining polls is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The philosophy behind the methodology is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening. Well, something bad did happen. The quantitative models were massively wrong! We tried to avoid this problem by heavily modifying our polls-based-model with structural factors. Many of these structural variables - economic context, political momentum, Obama's approval rating - actually did not favor Clinton. Our model therefore consistently gave Donald Trump between 35-45% probability of winning the election, on average three and four times higher than other popular quant models. This caused us to warn clients that our view on the election was extremely cautious and recommend hedges. In fact, Donald Trump had 41% chance of winning the race on election night, according to the last iteration of our model, a very high probability.42 3. Professor Lichtman was right: Political science professor Allan Lichtman has once again accurately called the election - for the ninth time. The result on Nov. 8 strongly supports his life's work that presidential elections in the United States are popular referendums on the incumbent party of the last four years. Structural factors undid the Democrats (Table II-3), and none of the campaign rhetoric, cross-country barnstorming, or "horse race" polling mattered a whit. The Republicans had momentum from previous midterm elections, Clinton had suffered a strong challenge in her primary, the Obama administration's achievements over the past four years were negligible (the Affordable Care Act passed in his first term). These factors, along with the political cycle itself, favored the Republicans. Trump's lack of charisma did not negate the structural support for a change of ruling party. Investors should take note: no amount of mathematical horsepower, big data, or Silicon Valley acumen was able to beat the qualitative, informed, contemplative work of a single historian. Table II-3Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* 4. Non-linearity of politics: Lichtman's method calls attention to the danger of linear assumptions and quantitative modeling in attempting the art of political prediction. Big data and quantitative econometric and polling models have notched up key failures this year. They cannot make subjective judgments regarding whether a president has had a major foreign policy success or failure or a major policy innovation - on all three of those counts, the Democrats failed from 2012-16. There really is no way to quantify political risk because human and social organizations often experience paradigm shifts that are characterized by non-linearity. Newtonian Laws will always work on planet earth and as such we are not concerned about what will happen to us if we board an airplane. Laws of physics will not simply stop working while we are mid-air. However, social interactions and political narratives do experience paradigm shifts. We have identified several since 2011: geopolitical multipolarity, de-globalization, end of laissez-faire consensus, end of Chimerica, and global loss of confidence in elites and institutions.43 5. No country is immune to decaying institutions: The United States has, with few exceptions, the oldest written constitution among major states, and it ensures checks and balances. But recent decades have shown that the executive branch has expanded its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. Moreover, executives have responded to major crisis - like the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis - with policy responses that were formulated haphazardly, ideologically divisive, and difficult to implement: the Iraq War and the Affordable Care Act. The result is that the jarring events that have blindsided America over the past sixteen years have resulted in wasted political capital and deeper polarization. The failure of institutions has opened the way for political parties to pursue short-term gains at the expense of their "partners" across the aisle, and to bend and manipulate procedural rules to achieve ends that cannot be achieved through consensus and compromise. 6. U.S. is shifting leftward when it comes to markets: Inequality and social immobility have, with Trump's election, entered the conservative agenda, after having long sat on the liberals' list of concerns. The shift in white blue-collar Midwestern voters toward Trump reflects the fact that voters are non-partisan in demanding what they want: they want to retain their existing rights, privileges, and entitlements, and to expand their wages and social protections. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 28, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refuges, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 The BBC is exemplary of the mainstream Western press on this point. Please see Stephen McDonell, "The Ever-Growing Power Of China's Xi Jinping," BBC News, China Blog, dated October 29, 2016, available at www.bbc.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 12, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see the "Eighteenth Communist Party Of China Central Committee Sixth Plenary Session Communique," dated October 27, 2016, available at cpc.people.com.cn. 14 Jiang Zemin, China's ruler from roughly 1993 to 2002, was also referred to as the "core" leader, but he received this moniker from Deng Xiaoping. Xi is following in Deng's footsteps by declaring himself to be the core and winning support from the party. As for his centralizing efforts, prior to being named the "core leader," Xi had already waged a sweeping crackdown on political opponents and dissidents. He had used his position as head of the party, the state bureaucracy, and the armed forces to reshuffle personnel in these bodies extensively. He had already created new organizational bodies, including the National Security Commission, and initiated plans to restructure the military to emphasize joint-operations under regional battle commands. A weak leader would not have advanced so quickly. 15 Deng named Mao the "core" of the first generation of leaders, but it was evident that he sought a different leadership model. 16 Specifically, Xi could prevent the preferment of successors for 2022, he could reduce the size of the Politburo Standing Committee further to five members, or he could modify or make exceptions to the informal rule that top officials must not be promoted if they are 68 or older. Please see Minxin Pei, "A Looming Power Struggle For China?" dated October 28, 2016, available at www.cfr.org. 17 Please see "Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China," dated January 15, 2014 [adopted November 12, 2013], available at www.china.org.cn. 18 Please see "China: The Socialist Put And Rising Government Leverage," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit Update: Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?" dated July 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For the High Court ruling, please see the U.K. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, "R (Miller) -V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union," dated November 3, 2016, available at www.judiciary.gov.uk. 20 At that time a Tory majority in the House of Commons had enraged the populace by imprisoning a group of petitioners from Kent. Both the Kentish Petition and the Legion Memorial demanded that parliament heed the will of the populace. 21 Presumably, the European Council could vote unanimously under Article 50 to extend the negotiation period for a very long time. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Except that it is better armed. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 However, Wisconsin polling was rather poor as most pollsters assumed that it was a shoe-in for Democrats. One problem with polling in Midwest states is that they were, other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, assumed to be safe Democratic states. Note for example the extremely tight result in Minnesota and the absolute dearth of polling out of that state throughout the last several months. 26 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. General Elections And Scenarios: Implications," dated July 11, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It," dated November 4, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Only a two-thirds majority of Congress, or a ruling by a federal court, can undo an executive action, and that is exceedingly rare. The real check on executive orders is the rotation of office: a president can undo with the stroke of a pen whatever his predecessor enacted. Congress has the power of the purse, but it is sporadic in its oversight and has challenged less than 5% of executive orders, even though those orders often re-direct the way the executive branch uses funds Congress has allocated. More often, Congress votes to codify executive orders rather than nullify them. 32 Trump is not alone in calling for renegotiating or even abandoning NAFTA. Clinton called for renegotiation in 2008, and Senator Bernie Sanders has done so in 2016. 33 In Proclamation 4074, dated August 15, 1971, Nixon suspended all previous presidential proclamations implementing trade agreements insofar as was required to impose a new 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods entering the United States. He justified it in domestic law by invoking the president's authority and previous congressional acts authorizing the president to act on behalf of Congress with regard to trade agreement negotiation and implementation (including tariff levels). He justified the proclamation in international law by referring to international allowances during balance-of-payments emergencies. 34 The "primary dimension" of Chart II-8 is represented by the x-axis and is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. The "second dimension" (y-axis) depends on the era and is picking up regional differences on a number of social issues such as the civil rights movement (which famously split Democrats between northern Liberals and southern Dixiecrats). 35 We have penned two such efforts ourselves. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Polarization In America: Transient Or Structural Risk?," dated October 9, 2013, and "A House Divided Cannot Stand: America's Polarization," dated July 11, 2012," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. 37 Please see Martin Prosperity Institute, "Segregated City," dated February 23, 2015, available at martinprosperity.org. 38 Please see BuzzFeedNews, "Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate," dated October 20, 2016, available at buzzfeed.com. 39 Nonetheless, due to the third-party candidate George Wallace carrying the then traditionally-Democratic South, Nixon managed to win the Electoral College in a landslide. 40 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 41 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!," dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 For comparison, Steph Curry, the greatest three-point shooter in basketball history, and a two-time NBA MVP, has a career three-point shooting average of 44%. With that average, he is encouraged to take every three-pointer he can by his team. In other words, despite being less than 50%, this is a very high percentage. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, and "Strategy Outlook 2016 - Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights Today, we are sending out a previously scheduled Special Report, highlighting our thoughts on the how to assess the impact of China on global bond markets. This is an important topic that we hope you will find of great interest. We will not be offended, however, if that report sits in your inboxes for a day or two while the world awaits the results of today's U.S. Presidential election. Feature Global financial markets have been subject to extraordinary volatility over the past couple of weeks as the election campaign has drawn to a close. Investors have had to deal with the steady inflow of shifting poll results, overbearing media punditry, surprising FBI letters and wild conspiracy theories, all while trying to price the risks associated with two of the most polarizing presidential candidates in U.S. history. The recent narrowing of Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls has forced investors to seriously consider the possibility of a President Donald J. Trump, with all the change from the status quo that he represents. Given how markets have reacted to Trump closing the gap with Clinton - falling equity prices, higher volatility, lower bond yields and a weaker U.S. dollar - a Trump win could trigger a true risk-off market rout, with global investors wanting to avoid been burned by another political surprise after Brexit. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy still view a narrow Clinton victory as the most likely outcome, with admittedly lower conviction levels than usual for such an important election. Such is the problem of making predictions when polls are within margins of error. However, given the well-understood realities of the U.S. Electoral College map and the still-uphill climb needed for Trump to win, the result that would catch investors most off-guard would be The Donald pulling off the upset. From our perspective at BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, a Clinton victory would keep the global economy on its current positive growth track in the near-term. This would shift bond investors' focus back over to the Fed and a likely December rate hike. However, a risk-off market move after a Trump win would represent the biggest risk to our current portfolio recommendations: We are positioned for rising global bond yields via an overall below-benchmark duration stance, given our view that we are in a cyclical growth upturn that is also pushing global inflation higher (more details on China's contribution to that can be found in the Special Report sent out today). In terms of regional bond allocation, we are favoring the areas with the lowest inflation rates and most credible dovish central banks, via an above-benchmark tilt in core Europe and a neutral stance on Japan and Canada. We are underweight the countries where central bankers are either in the process of raising rates (the U.S.) or will soon face a decision to tighten policy in the face of strong growth and rising inflation pressures (the U.K., Australia). We are also underweight Peripheral European debt (Italy, Spain, Portugal) versus Germany due to our concerns over decelerating growth in the Periphery combined with the ongoing stresses on Euro Area banks. We are overweight inflation protection (via linkers and CPI swaps) in the U.S. and U.K. where we see the greatest potential for rising inflation expectations. Within global credit markets, we are maintaining a defensive stance via underweights in U.S., Euro Area and Emerging Markets High-Yield (which are all overvalued and overlevered). Within Investment Grade corporates, we are only maintaining a neutral stance in the U.S. and above-benchmark tilts in the Euro Area and U.K. We are also neutral on Emerging Market hard currency debt, both sovereigns and corporates. In the event that Trump pulls out the win tonight, we would expect our overall below-benchmark duration call to suffer if bond yields declines in a risk-off move. However, our "break-even" level on that call allows some cushion to stick with the underweight, as we initiated the recommendation back in July when the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield was just below 1.60%. A return to those levels would be a 25bp decline from yesterday's closing level of 1.83%, which would be a massive move if it happened in a short period of time immediately after Trump was declared the winner. Yet if such large move in yields were to occur, it would almost certainly be in the context of a rout in global equity markets. Our underweight stance on high-yield corporates and Peripheral Europe would perform very well there. Our generally cautious stance on higher-quality corporates and Emerging Markets would likely cause minor hits only via our overweights in Europe, but with those markets supported by the ongoing central bank buying by the ECB and Bank of England, the losses should be relatively well-contained. There is also a risk that our overweights in inflation protection in the U.S. and U.K. would underperform, especially if the market rout turns into a lasting shock to global growth and inflation expectations. That will be difficult to determine in the immediate aftermath of a Trump win. Summing it all up, there are enough offsetting positions within our recommended portfolio to not suggest any changes into tonight's election. Let us hope that the election result is decisive enough that a winner can be declared tonight and this period of U.S. political uncertainty can end, whoever wins. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product
Highlights Chart 1Targeting 2% The Fed did its best to avoid roiling markets so close to today's election, but still managed to hint at a December rate hike. The post-meeting statement was tweaked so that now only "some further evidence" rather than "further evidence" is required in order to lift the funds rate. We remain below benchmark duration in anticipation of a December rate hike. Before the end of the year we expect our 12-month discounter to reach at least 40-50bps (meaning the market will expect a further 1-2 hikes in 2017) from its current level of 28bps, and for the 10-year Treasury yield to reach 1.95-2%. While our global PMI model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27%, the uptrend in the 10-year yield will face severe technical resistance as it approaches 2% (Chart 1). Positioning has already moved to net short duration, signaling that the bond sell-off is becoming stretched. While a Clinton victory would all but ensure a December rate hike, a Trump victory could cause a large enough market riot that the Fed delays until 2017. This would only be a brief hiccup in the return of the 10-year yield to the 1.95-2% range, and would not signal a long-lasting trend reversal. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +56bps in October, but have already given back -26bps of those gains so far this month (Chart 2). The index option-adjusted spread is -2bps tighter than at the end of September and, at 136bps, it remains very close to its historical average. Corporate credit performance faces two immediate risks. The first is today's election and the second is the prospect of a Fed rate hike in December. A Clinton victory would likely prompt a knee-jerk rally in risk assets and virtually ensure a rate hike next month. In that case we would be inclined to further trim exposure to credit risk in the coming weeks as the rate hike approaches. Already, we recommend investors avoid the Baa credit tier within a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. In a recent report we pointed out that highly-rated credit (A-rated and above) performed well in the initial stages of last year's run-up in rate hike expectations, but then started to suffer once market-implied rate hike probabilities approached 100%.1 Conversely, a Trump victory would likely prompt a flight-to-safety event in markets which, depending on its severity, could also cause the Fed to delay the next rate hike into 2017. In that event, the prospect of delayed Fed tightening would make us more likely to increase credit exposure in the near term, especially if any knee-jerk sell-off in risk assets creates better value in corporates. Table 3Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* (Continued) Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Maximum Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +92bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -108bps so far in November. The index option-adjusted spread is +25bps wider since the end of September and, at 505bps, it is 16bps below its historical average. In a Special Report2 published last week we noted that while the default rate will not re-visit its previous lows (at least until after the next recession), it should decline from 5.4% to close to 4% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). However, even a slightly brighter default outlook will not be enough for junk bonds to sustain their current pace of outperformance. A simple model of lagged junk spreads and default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in 12-month high-yield excess returns. This model suggests that even with lower default losses, excess junk returns will be +264bps during the next 12 months (panel 3). The reason is that lower default losses are more than offset by the lower starting point for spreads. Junk spreads should also come under widening pressure in the very near term, as a December Fed rate hike spurs an increase in implied volatility. Maintain a maximum underweight allocation to high-yield and await a better entry point for spreads in the New Year. MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +2bps in October, but are underperforming the benchmark by -7bps so far in November. Year-to-date, MBS have outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by a mere +22bps. Since the end of September, the conventional 30-year MBS yield has risen +23bps, driven by a +21bps increase in the rate component. The option-adjusted spread has widened +2bps, while the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) has remained flat. Unattractive option-adjusted spreads and the prospect of further increases in issuance make for bleak long-run return prospects in MBS. However, the likelihood that Treasury yields will continue to rise in the near-term means that MBS could outperform due to a decline in the option cost component of spreads (Chart 4). We will likely reduce exposure to MBS once a December rate hike has been fully digested by the market, and the uptrend in Treasury yields starts to taper off. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to ease standards on GSE-eligible mortgage loans, while demand for these same loans continues to increase. The combination of easing lending standards and strengthening demand means that issuance is likely to continue its march higher, as does the persistent uptrend in existing home sales (bottom panel). Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +5bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -9bps so far in November. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sub-sectors drove October's outperformance, returning +24bps and +14bps in excess of Treasuries respectively. Domestic Agency debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +3bps, while Supranationals (-7bps) and Sovereigns (-10bps) both underperformed. After adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration, Foreign Agency and Local Authority bonds still appear attractive relative to investment grade U.S. corporate debt. Sovereigns, on the other hand, appear modestly expensive. We continue to recommend avoiding Sovereign issues while remaining overweight the other sub-sectors of the government related index. In a recent report,3 we observed that the performance of sovereign debt relative to equivalently-rated and duration-matched U.S. corporate credit tends to track movements in the U.S. dollar. As such, a continued bull market in the U.S. dollar will remain a significant headwind for sovereigns. At the country level, the only nations whose USD-denominated debt offers a spread advantage over Baa-rated U.S. corporate debt are Hungary, South Africa, Colombia and Uruguay. Unusually, bullet agency debt outperformed callable agency debt last month even though Treasury yields moved higher (Chart 5). Within Domestic Agency bonds, we continue to favor callable over bullet issues on the expectation that this divergence will not persist. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by -12bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -152bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio is largely unchanged since the end of September, and remains close to its post-crisis average. In recent months, trends in M/T yield ratios have fluctuated alongside the betting market odds for today's Presidential election. A Trump victory would cause yield ratios to widen sharply, as President Trump's promised tax cuts would substantially de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds. We expect yield ratios to tighten in the event that Clinton prevails, as any expectation of a Trump victory works its way out of the price. Due to attractive yield ratios relative to recent history, we are inclined to remain overweight municipal bonds in the near-term. However, we will likely downgrade the sector if yield ratios move back to previous lows. As we detailed in a recent Special Report,4 historical lags between the corporate and municipal credit cycles suggest that municipal bond downgrades will start to increase in the second half of next year, alongside a deterioration in state & local government balance sheets. Further, state & local government investment spending is poised to move higher next year, regardless of the election result, leading to even greater muni issuance (Chart 6). Elevated fund flows have offset the impact of strong issuance this year, the risk is that they will not keep pace going forward. Treasury Curve: Stay In Flatteners Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-steepened significantly since the end of September. The 2/10 Treasury slope has steepened +16bps and the 5/30 slope has steepened +14bps. As a result, our two curve flattener trades have struggled. Our 2/10 Treasury curve flattener has returned -41bps since initiation on September 6. Our 10/30 Treasury curve flattener has returned -25bps since initiation on September 20. Our other tactical trade - short December 2017 Eurodollar - has returned +16bps since initiation on July 12. All three of the above tactical trades are premised on the view that the Fed will deliver a rate hike in December, and that such a rate hike has not yet been fully discounted by the market. At present, we calculate that the market-implied probability of a December rate hike is 62%, as discounted in fed funds futures. The historical pattern suggests the yield curve should bear flatten as the rate hike probability approaches 100%. Unusually, the correlations between both the 2/10 and 10/30 Treasury slopes and the level of Treasury yields have moved into positive (bear-steepening) territory (Chart 7). This is especially unusual for the 10/30 slope, where the correlation has been firmly in negative (bear-flattening) territory since 2013. We continue to recommend holding curve flatteners, and expect both correlations to revert into negative (bear-flattening) territory in advance of a December rate hike, as they did last year. Any surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would only increase the flattening pressure on the curve (bottom panel). So far bullish dollar sentiment has remained relatively flat, but we cannot discount a large increase in the run-up to the next rate hike, as occurred last year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by +112bps in October. The 10-year breakeven rate has increased +8bps since the end of September, and currently sits at 1.68%. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has increased substantially during the past couple months, and has now converged with the fair value reading from our TIPS Financial model (Chart 8). Rising expectations of a Fed rate hike and a flatter Treasury curve will weigh on TIPS during the next month, and we would not be surprised to see breakevens temporarily cease their uptrend as attention turns to Fed hawkishness following today's election. But we also expect that TIPS breakevens will resume their uptrend heading into next year. As we flagged in a recent report,5 the sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation has increased since the financial crisis. We posit that the reason for this increased sensitivity is that the Fed's ability to control long-dated inflation expectations has been impaired by the zero-lower bound on rates. As a result, the trend in breakevens is increasingly taking its cue from the realized inflation data. Realized inflation continues to trend steadily higher (bottom two panels), and diffusion indexes suggest that further gains are ahead (panel 4). Given that breakevens remain well below pre-crisis levels, we intend to remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries and ride out any near-term volatility related to a Fed rate hike. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +10bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +101bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +8bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by +24bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS has tightened -3bps since the end of September and, at 45bps, is considerably below its pre-crisis average (Chart 9). According to our days-to-breakeven measure, there still exists a valuation advantage in Aaa-rated auto ABS relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS, but that advantage is rapidly evaporating (panel 3). We calculate that it will take 12 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated auto ABS to underperform Treasuries on a 6-month horizon and 10 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated credit card ABS to underperform. Moreover, credit card ABS exhibit superior collateral credit quality relative to autos. Credit card charge-offs remain near all-time lows, while the auto net loss rate appears to have bottomed (bottom panel). Further, the Fed's senior loan officer survey shows that auto lending standards have tightened for two consecutive quarters, while credit card lending standards were unchanged in Q3 following 25 consecutive quarters of net easing (panel 4). We recommend investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans within a maximum overweight allocation to consumer ABS. CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date outperformance up to +194bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS has tightened -3bps since the end of September, and remains very close to its pre-crisis average (Chart 10). The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to tighten standards on all classes of commercial real estate (CRE) loans (panel 3). The survey also shows that CRE loan demand continues to increase, though at a less rapid pace than in prior quarters. While CRE prices continue to march higher (bottom panel), tightening lending standards and a rising delinquency rate (panel 4) make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +105bps. Agency CMBS still offer 56bps of option-adjusted spread. This is greater than what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (45bps) and conventional 30-year MBS (19bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend overweight positions in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model The current reading from our Global PMI Treasury model places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27% (Chart 11). This model is based on a linear regression of the 10-year Treasury yield on three factors, using a post-financial crisis time interval.6 The three factors are: Global Growth: Measured using the Global Manufacturing PMI (sourced from JP Morgan and Markit) Global Growth Divergences: Proxied by bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar (sourced from Marketvane.net) Economic Uncertainty: Measured using the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (sourced from policyuncertainty.com) The correlation between the global PMI and the 10-year Treasury yield is strongly positive (panel 3). However, improving global growth is offset by any increase in bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. For a given level of global growth any increase in bullish sentiment toward the dollar represents a drag on interest rate expectations. As such, bullish dollar sentiment enters our model with a negative sign (panel 4). The final component of our model - global economic policy uncertainty - captures changes in Treasury yields related to headline risk and "flights to quality". This factor enters our model with a negative sign - more uncertainty correlates with lower bond yields (bottom panel). Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). Using assumptions for the time until the MCI converges with equilibrium and the annual appreciation of the trade-weighted dollar, it is possible to calculate the expected change in the fed funds rate for the cycle. The shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path for the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI reaches equilibrium at the end of 2019. The upper-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For additional details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)
Highlights Bond yields have room to move higher in the near run, but a move above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. U.S. elections are too close to call. Even if Trump wins, we caution that federal fiscal spending programs will have to work hard to offset the ongoing drag from sluggish state and local spending. Economic and inflation data will not stand in the way of a Fed rate hike in December. But heightened market volatility associated with the elections could still derail their plans. Feature October was a tough month for Treasuries, as the 10-year climbed 25 basis points since October 1. The sell-off puts Treasury yields closely in line with our bond strategists' estimate of fair value. This week, we review the factors that argue for or against a further rise in bond yields. Our conclusion is that the Treasury sell-off is likely to continue in the near run. Yields above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. The primary bearish driver for Treasuries in the next two months is the Fed. As we discuss below, recent economic data has been decent enough to meet the Fed's threshold for a rate hike and inflation indicators are moving towards the Fed's 2% target. Indeed, the FOMC statement released last Wednesday sent a mildly hawkish signal by highlighting that growth has improved, while both inflation expectations and realized inflation are tracking higher. The statement very much keeps a December rate hike in play, but it does not elevate the odds. In the FOMC meeting just prior to last year's rate hike, the Fed specifically mentioned the "next meeting" as a possibility for a rate increase. The Fed did not go as far this time around1 as policymakers are no doubt wary of spooking the markets when uncertainty is running high ahead of the U.S. election. Whether the Fed actually pulls the trigger in December will continue to hinge on the incoming economic data and the behavior of the markets following the election, but our base case remains that the Fed will follow through with a rate hike. The market is currently priced for a 65% chance of a rate move before the end of the year. This is roughly the same as the probability of a 2015 rate hike at this time last year (Chart 1). As long as the economic data remain reasonably firm, as we expect, then rate hike probabilities should follow last year's path and move to 100% by the December 13-14 FOMC meeting. Last year, the revision in the rate hike probability from November-December corresponded with a 35 bps rise in the 10-year Treasury. Chart 1Room For Expectations To Move Higher Since last year, the Fed has drastically downgraded its long-term rate projections. Recall that ahead of the December 2015 FOMC meeting, the Fed projected that the Fed funds rate would reach 1.4% in 2016. Since then, the Fed has revised downward its interest rate forecast to two rate hikes in 2017. Assuming the Fed does not revise these forecasts, it is unlikely that Treasuries respond as negatively as they did in 2015. Moreover, as we noted above, at 1.8% today, Treasuries are already roughly at fair value. During last year's sell-off, bond yields were starting from a substantially overbought level. This argues for a somewhat more muted reaction to a Fed rate hike, although we still expect yields could move higher. Beyond December, i.e. once the rate hike is priced in, our base case is that yields trend sideways for a time. The Fed's forecast for growth in 2017 is 2.0%, which would represent an increase of 0.5% from the first three quarters of 2016. If economic growth meets the Fed's expectation of 2%, then it is reasonable to expect that policymakers would increase twice next year, i.e. in line with their current forecasts. As shown in Chart 1, the Treasury market is not yet priced for this outcome: market participants currently assign only 80% odds to one rate hike by the end of 2017. The message is that the Fed, even with a reasonable (for the first time in years!) forecast for growth, will end up being a source of upward pressure on bond yields beyond 2017. There is nonetheless an important mitigating factor for bond yields: the U.S. dollar. A stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. Indeed, a central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. In the current environment, the Fed knows that the process of normalizing interest rates will trigger bouts of volatility, because its actions will be exaggerated by movements in the currency. The bottom line is that we expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. Given that the bond market is not yet priced for this, the recent sell-off in bond yields will continue, perhaps to as high as 2%. Thereafter, we would expect Treasuries to trade in a fairly narrow range, with 2% representing the higher end of the band. A Coin Toss Election In the very near term, the U.S. elections pose an important risk to the view expressed above. For the past several months, market odds of a Trump Presidency have been positively correlated with the uncertainty index and negatively correlated with Treasury yields (Chart 2 and Chart 3). On the eve of the election, the race is once again too close to call. Our expectation has been that any flight-to-quality related to a Trump victory will be short-lived. However, with equity market multiples stretched and the earnings outlook still leaving much to be desired, equity markets are ripe for a correction. Chart 2Bond Market Tracks Uncertainty Chart 3Trump And Uncertainty In our September 26 Weekly Report, we warned that investors may be assigning too low odds of a Trump Presidential win. We posited that if the polls remained tight, the potential for further volatility was high. We followed up in mid-October, advising clients how to implement portfolio insurance against downside market risks, and specifically against a Trump election win. One recommended vehicle for insurance that we highlighted was the U.S. dollar, which is part of our Protector Portfolio (Chart 4 and Chart 5). We believe the currency will rally due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows on the back of a Trump win. True, this strategy has not held up in recent days, as the U.S. dollar has softened while Trump improves in the polls and risk assets have corrected. Still, the dollar's reputation as a safe-haven currency is well-deserved. It has consistently outperformed during times of crisis - even when the U.S. itself was the source, as most recently demonstrated during the summer 2011 budget impasse. Chart 4Protector Portfolio Components Chart 5Protector Portfolio Returns In a recent report,2 our geopolitical strategists outline several things to watch for on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath. The immediate developments most relevant for investors are anything that prolongs the period of uncertainty regarding voting. For example, the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. Although the 2000 election was held on November 7, the official result was not declared until November 26; Al Gore did not concede until December 12. This time, any number of things could delay declaring a winner, including a tie in the electoral college, or a "faithless elector," i.e. an electoral college member that does not cast his/her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote, and therefore causes the Supreme Court to intervene. A delay in declaring the election result would increase uncertainty and therefore be negative for risk assets. Longer term, the margin of victory has become important for policy. It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, it is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives are zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. The probability of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining and puts in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The likelihood of more fiscal spending in 2017 has become common lore among investors. Thus, a disappointment on that front would be negative for risk assets. Post-Election Government Spending Throughout the twists and turns of the U.S. election campaign, one higher conviction view that has endured at BCA is that popular sentiment is shifting away from fiscal austerity and that 2017 would feature more ambitious spending programs. That would be quite welcome, given that real government consumption and investment - at all levels of government - has been a drag on growth during most of the recovery since the Great Recession. Ongoing weakness at the Federal level is due to restraint in defense expenditure, while state and local spending has been weak due to a significant downtrend in tax revenues. It is notable that the decline in state tax revenues is not confined to oil-producing states. A recent report by the Rockefeller Institute compiled state tax revenue forecasts for 2017 and concludes that the decline in tax revenues from all sources (sales, income and corporate) will be slow to recover next year.3 Remember that states can only spend what they take in outside of infrastructure spending. If state and local governments can manage to cut the drag on real GDP to 0%, that would still leave a major onus for government spending on the federal government. Assuming the contribution to real GDP from state and local spending is zero, it would require a 6% annual growth in federal spending to return total government spending as a contribution to GDP back to its historic average of 0.4% (Chart 6). As Chart 7 shows, fiscal spending of that magnitude rarely occurs outside of recession. Chart 6(Part 1) How Much Fiscal Spending? Chart 7(Part 2) How Much Fiscal Spending? Importantly, how much long-term effect a fiscal boost will deliver depends on how well fiscal multipliers - which measure how much a dollar of increased government spending or reduced taxes raises output - are working. Indeed, the magnitude of fiscal multipliers continues to be a massive source of disagreement in policy circles. Recent work by the IMF suggests that the multiplier, in some economies and under certain interest rate settings, could be as high as four: for each dollar the U.S. government spends, it will generate another $4 dollars of GDP!4 Other academics put the fiscal multiplier at less than 0.5. The wide range of forecasts is due to several factors, but there are nonetheless some generally held principles: Fiscal stimulus tends to be more effective when the output gap is large: when output is well below its potential, the monetary policy response to an increase in spending is likely to be limited. In other words, fiscal multipliers are larger in recessions than in expansions.5 The type of fiscal stimulus matters, a lot. Table 1 shows a range of CBO estimates for different types of government activity. For example, income tax cuts on high income earners tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Multiplier effects tend to last no more than eight quarters when output is close to potential. Fiscal stimulus tends to have a more impressive impact, although short-lived (four quarters) when the output gap is large. Table 2 shows the CBO-estimated effect of an increase in demand over eight quarters under two different economic scenarios. The first is when monetary policy is constrained, and the second is when monetary policy responds to the increase in demand from government stimulus. Our guess is that we are currently somewhere in between the two economic scenarios presented: there is still an output gap and monetary policy is already off the zero bound. Thus, the fiscal multiplier is likely a little above than one, meaning that government spending does not "crowd out" private spending. Table 1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Table 2The Effect Of A $1 Increase In Aggregate Demand Over Eight Quarters Overall, government expenditures will contribute positively to GDP next year, though the amount of fiscal expansion is dependent on the political configuration in Washington after the elections. Similarly, the impact of any spending will depend on what form new fiscal measures takes. CBO research suggests that the fiscal multiplier will be slightly above 1. Business Sentiment: Neither Euphoria Nor Misery Without further participation from the government sector, the economy is likely to achieve above 2% real GDP growth. A more optimistic scenario could unfold if capex improves substantially and/or a Trump win significantly opens the fiscal taps. Recent private sector data shows that businesses are continuing on a mild expansion path. The ISM surveys of business confidence were little changed in October - sentiment among manufacturers is broadly unchanged, while respondents from the service sector were slightly less optimistic than the previous month (Chart 8). Still, the major indices remain above their boom/bust lines and respondents' comments suggest neither euphoria nor misery. Meanwhile, payrolls increased by 161,000 in October. Although this was slightly below the consensus forecast of 175,000, there was a cumulative 44,000 in upward revisions to the prior two months. Elsewhere, wages accelerated more than expected and average hourly earnings rose 0.4% m/m, pushing the annual growth rate to a new cyclical high of 2.8% (Chart 9). Chart 8ISM Surveys Are Steady Chart 9Wage Growth Is Perking Up To paraphrase from this week's FOMC statement, the employment report provides some further evidence that the U.S. economy is progressing towards the Fed's dual mandate. In itself, it reinforces the case for the Fed raise interest rates in December. It seems now that the only thing that could derail the Fed is an election surprise and related heightened market volatility. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151028a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "It Ain't Over 'Till The Fat Man Sings," dated November 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/state_revenue_report/2016-09-21-SRR_104_final.pdf 4 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1493.pdf 5 "How Powerful Are Fiscal Multipliers In Recessions? Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, NBER Reporter 2015, http://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number2/auerbach.html