Global

Highlights The DXY correction has a bit more to run as G10 economic surprises are likely to roll over. EM-related plays like commodity currencies can rally for a few more months, but the outlook for 2017 is troublesome. China is at risk of a deceleration. Global liquidity is tightening. Protectionism is rising. Feature Dollar Correction: It Ain't Over 'til It's Over Can the dollar correction advance further, or is the dollar bull market about to resume? We prefer to position ourselves for additional dollar weakness in the coming months. Despite persistently high bond yields, the DXY is still softening. It is being dragged down by a euro supported by strong economic news such as this week's Belgian business confidence, our favorite bellwether for the euro area. The pound too continues to show some vigor, which is also a byproduct of economic data pointing toward better growth (Chart I-1). We expect the support for the greenback from higher Treasury yields to be temporary. Momentum in U.S. 10-year government bond yields is driven by G10 economic surprises (Chart I-2). Currently, economic surprises are flirting with the upper end of their distribution of the past 12 years. Chart I-1The British Economy Is Picking Up Chart I-2G10 Economic Surprises Drive Treasury Yields Accentuating the odds of a rollover in surprises are two factors: First, as bond yields and risk-asset prices attest, investors are revising their growth expectations upward, lifting the hurdle for data to surprise to the upside. Second, having expanded for 10 months, the global credit impulse has experienced its longest upswing in a decade. Yet, the increase in global borrowing costs, along with the widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads, points to tightening global liquidity conditions, a poison for the credit cycle (Chart I-3). As credit slows, the economy will deteriorate. Chart I-3The Credit Cycle Is Stretched This means that the key factor that has supported the stronger dollar in recent months - higher U.S. yields - will begin to dissipate, putting downward pressure on the USD. Finally, our dollar capitulation index, after hitting overbought conditions, is now falling. Moreover, it currently stands below its 13-week moving average, conditions under which the greenback has recorded an average 8.1% annualized weekly loss since 1994, and an average 5.3% annualized weekly loss since 2011 (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Negative Momentum For The Dollar We continue to play this correction by shorting USD/JPY. As we have pointed out before, USD/JPY remains a function of the level of global bond yields (Chart I-5). Additionally, a negative surprise in global growth is likely to hurt risk assets. To conclude with the favorable backdrop for the yen, the high degree of uncertainty created by the seemingly erratic policy changes of the new Trump administration suggests that equity implied volatility remains too low. After all, we do not know what changes will hit global tax regimes, what the Fed policy will look like, nor how protectionist Trump will really be. Imbedding a premium for these risks will require higher equity implied vols. A higher VIX tends to support the yen against the USD (Chart I-6). Chart I-5USD/JPY And G10 Bond Yields Chart I-6The Yen Likes Uncertainty Bottom Line: The correction in the dollar should continue, as bond yields still have downside on a one- to three-month basis. The yen remains the best-placed currency to take advantage of these dynamics, especially if risk assets experience a correction. Focus - Emerging Markets and Liquidity: A March To The Scaffold This week, we re-examine our bearish view on emerging markets, a key theme underpinning our bearish stance on commodity currencies. EM assets, and therefore commodity currencies, have outperformed our expectations, reflecting the percolation of previous positive economic surprises in EM relative to the U.S. (Chart I-7). EM and commodity currencies are priced for perfection, with the risk-reversals on EM currencies displaying elevated levels of optimism (Chart I-8). For EM and commodity currencies to rally further, EM economies need to continue to outperform durably. This requires the Chinese economy and the global liquidity backdrop to only improve further. Can this happen? Chart I-7Surprise Beat In EM Versus The U.S. Has ##br##Helped EM And Commodity Currencies Chart I-8EM And Commodity Currencies ##br##Priced For Perfection While the next month or two may continue to generate generous returns for EM-related plays, the rest of 2017 may not prove as kind. The China Syndrome Let's begin with China. The recent upsurge in metal prices has reflected an improvement in Chinese economic activity (Chart I-9). As we have pinpointed before, the Keqiang index is near cycle highs, and, Chinese railway freight volumes have been growing at their fastest pace since 2010. This situation is unlikely to continue much longer. The upsurge in Chinese commodity intake - metals in particular - has been fueled by a vigorous rebound in Chinese real estate construction. However, Chinese real estate price appreciation has hit dangerous levels, and the authorities are already leaning against it, with the PBoC increasing rates by 10 basis points this week. The roll-over in Chinese real estate activity should deepen Chart I-10), hurting commodity prices - particularly iron ore, steel and copper - and commodity currencies along the way. Chart I-9China's Rebound Explains ##br##The Metals Rally Chart I-10The Risk Of A China Real Estate ##br##Slowdown Is Growing Moreover, some of the upswing in Chinese economic activity was also related to large amounts of fiscal stimulus in that nation. In mid-2015, the Middle Kingdom was inching ever closer to a hard landing, prompting a panicked Beijing to boost fiscal support and to speed up the roll-out of US$1.2 trillion of infrastructure public-private partnerships. Today, this fiscal hand-out is fading (Chart I-11). This could once again cause industrial activity and investments to weaken as Chinese capacity utilization remains near recession troughs. The recent disappointing investment growth reading in the latest Chinese GDP release could be a harbinger of this reality. Finally, as we have highlighted last week, Chinese monetary conditions have massively improved as Chinese producer-price inflation rebounded, pushing down Chinese real rates in the process. However, with commodity price inflation set to slow - courtesy of a dissipating base effect and of last year's dollar rally - Chinese PPI should roll over, pulling up real rates and tightening monetary conditions (Chart I-12). A tightening in Chinese monetary conditions represents a big problem for EM as it portends a slowdown in economic activity (Chart I-13). This will ultimately lead to a big drag on DM commodity producers, as EM commodity intake decreases, pushing down the likes of the AUD, CAD, and NZD as their terms of trade suffer. Chart I-11Fading Chinese##br## Fiscal Stimulus Chart I-12Commodity Inflation Will Peak, ##br##So Will Chinese Inflation Chart I-13Tightening China Monetary Conditions##br## Will Hurt EM Economic Activity Bottom Line: In early 2016, global markets were not positioned for a rebound in Chinese economic activity. Yet, Chinese industrial activity improved, resulting in a rebound in EM assets, commodity prices, and commodity currencies. The crackdown on real estate activity, the removal of Chinese fiscal stimulus, and the expected tightening in Chinese monetary conditions should result in a reversal of these trends, hurting commodity producers and their currencies in the process. Global Liquidity In Retreat While China represents a problem for EM plays and commodity currencies, deteriorating global liquidity could prove an even stronger hurdle. Our tactical expectation of a lower dollar and lower rates may support EM plays temporarily, but the cyclical outlook remains grim. To begin with, EM economies are dependent on global liquidity as they run a current account deficit expected to hit US$140 billion in 2017, or US$400 billion if China is excluded. Moreover, they sport large external debts of US$4.8 trillion, excluding Taiwan and China. Especially worrisome are the large funding requirements of many EM countries, especially for Turkey, Malaysia, and Colombia. (Chart I-14). Chart I-14EM Debt Vulnerability Ranking Why is this a problem? Two reasons: Global Interest rates and the dollar. Global Interest rates, driven by higher Treasury yields, are rising as the U.S.'s economic slack vanishes, suggesting that the current tightening campaign by the Fed will be durable (Chart I-15). Higher U.S. rates lift the U.S. dollar against EM currencies, tightening EM liquidity conditions. But an unrelated shock is also putting exogenous upward pressure on the dollar. This force is the widening in LIBOR spreads (Chart I-16). This is the result of the regulation-related 90% melt down in the asset under management of U.S. prime money-market funds, an important source of global dollar liquidity. Moreover, U.S. banks, with their balance sheets under pressure by the binding constraints of Basel III, have not been able to fill the gap. Chart I-15The Fed has A Green Light To Hike Chart I-16Stresses In The Libor Market Remain The end result has been a widening of cross-currency basis swap spreads, which usually tends to boost the dollar (Chart I-17). This phenomenon increases the hedging costs to foreign investors of holding U.S. dollar assets. These investors become increasingly tolerant of purchasing U.S. assets unhedged, pushing up the value of the dollar in the process. This is best illustrated by the fact that net portfolio investments in the U.S. moved from a deficit of US$300 billion in Q1 2015 to a surplus of more than US$550 billion. Yet, hedges put in place, as approximated by the BIS's volume of OTC FX derivatives, have flat-lined since 2013 (Chart I-18). Chart I-17Widening Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads Equals A Higher Dollar Chart I-18Hedging Activity is Receding A rising dollar and LIBOR stresses are tightening global dollar liquidity, creating a big problem for EM. Wider-than-normal cross-currency basis swap spreads have been associated with declining global trade (Chart I-19). The stronger dollar plays a role, as it hurts the price of globally-traded good prices. Also, higher borrowing costs result in a mild disintermediation of global trade flows. As physical exports are 26% of EM GDP versus 13% for the U.S., this represents a huge drag on EM currencies, especially versus the USD. As a corollary, it is also a problem for the small open commodity producing DM economies like Australia, Canada, or New Zealand. Furthermore, the strength in the dollar associated with LIBOR shocks further hurts EM domestic economies by impeding EM credit growth (Chart I-20). The combined assault of a stronger dollar and higher rates increases the cost of EM foreign debt. Also, according to the BIS, between 2002 and 2014, 55% of EM commodity producers' debt issuance has been in USD.1 When the dollar rises, they see both their borrowing costs rise and the prices of the products they sell fall. Altogether, these forces preempt capex and credit accumulation in EM nations. Chart I-19Tightening Global Liquidity##br##Is Bad For Trade Chart I-20A Stronger Dollar Will Hamper##br## EM Credit Growth Bottom Line: The global liquidity backdrop is deteriorating. DM rates are rising cyclically, which is lifting the dollar. Moreover, a global dollar shortage is also supporting the greenback, further hurting EM liquidity conditions. Thus, we expect EM growth to deteriorate, hurting EM assets and commodity currencies. Protectionism The final issue affecting EM economies is the rise of protectionism, especially in the United States. EM - Asia and China in particular - have been the main beneficiaries of globalization (Chart I-21). Currently, they are in the line of sight of President Trump. Thus, we expect that any potential trade war between the U.S. and the rest of the world will focus on EM economies and China. Chart I-21EM And Asia Are In Trump's Line Of Sight EM are much more dependent on the U.S. than the other way around. As an example, China's exports to the U.S account for 3.5% of Chinese GDP, while U.S. exports to China account for less than 1% of U.S. GDP. EM economies have a lot more to lose from a trade war than the U.S. Because of this imbalance in relative trade-exposures, EM economies are at risk from the border-adjustment tax being discussed in the U.S. These taxes would be very deflationary for EM economies as they could force a downward adjustment in EM labor costs and further depress capex in these nations. To ease these adjustments, falling EM exchange rates would be required. Once again, commodity currencies would suffer from these developments. First, lower capex in EM hurts Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian terms of trade. Second, lower EM exchange rates means that that exports from the dollar bloc to EM would suffer. Finally, and most perversely, lower EM exchange rates will give EM commodity producers an advantage versus DM producers, in that a stronger U.S. dollar means their local-currency costs are falling. EM commodity producers would keep producing more than warranted, putting additional downward pressure on commodity prices and stealing market shares from the dollar bloc producers. This is not a pretty picture. Bottom Line: EM should bear the brunt of the pain of any rise in U.S. protectionism. The tight link between EM economies and DM commodity producers suggests that this pain should adversely affect the AUD, the CAD, and the NZD. Risks To Our View Chart I-22Chinese Tariffs Are Falling The biggest risk to our view is a redoubling of Chinese fiscal stimulus. The threat of U.S. tariffs and trade sanctions is obviously deflationary and negative for the Chinese economy. We know this, as do the relevant powers in Beijing. A tool to mitigate any of these negative repercussions on the Chinese economy might be for Beijing to press on the gas pedal once more. Additionally, as our colleague Yan Wang wrote in this week's China Investment Strategy, key members of the new U.S. administration have been on record saying that the threat of tariffs is not an end game, but rather a negotiating tool to extract concessions from U.S. trade partners, implying a potentially more pragmatic stance from the U.S. than current rhetoric suggests.2 Moreover, the Chinese side of the negotiation table is also more open minded than most observers fear. China has been cutting its own tariffs and could continue to do so (Chart I-22). Moreover, Premier Li Keqiang has made a new pledge to move faster toward opening and liberalizing Chinese markets for access by foreign companies. A deal may be less elusive than feared. Finally, regarding the global liquidity deterioration, the recent rebound in gold and silver prices may be a harbinger of improving liquidity conditions globally. We doubt that the economic situation will let this rally be durable, but it remains something to monitor. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Bruno Valentina, and Hyun Song Shin, "Global Dollar Credit And Carry Trades: A Firm-level Analysis", BIS, Working Papers, August 205. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard", dated January 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed this week. The labor market saw both continuing and initial jobless claims rise above expectations. However, the economy is still near full employment and the Fed will not respond to this news. Furthermore, the Beige Book, released last week, also highlights that the U.S. economy remains resilient with employment and pricing activity particularly strong. This week the DXY broke through the key 100 level, as the market continues to reprice capricious assumptions of Trump's policies. Nevertheless, it has rebounded since then. The dollar is unlikely to see any real movement until the administration releases concrete information about its policies. For the time being, the Fed also seems to be on the sidelines in anticipation of more information. Report Links: U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017 - January 20, 2017 Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Although the euro area has seen a brighter economic environment as of late, this week's data has been mixed: German and overall euro area services and composite PMI underperformed, while manufacturing PMI outperformed consensus. The IFO Business Climate and Expectations both underperformed consensus, while the Current Assessment remained in line with consensus. All measures still remain over 100. Finally, Belgian Business Confidence accelerated sharply. The ECB is unlikely to change its dovish stance. The euro will therefore see little upside. The recent uptrend in EUR/USD is due to dollar weakness, but the recent downtrend in EUR/GBP and EUR/SEK indicate that the market is not necessarily hopeful that the ECB will reach its inflation target anytime soon. Report Links: GBP: Dismal Expectations - January 13, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data indicates that last year's sharp depreciation of the yen is helping the Japanese economy: Exports increased by 5.4% YoY, crushing expectations of 1.2% growth. Nikkei Manufacturing PMI reached 52.8, also beating expectations. In November machinery orders grew by more than 10% YoY. The BoJ will be more resolute on its radical monetary measures, as recent data shows that their approach is working. This will prove very bearish for the yen on a cyclical basis, given that the cap in Japanese rates will cause the rate differential between the U.S. and Japan to widen. In the short term, USD/JPY will resume its correction. We estimate that USD/JPY will cease to be attractive as a short opportunity at around 110. Report Links: Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Party Likes It's 1999 - November 25, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, requiring a parliamentary vote to authorize the exit of the U.K. from the European Union. This news is an added boon for cable, which has surged by almost 5% after bottoming at 1.20 about 10 days ago. As political risks start to dissipate, and the currency trades more on economic fundamentals, the pound should become a more attractive buy, particularly against the euro, given that the U.K. economy should outperform the market's dismal expectations. Recent data supports this view: Average earning growth outperformed expectations in November. GDP growth was 2.2% YoY in Q4, also outperforming expectations. Furthermore, short-term technicals point to a stronger pound. EUR/GBP has broken through its 100-day moving average, which indicates that momentum should continue to drive this cross downwards for the time being. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Two weeks ago, we argued that the rally in AUD lacks fundamental domestic causes. This week, the momentum of the recent AUD rally, caused by rising iron ore and copper prices, has seemingly paused. Exacerbating this change of pace is recent data which indicates a weak economic backdrop: the RBA trimmed mean CPI, and the more common CPI measure, underperformed consensus at both a quarterly and yearly pace. This could be due to depressed consumer sentiment, as the labor market remains mired in a slump, with the unemployment rate increasing to 5.8%, and total hours worked falling. Given recent data, it is likely that markets reprice growth prospects in Australia. U.S. trade policies could also potentially curtail global trade, painting a bearish picture for AUD. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The Kiwi has appreciated 4.4% since the start of 2017. Although this rally might eventually be limited against the U.S. dollar, the NZD will likely have more upside against its crosses, particularly the AUD. Indeed it seems that low inflation, one of the only sore spots for the RBNZ in an otherwise stellar kiwi economy, has turned the corner, surging to 1.3% on the latest reading Wednesday. More importantly, not only did inflation beat expectations but it also surpassed 1% for the first time since 2014. This is a significant development, given that persistently low inflation in New Zealand was keeping the dovish bias of the RBNZ. With this hurdle gone, and an economy that continues to be the best performing in the G10, this dovish bias should disappear, which will ultimately lift the NZD against its crosses. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Despite the dissipating oil slump, potential risks may weigh on Canada's future. These risks are likely to emanate from an international sphere. Key concerns revolve around U.S. policies: recent statements have increased yields and tightened financial conditions, but global trade worries are not fully priced in. Recent news indicates that Trump has no ill-intentions aimed at Canada, however, protectionist policies could hurt global trade, indirectly curtailing Canadian exports. A U.S. corporate tax cut can also deviate investment from Canada to the U.S. The recent appreciation in the CAD against major currencies can also hurt Canadian competitiveness going forward. As oil is likely to remain relatively stable in the near future, we may again see a disassociation of CAD with oil, and a continued tight relationship with interest rate spreads. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Yesterday, EUR/CHF fell below the crucial 1.07 level. As we have recommended many times, any time that this cross falls below this threshold, it becomes an excellent buying opportunity. The SNB has not been shy to intervene in the currency markets, and they have been very clear that they will not tolerate any currency strength past a certain threshold as it could add additional deflationary pressures to an economy that has not had a positive inflation rate since 2014. We have identified a level of 1.07 for EUR/CHF as this threshold. Moreover given that the euro is the currency of reference for interventions, the behavior of USD/CHF should roughly mirror the behavior of the dollar against the Euro. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The Norwegian Krone has rallied along other commodity currencies so far this year, in spite of the meek performance of oil over this timeframe. This surge might prove unsustainable in the short term, as USD/NOK is very close to oversold territory. In the long term, the outlook for the NOK is more positive, particularly against other commodity currencies. Rising oil prices resulting from the OPEC cuts should supercharge the already high inflationary pressures in the Norwegian economy. This factor will eventually push the Norges Bank off its dovish bias, and the NOK higher in the process. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The Swedish economy seems to be finally benefitting from last year's weaker krona; PPI numbers came in at 2.1% MoM, and 6.5% YoY, higher than previous numbers. This will feed into CPI in the near future. Additionally, 1-year, 2-year, as well as the important 5-year Prospera Inflation Expectations have all picked up, with the 5-year at 2%, in line with the Riksbank's target. The bank is aware of the krona's recent strength against major currencies, and realizes that it is important that the appreciation slows. In the short term, the SEK could continue to rally on the back of the dollar's correction and the Swedish economic outperformance vis-à-vis the euro area. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In January, the model outperformed global equities and the S&P 500 in USD terms, but underperformed in local-currency terms. For February, the model cut its weighting in stocks and increased its allocation to bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, the weightings to both the U.S. and emerging markets were decreased. The model boosted its allocation to French bonds at the expense of Swedish and Canadian paper. The risk index for stocks, as well as the one for bonds, deteriorated in January. Feature Performance In January, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 1.4% in local-currency terms, and 3.6% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 3.2% for the global equity benchmark and a 2% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we provide other suggestions on currency risk exposure from time to time. The performance of bonds was a detractor from the model's performance in local currency terms in January. Chart 1Model Weights Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Weights The model decreased its allocation to stocks from 57% to 53%, and upgraded its bond weighting from 43% to 47% (Table 1). Table 1Model Weights (As Of January 26, 2017) The model increased its equity allocation to France, Italy, and Sweden by one point each. Meanwhile, weightings were cut by 2 points in the U.S., and by 1 point in Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Emerging Asia, and Latin America. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to French paper was increased by 6 points and the U.K. by 1 point. The model cut its exposure to Swedish bonds by 2 points and Canadian bonds by 1 point. Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time we do provide our recommendations. The dollar weakened in January and our Dollar Capitulation Index fell close to neutral levels. Uncertainty over the size of the fiscal push by the U.S. administration could prolong the dollar's consolidation phase, especially if coupled with any negative economic surprises. However, this would only be a pause since continued monetary policy divergence should translate into another leg up in the dollar bull market (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The deterioration of the value and cyclical components led to a higher risk index for commodities. The model continues to shun this asset class (Chart 4). The risk index for global equities increased to a 3-year high in January due to the deterioration in the value indicator. While the global risk index for global bonds also deteriorated, it remains firmly in the low-risk zone. The model slightly decreased its allocation in equities to the benefit of bonds (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk Following the latest uptick in the risk index for U.S. equities, the allocation to this asset class was trimmed. U.S. stocks have been propped up by the growth-positive aspects of the new U.S. administration's policies and are at risk should this optimism deflate (Chart 6). The risk index for Canadian equities improved slightly in January as the better readings in the liquidity and momentum indicators offset continued worsening in value. That said, the overall risk index remains at the highest level in this business cycle. This asset remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Canadian Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. equities deteriorated, reaching a post-Brexit high. For the first time in over two years, the value component crossed into expensive territory (Chart 8) The model trimmed its allocation to Emerging Asian stocks following the slight uptick in the risk index. While the global reflationary pulse should bode well for this asset class, rumblings about protectionism threaten to de-rate growth expectations (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Emerging Asian Stock Market And Risk The unwinding of oversold conditions was the main reason behind the deterioration in the risk index for bonds in January. However, the latter is still in the low-risk zone as the bond-negative reading from the cyclical indicator remains overshadowed by the ongoing oversold conditions in the momentum indicator (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys deteriorated in January on the back of a less-stretched momentum indicator. While the cyclical backdrop is bond-bearish, there is arguably more room for scaling down optimism over the economy than there is to having an even more upbeat outlook. As a result, any resumption of the rise in Treasury yields could end up being very gradual (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for euro area government bonds also deteriorated in January, but unlike the U.S., it is in the high-risk zone. There are notable differences in the risk readings within euro area markets (Chart 12). Given the upcoming presidential elections, France is next in line in terms of investors' focus on political risks. French bonds are heavily oversold based on the momentum indicator, pushing the overall risk index lower. An unwinding of the risk premium would bode well for French bonds, which the model upgraded in January (Chart 13). Chart 12Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13French Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for Spanish government bonds ticked down slightly reflecting minor improvements in all three of its components. However, it remains much higher than the risk index for the French paper, which is preferred by the model (Chart 14). With the risk index little changed in January, Swiss government bonds remain in the high-risk zone. The model continues avoiding this asset which possesses negative yields (Chart 15). Chart 14Spanish Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swiss Bond Yields And Risk Currency Technicals The dollar depreciated after the 13-week momentum measure indicated last month that the greenback could face near-term resistance. Further consolidation cannot be ruled out, but the 40-week rate of change measure is not signaling an end to the dollar bull market. The monetary policy divergence between the Fed and its peers provides underlying support for the dollar, while heightened uncertainty on the fiscal front implies more volatility going forward (Chart 16). EUR/USD was not able to stay below 1.05. The short-term rate-of-change measure is approaching neutral levels, which could test the EUR/USD bounce. A risk-off episode or continued solid economic data are two factors that could provide some support for the euro in the near term (Chart 17). The 40-week rate of change measure for GBP/USD continues to hover near the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). Meanwhile, the 13-week momentum measure crossed into positive territory, but is not extended. The pound will remain event-driven and possibly range-bound in the near term as the mood bounces within the hard Brexit / soft Brexit spectrum (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Undue pessimism about global growth is giving way to unbridled optimism. Chinese growth has accelerated. However, there is a risk that the economy hits a speed bump later in 2017, as fiscal policy becomes less accommodative, monetary policy is tightened in an effort to curb capital outflows, and recent steps by the authorities to crack down on rampant speculation in the property sector begin to bite. The threat of a trade war will also loom large. U.S. fiscal policy will remain stimulative, but may fail to live up to expectations: There is little appetite among Republicans for increasing infrastructure spending; the multiplier effects from the proposed tax changes are likely to be small; and many GOP leaders are already chomping at the bit to take an ax to government spending. Fortunately, the U.S. economy has enough momentum to continue growing solidly above trend, even if fiscal policy disappoints. This will allow the Fed to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. Developed market equities are overbought and vulnerable to a correction, but will be higher 12 months from now. Favor Europe and Japan over the U.S. in local-currency terms. Stay underweight EM. Feature Global Growth Is Accelerating, But Headwinds Persist The global economy is on the mend. Measures of current activity are rebounding, as are a variety of leading economic indicators (Charts 1 and 2). Chart 1Global Economy ##br##Springing Back To Life Chart 2Global Leading Economic ##br##Indicators Are Improving Investors have taken notice: Market-based inflation expectations have risen, as have growth-sensitive commodity prices. Earnings growth expectations have surged, rising in the U.S. to nearly the highest level in a decade. Cyclical stocks have also bounced back, after having lagged the overall market for five years (Chart 3). We agree with the market's positive re-rating of global growth prospects, but worry that undue pessimism is starting to give way to excessive optimism. Two potential developments in particular could end up giving investors pause: A slowing of China's economy later this year. The possibility that U.S. fiscal policy will end up being less stimulative than expected. China: Living On Borrowed Time? Chinese growth has been surprising to the upside of late (Chart 4). Timely indicators such as excavator sales and railway freight traffic, which are well correlated with industrial activity, have been rising at a fast clip. Manufacturing inventory levels have come down, corporate profitability has improved, and producer price inflation has turned positive. The labor market has also picked up steam, as evidenced by the expansion in the employment subcomponents of the PMI indices. Chart 3Market's Positive Re-Rating Of Growth Prospects Chart 4Chinese Growth Has Been Surprising To The Upside Looking out, however, there are reasons to worry that the economy will weaken anew. Growth in government spending slowed from a high of 25% in November 2015 to nearly zero in December (Chart 5). Recent efforts by policymakers to clamp down on rampant property speculation could also cause the economy to cool. Meanwhile, capital continues to flee the country (Chart 6). This has put the government in a no-win situation: Raising domestic interest rates could entice more people to keep their money at home, but such a step could increase debt-servicing costs and undermine the country's creaky financial system. Chart 5China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Running Off Chart 6China: Ongoing Capital Outflows A Problem Of Inadequate Demand There is no shortage of commentary discussing the problems that ail China. Much of the analysis, however, has focused on the country's inefficient allocation of resources and other supply-side considerations. While these are obviously important issues, they overlook what has actually been the most significant binding constraint to growth: a persistent lack of aggregate demand. It has been this deficiency of demand - the flipside of a chronic excess of savings - that has kept the economy teetering on the edge of deflation. If a country suffers from excess savings, there are only three things that it can do. First, it can try to reduce savings by increasing consumption. The Chinese government has been striving to do that by strengthening the social safety net in the hopes that this will discourage precautionary savings. However, this is a slow process which will take many years to complete. Second, it can export those excess savings abroad by running a current account surplus. This would allow the country to save more than it invests domestically through the famous S-I=CA identity. The problem here is that no one wants to have a large current account deficit with China. Certainly not Donald Trump. Third, it can channel those excess savings into domestic investment. This is what China has done by pressing its banks to extend credit to state-owned companies and local governments. Remember that debt is the conduit through which savings is transformed into investment. From this perspective, China's high debt stock is just the mirror image of its high savings rate. The problem is that China already invests too much. Chart 7 shows that capacity utilization has been trending lower over the past six years and is back down to where it was during the Great Recession. The good news is that as long as there is plenty of savings around, Chinese banks will have enough liquid deposits on hand to extend fresh credit. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that borrowers taking on this debt will be able to repay it. This has made the Chinese economy increasingly sensitive to changes in financial conditions. And that sensitivity has, in turn, made global financial markets more fragile. Chart 8 shows that global equities have sold off whenever China stresses have flared up. The risk of another such incident remains high. Chart 7China: Capacity Utilization Back ##br##To Pre-Recession Levels Chart 8When China Has a Cold, ##br##Global Equities Sneeze China Trade War: The U.S. Holds The Trump Card Chart 9China Would Suffer More ##br##From A Trade War With The U.S. Adding to the pressure on China is the prospect of a trade war with the United States. Donald Trump has flip-flopped on almost every issue over the years, but he's been perfectly consistent on one: trade. Trump has always been a mercantilist at heart, and nothing that has happened since the election suggests otherwise. It is sometimes argued that the damage to the U.S. economy from a trade war with China would be so grave that Trump would not dare initiate one. This is wishful thinking. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.5% of Chinese GDP, while U.S. exports to China account for only 0.6% of U.S. GDP (Chart 9). And much of America's exports to China are intermediate goods that are processed in China and then re-exported elsewhere. Blocking these exports would only hurt Chinese companies. Yes, China could threaten to dump its huge holdings of U.S. Treasurys. However, this is a hollow threat. The yield on Treasurys is largely determined by the expected path of short-term interest rates, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve. To be sure, the dollar would weaken if China started selling Treasurys. But why exactly is that a problem for the U.S.? Donald Trump wants a weaker dollar! In short, the U.S. would not lose much by provoking a trade war with China. Where does this leave us? The most likely outcome is that China blinks first and takes more concerted steps to open up its market to U.S. goods. This would hand Donald Trump a major political victory. However, the path from here to there is likely to be a very rocky one, which means that the reflation trade could suffer a temporary setback. A Trumptastic Fiscal Policy? Getting tough with China was one of Trump's key campaign promises; increasing infrastructure spending and cutting taxes was another. Unfortunately, investors may end up being disappointed both by how much fiscal stimulus is delivered and by the bang for the buck that it generates. For starters, much of Trump's proposed infrastructure program may never see the light of day. The $1 trillion ten-year program that he touted during the campaign was scaled back to $550 billion on his transition website. And even that may be too optimistic. Most Republicans in Congress have little interest in expanding public infrastructure spending. They opposed a big public works bill in 2009 when millions of construction workers were out of a job, and they will oppose one now. The public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions will also limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Granted, the definition for what counts as public infrastructure could be expanded to include such things as hotels and casinos, to cite two completely random examples. But even if one ignores the obvious governance problems that this would raise, such a step could simply crowd out private investment that would otherwise have taken place. The reason that governments invest in infrastructure to begin with is because there are certain categories of public goods that do not lend themselves well to private ownership. To purposely exclude such goods from consideration, while devoting public funds to projects that the private sector is already perfectly capable of doing, is the height of folly. Trump And Taxes House Republicans are pursuing a sweeping tax reform agenda. There is much to like about their proposal. In particular, the shift to a cash flow destination-based tax system could encourage new investment over time, while making it more difficult for firms to carry out a variety of tax-dodging strategies. However, as with many major policy initiatives, the Republican tax proposal could generate significant near-term economic dislocations. Most notably, as we discussed in detail last week, the inclusion of a border adjustment tax could lead to a sharp appreciation in the dollar.1 This would benefit foreign holders of U.S. assets, but hurt debtors with dollar-denominated loans. Such an outcome could put stress on emerging markets, potentially undermining the global reflation trade. Trump's proposed cuts to personal income taxes may not boost spending by as much as some might hope. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top one percent of income earners will see their after-tax incomes increase by 13.5%, while those in the middle quintile of the distribution will receive an increase of only 1.8% (Table 1). Since the very rich tend to save much of their income (Chart 10), measures which boost their disposable income may not translate into a substantial increase in spending. In fact, cutting the estate tax, as Trump has proposed, could actually depress spending by reducing the incentive for older households to blow through their wealth before the Grim Reaper (and The Taxman) arrive. Table 1Trump's Proposed Tax Cuts Would Largely Favor The Rich Chart 10Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Spending Cuts On The Horizon? Then there is the question of whether Congressional Republicans will try to take an ax to government spending. The Hill reported last week that several senior members of Trump's transition team have proposed a plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years.2 The plan contains many of the same elements as the Republican Study Committee's Blueprint for a Balanced Budget, which called for $8.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Separately, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, has introduced legislation seeking large cuts to pension benefits. Under his plan, workers in their mid-thirties earning $50,000 per year would see a one-third reduction in lifetime Social Security payments.3 Paul Ryan and other Congressional Republicans have also begun to argue that the goal of health care reform should be to guarantee "universal access" to high-quality medical care, rather than "universal coverage." This is a bit like arguing that the goal of transportation policy should be to ensure that everyone has access to a Bentley, provided that they can pony up $200,000 to buy one. It remains to be seen whether President Trump will acquiesce to these changes. He has repeatedly insisted that no one will lose medical coverage under his administration. However, one of his first actions in office was to loosen the mandate that requires healthy individuals to purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Such a measure, however well intentioned, could greatly undermine the Act. If healthy people can wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance, only sick people will sign up. In order to cover their costs, insurance providers would have to raise premiums, ensuring that even fewer healthy people sign up. Such a vicious "adverse selection cycle," as economists call it, could lead to the collapse of health insurance exchanges, which currently provide coverage for 12.7 million Americans. Our guess is that Trump will ultimately put the kibosh on any plan to radically cut government spending or curtail Medicare and Social Security benefits. Say what you will of Trump, he has proven to be a skilled political operator for someone who has never been elected to public office. He knows that people were chanting "build the wall" at his rallies, not "cut my Medicare." Indeed, it is possible that Trumpcare will ultimately look a lot like Obamacare but with more generous subsidies for health care providers. Nevertheless, the path to this more benign investment outcome will be a bumpy one, suggesting that market volatility could rise in the months ahead. Investment Conclusions Chart 11DM Stocks Are Overbought Markets tend to swing from one extreme to another. This time last year, investors were fixated on secular stagnation. Now they are convinced that we are on the edge of a new global economic boom. Neither position is justified. Global growth has picked up, and this should provide a tailwind to risk assets over the next 12 months. However, as this week's discussion makes clear, there are still plenty of headwinds around. This suggests that the recovery will be a halting affair, with plenty of setbacks along the way. The surge in developed market equities since the U.S. presidential election has pushed stocks deep into overbought territory (Chart 11). A correction is likely over the next few weeks. We expect global equities to fall by 5%-to-10%, paving the way for higher returns over the remainder of the year. Once that recovery begins, European and Japanese stocks will outperform their U.S. counterparts in local-currency terms. We continue to expect EM equities to lag DM. In contrast to stocks, bond yields have already moved off their highs. As we discussed in our Strategy Outlook in early January, the transition from deflation to inflation will be a protracted one.4 Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is to the upside. The Fed is likely to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. This should be enough to keep the dollar bull market intact. We expect the trade-weighted dollar to rise another 5% by year-end, with the risk tilted to the upside if Congress ends up approving a border adjustment tax. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Alexander Bolton, "Trump Team Prepares Dramatic Cuts," The Hill, dated January 19, 2017. 3 Please see Stephen C. Goss memorandum to Sam Johnson, "Estimates Of The Financial Effects On Social Security Of H.R. 6489, The 'Social Security Reform Act Of 2016,' Introduced On December 8, 2016 By Representative Sam Johnson," Social Security Administration, Office Of The Chief Actuary (December 8, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

The spike in bond yields since the U.S. election has focussed investor attention on the economic implications of higher borrowing costs. In this world of nose-bleed debt levels, it seems self-evident that certain parts of the global economy will be ultra-sensitive to rising rates. The "cash flow" effect on debt service is a headwind for growth as rising interest payments trim the cash available to spend on goods and services. Some market commentators believe that the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates much because the cash-flow effect will be so severe this time that it will quickly derail the economic expansion. However, a number of factors make projecting interest payments complicated, such that back-of-the-envelope estimates are quite misleading. In order to provide a sense of the size of the cash-flow effect, in this Special Report we estimate the sensitivity of interest payments to changes in borrowing rates in the corporate, household and government sectors for four of the major economies. The key finding is that interest burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100 basis points from today's levels. It would require a 300 basis point jump to really "move the dial". Interest rate shocks are more dramatic for the Japanese government interest burden due to the size of the JGB debt mountain, but much of the interest payments would simply make the round trip to the Bank of Japan and back again. We are not downplaying the risks posed by the rapid accumulation of debt since the Great Recession. Rather, our aim is to provide investors with a sense of the debt-service implications of a further rise in borrowing rates. Our main point is that the cash-flow effect of higher interest rates should not be included in the list of reasons for believing that Fed officials will be quickly thwarted if they proceed with their rate hike plan over the next couple of years. Investors are justifiably worried that the bond selloff will get ahead of itself, spark an economic setback and a corresponding flight out of risk assets. After all, there have been several head fakes during this recovery during which rising bond yields on the back of improving data and optimism were followed by an economic soft patch and a risk-off phase in financial markets. In this world of nose-bleed debt levels, it seems self-evident that certain parts of the global economy will be ultra-sensitive to rising rates. Indeed, global debt has swollen by 41½ percentage points of GDP since 2007 (Chart II-1). Households, corporations and governments tried to deleverage simultaneously to varying degrees in the major countries since the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, but few have been successful. Households in the U.S., U.K., Spain and Ireland have managed to reduce the level of debt relative to income. U.K. and Japanese corporations are also less geared today relative to 2007. Outside of these areas, leverage has generally increased in the private and public sectors (see Chart II-2 and the Appendix Charts beginning on page 37). The astonishing pile-up of debt in China has been particularly alarming for the investment community (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Leverage Has Increased Since 2007 Chart II-2Leverage In Advanced Economies Chart II-3China's Alarming Debt Pile-Up Governments can be excused to some extent for continuing to run fiscal deficits because automatic stabilizers require extra spending on social programs when unemployment is high. Fiscal policy was forced to at least partially offset the drain on aggregate demand from private sector deleveraging, or risk a replay of the Great Depression. More generally, history shows that it is extremely difficult for any one sector or country to deleverage when other sectors and countries are doing the same. The slow rate of nominal income growth makes the job that much harder. Borrowing Rates And The Economy There are several ways in which higher borrowing rates can affect the economy. Households will be incentivized to save rather than spend at the margin. Borrowing costs surpass hurdle rates for new investment projects, causing the business sector to trim capital spending. Uncertainty associated with rising rates might also undermine confidence for both households and firms, reinforcing the negative impact on demand. Banks, fearing a growth slowdown ahead and rising delinquencies, may tighten lending standards and thereby limit credit availability. These negative forces are normally a headwind for growth, but not something that outweighs the positive Keynesian dynamics of rising wages, profits and employment until real borrowing rates reach high levels. However, if the neutral or "equilibrium" level of interest rate is still extremely low today, then it may not require much of a rise in market rates to tip the economy over. A lot depends on confidence, which has been quite fragile in the post-Lehman world. The "cash flow" effect on debt service is another headwind for growth as rising interest payments trim the cash available to spend on goods and services. For the government sector, a swelling interest burden will add to the budget deficit and may place pressure on the fiscal authorities to cut back on spending in other areas. Some market commentators believe that the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates much because the cash-flow effect will quickly derail the expansion in the U.S. and potentially in other countries as the Treasury market selloff drags up yields across the global bond market. This is an argument that has circulated at the beginning of every Fed tightening cycle as far back as we can remember. Some even predict that central banks will be forced to use financial repression for an extended period to prevent the interest burden from skyrocketing and thereby short-circuiting the economic expansion. Back-of-the-envelope estimates that simply apply a 100 or 200 basis point increase in borrowing rates to the level of outstanding debt, for example, imply a shocking rise in the debt service burdens. Fed rate hikes could be analogous to the iceberg that took down the Titanic in 1912. Key Drivers Of Interest Sensitivity However, back-of-the-envelope calculations like the one described above paint an overly pessimistic picture for three reasons. First, the starting point for debt service burdens in the corporate, household and government sectors is low (Chart II-4). These burdens have generally trended down since 2007 because falling interest rates have more than offset debt accumulation, with the major exception of China.1 Second, the maturity distribution of debt means that it takes time for interest rate shifts to filter into debt servicing costs. For example, the average maturity of corporate investment-grade bond indexes in the major economies is between 3 and 12 years (Chart II-5). The average maturity of government indexes range from 7½ to 16 years. Moreover, the majority of household debt is related to fixed-rate mortgages. Even a significant portion of consumer debt is fixed for 5-years and more in some countries. Households have been extending the maturity structure of their debt in recent decades (Chart II-5, bottom panel). Chart II-4Debt Service Has Generally Declined Chart II-5Average Maturity Of Debt Is Long Third, even following the backup in yield curves since the U.S. election, current interest rates on new loans are still significantly below average rates on outstanding household loans, corporate debt and government debt. The implication is that most older loans and bonds coming due over the next few years will be rolled over at a lower rate compared to the loans and bonds being replaced. This will even be true if current yield curves shift up by 100 basis points in many cases (except for the U.S. where current yields are closer to average coupon and loan rates). In this Special Report, we estimate the sensitivity of interest payments to changes in borrowing rates in the corporate, household and government sectors for four of the major economies. We could not include China in this month's analysis because data limitations precluded any degree of accuracy, but the sheer size of China's debt mountain justifies continued research in this area. The key finding is that interest burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates rise immediately by 100 basis points from today's levels. It would require a 300 basis point rise in yield curves to really "move the dial" in terms of the cash-flow impact on spending. An interest rate shock of that size would be particularly dramatic for the Japanese government interest burden given the size of its debt mountain, but much of the interest payments would simply make the round trip to the Bank of Japan and back again. Consumer Sector U.S. households have worked hard at deleveraging since their net worth was devastated by the housing bust. Still, the overall debt-to-income level is elevated by historical standards. U.S. household leverage has generally trended higher since the Second World War and has been a source of angst for investors as far back as the late 1950s. Yet, we find no evidence that U.S. consumers have become more sensitive to changes in borrowing rates over the decades.2 This counter-intuitive result partially reflects the fact that consumers have partially insulated themselves from rising interest rates by adopting a greater proportion of fixed-rate debt. The bottom panel of Chart II-6 presents the two-year change in debt service payments expressed as a percent of income (i.e. the swing or the "cash flow" effect). The fact that these swings have not grown over time suggest that the cash-flow effect of changes in interest rates on debt service has not increased.3 Chart II-6U.S. Consumers Have Not Become More Sensitive To Interest Rates Another way to demonstrate this point is to compare disposable income growth with a measure of "discretionary" disposable income that subtracts debt service payments (Chart II-6, top panel). This is the amount of money left over after debt servicing to purchase goods and services. The annual rate of growth in disposable income and discretionary income are nearly identical. In other words, growth in spending power is determined almost exclusively by changes in the components of income (wages, hours and employment). Moreover, the fact that some households are net receivers of interest income provides some offset to rising interest payments for other households when rates go up. This conclusion applies to households in the other major countries as well. Charts II-7 to II-10 present projections for household interest payments as a percent of GDP under three scenarios: no change in yield curves, an immediate 100 basis point parallel shift up in the yield curve and a 300 basis point shift. Assuming an immediate increase in yields across the curve is overly blunt, but the scenarios are only meant to provide a sense of how much interest payments could rise on a medium-term horizon (say, one to five years). The exact timing is less important. Chart II-7U.S. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-8U.K. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-9Japan Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-10Eurozone Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Unsurprisingly, household interest payments as a fraction of GDP are flat-to-slightly lower in "no change" interest rate scenario for the major countries. The interest burden increases by roughly 1 percentage point in the 100 basis point shock, although the level remains well below the pre-Lehman peak in the U.S., U.K. and Eurozone. In Japan, the interest payments ratio returns to levels last seen in the late 1990s, although this is not particularly onerous. A 300 basis point shock would see interest burdens ramp up to near, or above, the pre-Lehman peak in all economies except in the U.K. For the latter, borrowing rates would still be below the 2007 peak even if they rise by 300 basis points from current levels. This scenario would see the household interest burden surge well above 3% of GDP in Japan, a level that exceeds the entire history of the Japanese series back to the early 1990s. Also shown in the bottom panel of Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10 is the associated 2-year swing in interest expense as a percent of GDP under the three scenarios. The 2-year swing moves into positive (i.e. restrictive) territory for all economies under the 100 basis point shock, although they remain in line with previous monetary tightening cycles. It is only for the 300 basis point scenario that the cash-flow effect appears threatening in terms of consumer spending power over the next two years. Corporate Sector The starting point for interest payments and overall debt-service in the corporate sector is also quite low by historical standards, although less so in the U.S. Falling interest rates have been partially offset by the rapid accumulation of American company debt in recent years. We modeled national accounts data for non-financial corporate interest paid using the stock of corporate bonds, loans and (where relevant) commercial paper, together with the associated interest or coupon rates. The model simply sums interest payments across these types of debt to generate a grand total, after accounting for the maturity structure of the loans and debt. Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13 and Chart II-14 present the three yield curve scenarios for corporate interest payments. The interest burden is flat-to-somewhat lower if yield curves are unchanged, as old loans and bonds continue to roll over at today's depressed levels. Even if market yields jump by 100 basis points tomorrow, the resulting interest burdens would rise roughly back to 2012-2014 levels in the U.S., Eurozone and the U.K., which would still be quite low by historical standards. The resulting two-year cash-flow effect is modest overall. The rate increase feeds into corporate interest payments somewhat more quickly in the Eurozone and Japan because of the relatively shorter average maturity of the corporate debt market, but a shock of this size does not appear threatening to either economy. Chart II-11U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-12U.K. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-13Eurozone Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-14Japan Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection It is a different story if yields rise by 300 basis points. The interest ratio approaches previous peaks set in the 2000s in the U.S. and Eurozone. The interest ratio rises sharply for the U.K. corporate sector as well, although it stays below the 2000 peak because interest rates were even higher 17 years ago. Japanese companies would also feel significant pain as the interest ratio rises back to where it was in the late 1990s. Government Sector Government finances are not at much risk from a modest increase in bond yields either (Chart II-15). We focus on the level of the interest burden rather than the cash-flow effect for the government sector since changes in interest payments probably have less impact on governments' near-term spending plans than is the case for the private sector. Chart II-15Government Sector Interest Payment Projection As discussed above, Treasury departments in the U.K., Eurozone and Japan have taken advantage of ultra-low borrowing rates by extending the average maturity of public debt. The average maturity of the Barclays U.K. government bond index has extended to 16 years, while it is close to 10 years in Japan and the Eurozone (Chart II-5). The U.S. Treasury has not followed suit; the Barclays U.S. index is about 7½ years in maturity. The lengthy average maturity means that index coupon rates will continue to fall for years to come if rates are unchanged in the U.K., Japan and the Eurozone, resulting in a declining interest burden. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, the interest burden is roughly flat as a percent of GDP for the U.K. and Eurozone, and rises only modestly in Japan. The limited impact reflects the fact that the starting point for current yields is well below the average coupon on the stock of government debt. In contrast, the U.S. interest burden is roughly flat in the "no change" scenario, and rises by a half percentage point by 2025 in the 100 basis point shock scenario. Keep in mind that we took the neutral assumption that the stock of government debt grows at the same pace as nominal GDP growth. This assumes that governments deal effectively with the impact of aging populations on entitlement programs in the coming years. As many studies have shown, debt levels will balloon if entitlements are not adjusted and/or taxes are not raised to cover rising health care and pension costs. We do not wish to downplay this long-term risk, but we are focused on the impact of higher interest rates on interest expense over the next five years for the purposes of this Special Report. As with the household and corporate sectors, the pain becomes much more serious in the event of a 300 basis point rise in interest rates. Interest payments rise by about 1 percentage point of GDP in the U.S. and U.K. to high levels by historically standards. It takes a decade for the full effect to unfold, although the ratios rise quickly in the early years as the short-term debt adjusts rapidly to the higher rate environment. For the Eurozone, the roughly 100 basis points rise takes the level of the interest burden back to about 2003 levels (i.e. it does not exceed the previous peak). Given Japan's extremely high government debt-to-GDP ratio, it is not surprising that a 300 basis point rise in interest rates would generate a whopping surge in the interest burden from near zero to almost 5% of GDP by the middle of the next decade. Nonetheless, this paints an overly pessimistic picture for two reasons. First, the Bank of Japan is likely to hold short-term rates close to zero for years as the authorities struggle to reach the 2% inflation target. This means that only long-term JGB yields have room to move higher in the event of a continued global bond selloff. Second, 40% of the JGB market is held by the central bank and this proportion will continue to rise until the Bank of Japan's QE program ends. Interest paid to the BoJ simply flows back to the Ministry of Finance. The net interest payments data used in our analysis are provided by the OECD. These data net out interest payments made between all arms of the government except for the central bank. The implication is that rising global bond yields in the coming years will not place the Japanese government under any fiscal strain. The same is true in the U.S., U.K. and Eurozone, where the respective central banks also hold a large portion of the stock of government debt (although this conclusion does not necessarily apply to the peripheral European governments). Conclusion The spike in bond yields since the U.S. election has focussed investor attention on the economic implications of higher borrowing costs given the sea of debt that has accumulated. As discussed in our 2017 BCA Outlook, we believe that the secular bond bull market is over but foresee only a gradual uptrend in yields in the coming years. Inflation is likely to remain subdued in the major countries and bond supply will continue to be absorbed by the ECB and Bank of Japan. The stock of government bonds available to the private sector will drop by $750 billion in 2017 for the U.S., Eurozone, Japan and the U.K. as a group. This follows a contraction of $546 billion in 2016. Forward guidance from the BoJ and ECB will also help to cap the upside for global bond yields. Still, we believe that the combination of gradually rising U.S. inflation, Fed rate hikes and the Trump fiscal stimulus plan will push Treasury yields above current forward rates in 2017. Other bond markets will outperform in local currency terms, but will suffer losses via contagion from the U.S. Despite the dizzying amount of debt accumulated since the Great Recession, it does not appear that debt service will sink the economies of the advanced economies as the Fed continues to normalize U.S. monetary policy. Debt service will rise from a low starting point and the swing in interest payments as a percent of GDP is unlikely to exceed previous cycles on a 2-year horizon for a 100 basis point rise in yields. The level of the interest payments/GDP ratio should not exceed previous peaks in most cases. The picture is much more threatening if yields were to surge by 300 basis points over the next couple of years, although this scenario would require an unexpected acceleration of inflation in the U.S. and/or the other advanced economies. We are not making the case that the buildup of debt is benign. Academic research has linked excessive leverage with slower trend economic growth and a higher risk of financial crisis. For governments, elevated debt can result in a rising risk premium that will crowd out spending in important areas, such as health and pensions, in the long run. For consumers and the corporate sector, excessive leverage could result in financial distress and a spike in defaults in the next downturn, reinforcing the contraction in output. The Bank for International Settlements agrees: "Increased household indebtedness, in and of itself, is not likely to be the source of a negative shock to the economy. Rather the primary macroeconomic implication of higher debt levels will be to amplify shocks to the economy coming from other sources, particularly those that affect household incomes, most notably rises in unemployment." 4 Debt lies at the heart of BCA's longstanding Debt Supercycle thesis. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness for monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Fed and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit upcycle. That all ended with the 2007-09 meltdown. Since then, even zero policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed countries because the starting point for leverage is already elevated. Growth headwinds finally appear to be ebbing, at least in the U.S., prompting the FOMC to begin the process of "normalizing" short-term interest rates. The U.S. economy could suffer another setback in 2017 for a number of reasons. Nonetheless, the key point of this report is that the cash-flow effect of rising interest rates should not be included in the list of reasons for believing that Fed officials will be quickly thwarted if they proceed with their rate hike plan over the next couple of years. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 For China, the BIS only provides an estimate of the debt service ratio for the household and non-financial corporate sectors combined. 2 See: U.S. Consumer Titanic Meets the Fed Iceberg? The BCA U.S. Fixed Income Analyst, July 2004. 3 The absence of a rise in volatility of the cash flow effect is partly due to the decline in, and the volatility of, interest rates after the 1980s. 4 Guy Debelle, "Household Debt and the Macroeconomy," BIS Quarterly Review, March 2004. Appendix Charts Chart II-16, Chart II-17, Chart II-18, Chart II-19 Chart II-16U.S. Debt By Sector Chart II-17U.K. Debt By Sector Chart II-18Japan Debt By Sector Chart II-19Euro Area Debt By Sector

Highlights U.S. policy uncertainty has increased again early in the New Year. President Trump's inaugural speech highlighted that he has not tempered his "America First" policy prescription. The Trump/GOP agenda is still a moving target, but three key risks have emerged for financial markets. A border tax could see a 10% rise in the U.S. dollar. It would also be bearish for global bonds and EM stocks. Position accordingly. Second, President Trump has his sights on China. U.S. presidents face few constraints on the trade and foreign policy side. Investors seem to be under-appreciating the risk of a trade war. Third, the plan to slash Federal government spending could completely offset the fiscal stimulus stemming from the proposed tax cuts and infrastructure spending. The good news is that the major countries, including China, appear to have entered a synchronized growth acceleration. There is more to the equity market rally than a "sugar high". The global profit recession is over and the rebound has been even more impressive than we predicted. As long as any U.S. protectionist policies do not derail the growth acceleration, corporate EPS in the major countries should rival (traditionally overly-optimistic) bottom-up expectations in 2017. The Fed will hike three times this year, one more than is discounted. The Bank of Japan will continue to target a 10-year JGB yield of 0%, but the ECB will begin hinting at another taper in the fall. Our bond team tactically took profits on a short-duration position, but expect to move back to below-benchmark duration before long. The U.S. policy backdrop is very fluid but, for now, the new Administration has boosted confidence and thereby reinforced a global cyclical upswing. As long as protectionist policies implemented this year do not unduly undermine U.S. growth (our base case), then stocks will beat bonds by a wide margin. Investors should consider long VIX positions, but add to equity exposure on dips. Feature It has become a cliché to describe the economic and financial market outlook as "unusually uncertain". Since 2007, investors have had to deal with rolling financial crises, deleveraging, recession, deflation pressures, quantitative easing, negative interest rates, re-regulation, a collapse in oil prices and Brexit. Chart I-1Stocks Decouple From Policy Uncertainty Now, there is Donald Trump. The new President's inaugural speech highlighted that he has not tempered his "America First" policy prescription. Protectionism, de-regulation and tax reform are high on the agenda but details are scant, leaving investors with very little visibility. There are many policy proposals floating around that have conflicting potential effects on financial markets. Which ones will actually be pursued and how will they be prioritized? Is the U.S. prepared to fight a trade war? Is a border tax likely? Will President Trump push for a "Plaza Accord" deal with China? Even the prospect for fiscal stimulus is a moving target because the Trump Administration is reportedly considering a plan to slash Federal spending by $10 trillion over the next decade! Some have described the global equity rally as just a "sugar high" that will soon fade. No doubt, some of the potentially growth-enhancing parts of the Trump agenda have been discounted in risk assets. Given the highly uncertain policy backdrop, it would be easy to recommend that investors err on the side of caution if the U.S. and global economies were still stuck in the mud. The level of the S&P 500 appears elevated based on its relationship with the policy uncertainty index (shown inverted in Chart I-1). Nonetheless, what complicates matters is that there is more to the equity rally than simply hope. Both growth and profits are surprising to the upside in what appears to be a synchronized global upturn. If one could take U.S. policy uncertainty out of the equation, risk assets are in an economic sweet spot where the deflation threat is waning, but inflation is not enough of a threat to warrant removing the monetary punchbowl. Indeed, the Fed will proceed cautiously and official bond purchases will continue through the year in Japan and the Eurozone. We begin this month's Overview with two key protectionist policies being considered that could have important market implications. We then turn to the good news on the economic and earnings front. The conclusion is that we remain positive on risk assets and bearish bonds on a 6-12 month investment horizon. It will likely be a rough ride, but investors should use equity pullbacks to add exposure. Protectionism Risk #1 A U.S. border tax has suddenly emerged on the U.S. policy program. More formally, it is called a destination-based cash flow tax. Under current U.S. law, corporate income taxes are assessed on worldwide profits, which are the difference the between worldwide revenues and worldwide costs. The introduction of a border tax adjustment would change the tax system to one where taxes are assessed only on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs (i.e., revenues derived in the U.S. minus costs incurred the U.S.). The mechanics are fairly complicated and we encourage interested clients to read a Special Report on the topic from BCA's Global Investment Strategy service.1 The result would be a significant increase in taxes on imported goods and a reduction in taxes paid by exporters. One benefit is that the border tax would generate a large amount of revenue for the Treasury, which could be used to offset the cost of corporate tax cuts. Another benefit is that the tax change would eliminate the use of international "transfer pricing" strategies that allow American companies to avoid paying tax. In theory, the dollar would appreciate by enough to offset the tax paid by importers and the tax advantage gained by exporters, leaving the trade balance and the distribution of after-tax corporate profits in the economy largely unchanged. A 20% border tax, for example, would require an immediate 25% jump in the dollar to level the playing field! In reality, there are reasons to believe that the dollar's adjustment would not be fully offsetting. First, much depends on how the Fed responds. Second, some central banks would take steps to limit the dollar's ascent. To the extent that the dollar did not rise by the full amount (25% in our example), then the border tax would boost exports and curtail imports. The resulting tailwind for U.S. growth would eventually be reflected in higher inflation to the extent that the economy is already near full employment. The result is that a border tax would be bullish the dollar and bearish for bonds. Our base case is that a 20% border tax would lift the dollar by about 10% over a 12-month period, above and beyond our current forecast of a 5% gain. The 10-year Treasury yield could reach 3% in this scenario. Subjectively, we assign a 50% probability to a border tax being introduced in some form or another, although our sense is that it will be somewhat watered down so as not to generate major dislocations for the economy. It appears that investors are underestimating the likelihood that the U.S. proceeds with this new tax, suggesting that the risks to the dollar and bond yields are to the upside. This is another reason to underweight U.S. bonds relative to Bunds on a currency-hedged basis. For stocks, any growth boost from the border tax would benefit corporate profits, at least until the Fed responded with a faster pace of rate hikes. It is another story for EM equities as a shrinking U.S. trade deficit implies less demand for EM products and shrinking international dollar liquidity. A border tax could be seen as the first volley in a global trade war, souring investor sentiment towards EM stocks. Another major upleg in the U.S. dollar could also spark a financial crisis in some EM countries with current account deficits and substantial dollar-denominated debt. Protectionism Risk #2 Chart I-2Trade War Risk Is Elevated While President Trump wants a smaller trade deficit generally, he has his sights on China because of the elevated U.S. bilateral trade deficit (Chart I-2). His choices for Commerce Secretary, National Trade Council and U.S. Trade Representative are all China critics. U.S. presidents face few constraints on the trade and foreign policy side. He can order tariffs on specific goods, or even impose a surcharge on all dutiable goods, as Nixon did in 1971. Congress is unlikely to be a stumbling block. Trump's election was a signal that the U.S. populace wants protectionist policies. His electoral strategy succeeded in great part because of voter demand for protectionism in key Midwestern states. We expect the Trump Administration to give a largely symbolic "shot across China's bow" in the first 100 days, setting the stage for formal trade negotiations in the subsequent months. The initial shot will likely rattle markets. A calming period will follow, but this will only give a false sense of security. The U.S. is in a relatively good negotiating position because China's exports to the U.S. are much larger than U.S. exports to China. However, tensions over the "One China" policy and international access to the South China Sea will greatly complicate the trade negotiations. The bottom line is that there is little hope that U.S./China relations will proceed smoothly.2 A long position in the VIX is prudent given that the market does not appear to be adequately discounting the possibility of a trade war. Synchronized Global Growth Upturn While the U.S. policy backdrop has become more problematic for investors, the global economic and profit picture has brightened considerably. We were predicting a pickup in global growth before last November's election based on our leading indicators and the ebbing of some headwinds that had weighed on economic activity early in 2016. As expected, the manufacturing sector is bouncing back after a protracted inventory destocking phase. The stabilization in commodity prices has given some relief to emerging market manufacturers. The drag on global growth from capex cuts in the energy patch is moderating even though the level of capital spending will contract again in 2017. Moreover, the aggregate fiscal thrust for the advanced economies turned positive in 2016 for the first time in six years. The major countries, including China, appear to have entered a synchronized growth acceleration. The pick-up is confirmed by recent data on industrial production, purchasing managers' surveys and the ZEW survey (Chart I-3). The global ZEW composite has been a good indicator for world earnings revisions and the global stock-to-bond return ratio. The synchronized uptick in global coincident and leading economic data, including business and consumer confidence, suggests that there is more going on than a simple post-election euphoria. Euro Area sentiment measures hooked up at the end of 2016 and the acceleration in growth appears to be broadly based (Chart I-4). A simple model based on the PMI suggests that Eurozone growth could be as much as 2% this year, which is well above trend. Chart I-3Positive Global Indicators Chart I-4Euro Area To Beat Growth Estimates While Japan will not be a major contributor to overall global growth given its well-known structural economic impediments, the most recent data reveal a slight uptick in consumer confidence, business confidence and the leading economic indicator (Chart I-5). We have noted the impressive rebound in China's leading and coincident growth indicators for some time. Some indicators are consistent with real GDP growth well in excess of the 6.7% official growth figure for 2016 Q4. Both the OECD leading indicator and our proprietary GDP growth model are calling for faster growth in 2017 (Chart I-6). A potential increase in trade or even military tensions between China and the U.S. is a potential risk to this sunny picture. Nonetheless, given what we know about the underlying economy at the moment, China looks poised to deliver another year of solid growth. Chart I-5Even Japanese Sentiment Is Turning Up Chart I-6Upside Risk To China's Growth In the U.S., President Trump appears to be stirring long-dormant animal spirits. CEOs are much more upbeat and several regional Fed surveys indicate a surge in investment intentions (Chart I-7). Spending on capital goods has the potential to soar given the historical relationship with the survey data shown in Chart I-8 (the caveat being that Congress will need to deliver). Even the long depressed small business sector is suddenly more optimistic. The December reading of the NFIB survey showed a spike in confidence, with capital expenditures, hiring plans and overall optimism returning to levels not seen in this expansion. Chart I-7Animal Spirits Reviving In The U.S.... Chart I-8...Which Will Spark Capital Spending There is a good chance that a deal between the White House and Congress on tax reform will occur in the first half of 2017, including a major tax windfall for the business sector that would boost the after-tax rate of return on equity. Nonetheless, past research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles only get underway once businesses see clear evidence that consumer demand is on the upswing. In other words, consumers need to move first. On that score, a number of cyclical tailwinds have aligned for household spending. Credit scores have largely been repaired since the recession and income growth is on track to accelerate (Chart I-9). Despite a moderation in monthly payrolls, overall income growth is likely to stay perky, now that wage gains are on an upward path. And, importantly, various surveys highlight an improvement over the past year in consumer confidence about long-term job prospects. The propensity to spend rather than save is higher when households feel secure in their jobs. Chart I-10 highlights that the saving rate tends to decline when confidence is elevated. The wealth effect from previous equity and housing price gains has been a tailwind for some time but, until now, consumers have held back because it seemed to many that the recession had never ended. Chart I-9Share Of Home Mortgage Borrowers ##br##Who Recovered Pre-Delinquency Credit Score After Foreclosure Chart I-10Room For U.S. Consumer To Spend In other words, there are increasing signs that the scar tissue from the Great Recession is finally fading, at a time when tax cuts are on the way. We expect that U.S. real GDP growth will be in the 2½-3% range this year with risks to the upside, as long as the Trump Administration does not start a trade war that undermines confidence. Corporate Earnings Liftoff Chart I-11Profits Are Bouncing Back The good news on the economy carries over to corporate earnings. The profit recession is over and the rebound has been even more impressive than we predicted (Chart I-11). Eurozone EPS "went vertical" near the end of 2016. Blended S&P 500 Q4 bottom-up estimates reveal a huge increase in EPS last year to $109 (4-quarter trailing), providing an 8.5% growth rate for 2016 as a whole. The 4-quarter trailing growth figure will likely surge again to 16% in 2017 Q1, even if the sequential EPS figure is flat. Some of the growth acceleration is technical, reflecting a particularly sharp drop in profits at the end of 2015 (which will eventually fall out of the annual growth calculation). Of course, a spike in energy earnings on the back of higher oil prices made a major contribution to the overall growth rate, but there is more to it than that. Consumer Discretionary, Financials and Health Care all posted solid earnings figures last year. Earnings momentum has also picked up in Materials, Real Estate and Utilities, although profit growth in these sectors is benefiting from favorable comparisons. Dollar strength has pushed the U.S. earnings revisions ratio slightly into negative territory, while revisions have surged into positive terrain in the other major markets (Chart I-12). The sharp upturn in our short-term EPS indicators corroborates the more upbeat earnings outlook for at least the next few months (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Earnings Revisions Chart I-13Short-Term EPS Indicators Are Bullish Our medium-term profit models also paint a constructive picture for equities. These are top-down macro models that include oil prices, exchange rates, industrial production (to capture top-line dynamics), and the difference between nominal GDP and labor compensation (to capture margin effects). Given our more optimistic economic view, the model forecasts for 2017 EPS growth have been revised higher for the global aggregate and each of the major developed markets (Chart I-14). The U.S. is tricky because of the impact of comparison effects that will add volatility to the quarterly growth profile as we move through the year. We are now calling for a 10% gain for 2017 as a whole, which is just shy of the roughly 12% increase expected by bottom-up analysts. This is impressive because actual market expectations are typically well below the perennially-optimistic bottom-up estimates. A 10% EPS growth figure might seem overly optimistic in light of the dollar appreciation that has occurred since last November. Some CEOs will no doubt guide down 2017 estimates during the current earning season. However, in terms of EPS growth, the annual change in the dollar matters more than its level. Chart I-15 shows that the year-over-year rate of change in the dollar is moderating despite the recent rise in the level. This is reflected in a diminishing dollar drag on EPS growth as estimated by our model (bottom panel in Chart I-15). We highlighted in the December 2016 monthly report that it does not require a major growth acceleration to overwhelm the negative impact of a rising dollar on earnings. Chart I-14Medium-Term Profit Models Are Also Bullish Chart I-15Dollar Effect On U.S. EPS The models for Japan and the Eurozone point to 2017 EPS growth in the mid-teens. Both are roughly in line with bottom-up estimates which, if confirmed this year, would be quite bullish for stock indexes. Keep in mind that these projections do not include our base case forecast that the U.S. dollar will appreciate by another 5% this year (more if a border tax is enacted). Incorporating a 5% dollar appreciation would trim U.S. EPS growth by 1 percentage point and add the same amount to profit growth in Japan and the Eurozone. The bottom line is that we expect corporate profits to be constructive for global bourses this year. Within an overweight allocation to equities in the advanced economies, we continue to favor the European and Japanese markets versus the U.S. As we discussed in the 2017 Outlook, political risks in the Eurozone are overblown. Currency movements and relative monetary policies will work against U.S. stocks on a relative (currency hedged) basis. FOMC: Hawks Gradually Winning The Debate Fed officials are in a state of quandary over how the policies of the incoming Administration will affect the growth and inflation outlook. Nevertheless, the last FOMC Minutes confirmed that the consensus on the Committee is still shifting in a less dovish/more hawkish direction. The tone of the discussion was decidedly upbeat, especially on the manufacturing and capital spending outlook. "Most" of the meeting participants felt that the U.S. economy has reached full employment, although there is still an ongoing debate on the benefits and costs of allowing the unemployment rate to temporarily move below estimates of full employment. Running the economy "hot" for a while might draw more discouraged workers back into the workforce and thereby expand the supply side of the economy. Other members, however, highlight that past attempts by the Fed to fine tune the economy in this way have always ended in recession. Our view is that the FOMC will not follow the Bank of Japan's example and explicitly target a temporary inflation overshoot. Conversely, the Fed will not attempt to pre-emptively offset any forthcoming fiscal stimulus either (if indeed there is any net fiscal stimulus). Policymakers will watch the labor market and, especially, wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. Core PCE inflation is roughly 30 basis points below target and has only edged erratically higher over the past year. The pickup in shelter inflation has been largely offset by falling core goods prices, reflecting previous dollar strength. We expect shelter inflation to soon flatten off, but goods prices will continue to contract if the dollar rises by another 5% this year. Year-ago comparison effects will also depress the annual rate of change over the next couple of months. However, the key to the underlying inflation trend will be wage pressures, which are most highly correlated with the non-shelter part of the service component. Up until recently, the structural and cyclical forces acting on wage gains were pulling in the same downward direction. Structural factors include automation and population aging; as high-paid older workers leave the workforce, the vast majority of new entrants to full-time employment do so at below-median wages, putting downward pressure on median earnings growth.3 These structural factors will not disappear anytime soon, but the cyclical forces have clearly shifted. The main measures of U.S. wage growth are all trending higher. Excess labor market slack appears to have been largely absorbed. Only the number of people working part time for economic reasons suggests that there is some residual slack remaining. To what extent will cyclical wage pressures exert upward pressure on inflation? That will depend on the ability of companies to raise prices in order to protect profit margins. Wage inflation trends do not lead, and sometimes diverge from, inflation in goods and services. Theory suggests that there is a two-way relationship between wages and prices. Sometimes inflation starts in the labor market and spills over into consumer prices (cost-push inflation), and sometimes it is the other way around (demand-pull inflation). At the moment, the corporate sector appears to have limited ability to pass on rising wage costs. Balancing off the opposing factors, we believe that core PCE inflation will grind higher and should be near the 2% target by year end. This would end the Fed's debate over whether to run the economy hot, helping to keep upward pressure on Treasury yields. Bond Bear To Return Chart I-16Watch Bond Technicals To Short Again Global yields troughed a full four months before the U.S. election. As discussed above, the U.S. and global economies were showing signs of increased vigor even before Trump won the Presidency. The new President's policies reinforce the bond-bearish backdrop, especially protectionism and fiscal stimulus, at a time when the economy is already near full employment. Long-term inflation expectations imbedded in bond yields have shifted up in recent months across the major markets. Real yields have been volatile, but generally have not changed much from late last year. We remain modest bond bears over a 6-12 month horizon. Inflation and inflation expectations will continue to grind higher in the major markets and we expect the FOMC to deliver three rate hikes in 2017, one more than is discounted in the Treasury market. A rise in 10-year TIPS breakevens into a range that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target (2.4%-2.5% based on history) would be a strong signal that the Fed will soon lift the 'dot plot.' ECB bond purchases will limit the increases in the real component of core European yields, but any additional weakness in the euro would result in a rise in European inflation. The ECB was able to announce a tapering of monthly purchases last year while avoiding a bond rout by extending the QE program to the end of 2017, but this will be more difficult to pull off again if inflation is on the rise and growth remains above-trend this year. We expect the ECB to provide hints in September that it will further taper its QE program early in 2018. Thus, the Eurozone bond market could take over from U.S. Treasurys as the main driver of the global bond bear market late in 2017. The Japanese economy is also performing impressively well, reducing the probability of a "helicopter drop" policy. The dollar's surge has depressed the yen and lifted inflation expectations, relieving some pressure on PM Abe to ramp up fiscal spending beyond what is already included in the supplementary budgets. In any event, the BoJ will keep the 10-year yield pinned near to zero, limiting the upside for bond yields to some extent in the other major bond markets. That said, we are neutral on JGBs, not overweight, because most of the yield curve is in negative territory. We remain overweight Bunds versus both Treasurys and JGBs on a currency-hedged basis. In terms of the duration call, our bond strategists felt in early December that the global bond selloff had progressed too far, too fast (Chart I-16). They recommended temporarily taking profits on short-duration positons and shifting to benchmark, which turned out to be excellent timing. Yields have drifted lower since then and the technicals have improved enough to warrant shifting back to below-benchmark duration. Investment Conclusions Chart I-17A Better Growth ##br##Backdrop For USD Strength Equity markets have gone into a holding pattern as investors weigh heightened U.S. policy risk against the improving profit and global macro backdrop. The latter appears to have broken the Fed policy loop that had been in place for some time. Expectations for a less dovish Fed helped to drive the dollar and Treasury yields higher late in 2016. But, rather than sparking a correction in risk assets as has been the case in recent years, stock indexes surged to new highs (Chart I-17). The difference this time is that there has been a meaningful improvement in the growth and profit outlook that has overwhelmed the negative impact of a stronger dollar and higher borrowing rates. The protectionist policies currently being considered are clearly dollar bullish, and bearish for global bonds and EM stocks. Investors should be positioned accordingly. It is more complicated for stocks. The passing of a major tax reform package would no doubt buttress the budding revival in private sector animal spirits, but a nasty trade war has the potential to do the opposite. The multitude of policy proposals floating around greatly complicate asset allocation. It is a very fluid situation but, for now, the new Administration has boosted confidence and thereby reinforced a global cyclical upswing. As long as protectionist policies implemented this year do not unduly undermine global growth (our base case), then corporate earnings growth will be solid in 2017 and stocks will beat bonds by a wide margin. We wish to be clear, though, that equities are on the expensive side in most of the main markets. This means that overweighting equities and underweighting cash and bonds in a balanced global portfolio is essentially playing an equity overshoot. It may end badly, but the overshoot is likely to persist for as long as the economic and profit upswing persists. Investors should consider long VIX positions, but add to equity exposure on dips. Our view on corporate bonds is unchanged this month. Poor value and deteriorating corporate balance sheet health make it difficult to recommend anything more than a benchmark position in the U.S. relative to Treasurys. However, investors can pick up a little spread in the Eurozone corporate bond market, where balance sheet health is better and the ECB is soaking up supply. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 26, 2017 Next Report: February 23, 2017 1 U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue for 2017. BCA Global Investment Strategy service, January 20, 2017. 2 For more information, please see: Trump, Day one: Let the Trade War Begin. BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, January 18, 2017. 3 For more information in the structural and cyclical wage pressures, please see: U.S. Wage Growth: Paid in Full? U.S. Investment Strategy Service, November 28, 2016. II. Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg? The spike in bond yields since the U.S. election has focussed investor attention on the economic implications of higher borrowing costs. In this world of nose-bleed debt levels, it seems self-evident that certain parts of the global economy will be ultra-sensitive to rising rates. The "cash flow" effect on debt service is a headwind for growth as rising interest payments trim the cash available to spend on goods and services. Some market commentators believe that the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates much because the cash-flow effect will be so severe this time that it will quickly derail the economic expansion. However, a number of factors make projecting interest payments complicated, such that back-of-the-envelope estimates are quite misleading. In order to provide a sense of the size of the cash-flow effect, in this Special Report we estimate the sensitivity of interest payments to changes in borrowing rates in the corporate, household and government sectors for four of the major economies. The key finding is that interest burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100 basis points from today's levels. It would require a 300 basis point jump to really "move the dial". Interest rate shocks are more dramatic for the Japanese government interest burden due to the size of the JGB debt mountain, but much of the interest payments would simply make the round trip to the Bank of Japan and back again. We are not downplaying the risks posed by the rapid accumulation of debt since the Great Recession. Rather, our aim is to provide investors with a sense of the debt-service implications of a further rise in borrowing rates. Our main point is that the cash-flow effect of higher interest rates should not be included in the list of reasons for believing that Fed officials will be quickly thwarted if they proceed with their rate hike plan over the next couple of years. Investors are justifiably worried that the bond selloff will get ahead of itself, spark an economic setback and a corresponding flight out of risk assets. After all, there have been several head fakes during this recovery during which rising bond yields on the back of improving data and optimism were followed by an economic soft patch and a risk-off phase in financial markets. In this world of nose-bleed debt levels, it seems self-evident that certain parts of the global economy will be ultra-sensitive to rising rates. Indeed, global debt has swollen by 41½ percentage points of GDP since 2007 (Chart II-1). Households, corporations and governments tried to deleverage simultaneously to varying degrees in the major countries since the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, but few have been successful. Households in the U.S., U.K., Spain and Ireland have managed to reduce the level of debt relative to income. U.K. and Japanese corporations are also less geared today relative to 2007. Outside of these areas, leverage has generally increased in the private and public sectors (see Chart II-2 and the Appendix Charts beginning on page 37). The astonishing pile-up of debt in China has been particularly alarming for the investment community (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Leverage Has Increased Since 2007 Chart II-2Leverage In Advanced Economies Chart II-3China's Alarming Debt Pile-Up Governments can be excused to some extent for continuing to run fiscal deficits because automatic stabilizers require extra spending on social programs when unemployment is high. Fiscal policy was forced to at least partially offset the drain on aggregate demand from private sector deleveraging, or risk a replay of the Great Depression. More generally, history shows that it is extremely difficult for any one sector or country to deleverage when other sectors and countries are doing the same. The slow rate of nominal income growth makes the job that much harder. Borrowing Rates And The Economy There are several ways in which higher borrowing rates can affect the economy. Households will be incentivized to save rather than spend at the margin. Borrowing costs surpass hurdle rates for new investment projects, causing the business sector to trim capital spending. Uncertainty associated with rising rates might also undermine confidence for both households and firms, reinforcing the negative impact on demand. Banks, fearing a growth slowdown ahead and rising delinquencies, may tighten lending standards and thereby limit credit availability. These negative forces are normally a headwind for growth, but not something that outweighs the positive Keynesian dynamics of rising wages, profits and employment until real borrowing rates reach high levels. However, if the neutral or "equilibrium" level of interest rate is still extremely low today, then it may not require much of a rise in market rates to tip the economy over. A lot depends on confidence, which has been quite fragile in the post-Lehman world. The "cash flow" effect on debt service is another headwind for growth as rising interest payments trim the cash available to spend on goods and services. For the government sector, a swelling interest burden will add to the budget deficit and may place pressure on the fiscal authorities to cut back on spending in other areas. Some market commentators believe that the Fed will not be able to raise interest rates much because the cash-flow effect will quickly derail the expansion in the U.S. and potentially in other countries as the Treasury market selloff drags up yields across the global bond market. This is an argument that has circulated at the beginning of every Fed tightening cycle as far back as we can remember. Some even predict that central banks will be forced to use financial repression for an extended period to prevent the interest burden from skyrocketing and thereby short-circuiting the economic expansion. Back-of-the-envelope estimates that simply apply a 100 or 200 basis point increase in borrowing rates to the level of outstanding debt, for example, imply a shocking rise in the debt service burdens. Fed rate hikes could be analogous to the iceberg that took down the Titanic in 1912. Key Drivers Of Interest Sensitivity However, back-of-the-envelope calculations like the one described above paint an overly pessimistic picture for three reasons. First, the starting point for debt service burdens in the corporate, household and government sectors is low (Chart II-4). These burdens have generally trended down since 2007 because falling interest rates have more than offset debt accumulation, with the major exception of China.1 Second, the maturity distribution of debt means that it takes time for interest rate shifts to filter into debt servicing costs. For example, the average maturity of corporate investment-grade bond indexes in the major economies is between 3 and 12 years (Chart II-5). The average maturity of government indexes range from 7½ to 16 years. Moreover, the majority of household debt is related to fixed-rate mortgages. Even a significant portion of consumer debt is fixed for 5-years and more in some countries. Households have been extending the maturity structure of their debt in recent decades (Chart II-5, bottom panel). Chart II-4Debt Service Has Generally Declined Chart II-5Average Maturity Of Debt Is Long Third, even following the backup in yield curves since the U.S. election, current interest rates on new loans are still significantly below average rates on outstanding household loans, corporate debt and government debt. The implication is that most older loans and bonds coming due over the next few years will be rolled over at a lower rate compared to the loans and bonds being replaced. This will even be true if current yield curves shift up by 100 basis points in many cases (except for the U.S. where current yields are closer to average coupon and loan rates). In this Special Report, we estimate the sensitivity of interest payments to changes in borrowing rates in the corporate, household and government sectors for four of the major economies. We could not include China in this month's analysis because data limitations precluded any degree of accuracy, but the sheer size of China's debt mountain justifies continued research in this area. The key finding is that interest burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates rise immediately by 100 basis points from today's levels. It would require a 300 basis point rise in yield curves to really "move the dial" in terms of the cash-flow impact on spending. An interest rate shock of that size would be particularly dramatic for the Japanese government interest burden given the size of its debt mountain, but much of the interest payments would simply make the round trip to the Bank of Japan and back again. Consumer Sector U.S. households have worked hard at deleveraging since their net worth was devastated by the housing bust. Still, the overall debt-to-income level is elevated by historical standards. U.S. household leverage has generally trended higher since the Second World War and has been a source of angst for investors as far back as the late 1950s. Yet, we find no evidence that U.S. consumers have become more sensitive to changes in borrowing rates over the decades.2 This counter-intuitive result partially reflects the fact that consumers have partially insulated themselves from rising interest rates by adopting a greater proportion of fixed-rate debt. The bottom panel of Chart II-6 presents the two-year change in debt service payments expressed as a percent of income (i.e. the swing or the "cash flow" effect). The fact that these swings have not grown over time suggest that the cash-flow effect of changes in interest rates on debt service has not increased.3 Chart II-6U.S. Consumers Have Not Become More Sensitive To Interest Rates Another way to demonstrate this point is to compare disposable income growth with a measure of "discretionary" disposable income that subtracts debt service payments (Chart II-6, top panel). This is the amount of money left over after debt servicing to purchase goods and services. The annual rate of growth in disposable income and discretionary income are nearly identical. In other words, growth in spending power is determined almost exclusively by changes in the components of income (wages, hours and employment). Moreover, the fact that some households are net receivers of interest income provides some offset to rising interest payments for other households when rates go up. This conclusion applies to households in the other major countries as well. Charts II-7 to II-10 present projections for household interest payments as a percent of GDP under three scenarios: no change in yield curves, an immediate 100 basis point parallel shift up in the yield curve and a 300 basis point shift. Assuming an immediate increase in yields across the curve is overly blunt, but the scenarios are only meant to provide a sense of how much interest payments could rise on a medium-term horizon (say, one to five years). The exact timing is less important. Chart II-7U.S. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-8U.K. Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-9Japan Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-10Eurozone Household Sector Interest Payment Projection Unsurprisingly, household interest payments as a fraction of GDP are flat-to-slightly lower in "no change" interest rate scenario for the major countries. The interest burden increases by roughly 1 percentage point in the 100 basis point shock, although the level remains well below the pre-Lehman peak in the U.S., U.K. and Eurozone. In Japan, the interest payments ratio returns to levels last seen in the late 1990s, although this is not particularly onerous. A 300 basis point shock would see interest burdens ramp up to near, or above, the pre-Lehman peak in all economies except in the U.K. For the latter, borrowing rates would still be below the 2007 peak even if they rise by 300 basis points from current levels. This scenario would see the household interest burden surge well above 3% of GDP in Japan, a level that exceeds the entire history of the Japanese series back to the early 1990s. Also shown in the bottom panel of Chart II-7, Chart II-8, Chart II-9, Chart II-10 is the associated 2-year swing in interest expense as a percent of GDP under the three scenarios. The 2-year swing moves into positive (i.e. restrictive) territory for all economies under the 100 basis point shock, although they remain in line with previous monetary tightening cycles. It is only for the 300 basis point scenario that the cash-flow effect appears threatening in terms of consumer spending power over the next two years. Corporate Sector The starting point for interest payments and overall debt-service in the corporate sector is also quite low by historical standards, although less so in the U.S. Falling interest rates have been partially offset by the rapid accumulation of American company debt in recent years. We modeled national accounts data for non-financial corporate interest paid using the stock of corporate bonds, loans and (where relevant) commercial paper, together with the associated interest or coupon rates. The model simply sums interest payments across these types of debt to generate a grand total, after accounting for the maturity structure of the loans and debt. Chart II-11, Chart II-12, Chart II-13 and Chart II-14 present the three yield curve scenarios for corporate interest payments. The interest burden is flat-to-somewhat lower if yield curves are unchanged, as old loans and bonds continue to roll over at today's depressed levels. Even if market yields jump by 100 basis points tomorrow, the resulting interest burdens would rise roughly back to 2012-2014 levels in the U.S., Eurozone and the U.K., which would still be quite low by historical standards. The resulting two-year cash-flow effect is modest overall. The rate increase feeds into corporate interest payments somewhat more quickly in the Eurozone and Japan because of the relatively shorter average maturity of the corporate debt market, but a shock of this size does not appear threatening to either economy. Chart II-11U.S. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-12U.K. Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-13Eurozone Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection Chart II-14Japan Corporate Sector Interest Payment Projection It is a different story if yields rise by 300 basis points. The interest ratio approaches previous peaks set in the 2000s in the U.S. and Eurozone. The interest ratio rises sharply for the U.K. corporate sector as well, although it stays below the 2000 peak because interest rates were even higher 17 years ago. Japanese companies would also feel significant pain as the interest ratio rises back to where it was in the late 1990s. Government Sector Government finances are not at much risk from a modest increase in bond yields either (Chart II-15). We focus on the level of the interest burden rather than the cash-flow effect for the government sector since changes in interest payments probably have less impact on governments' near-term spending plans than is the case for the private sector. Chart II-15Government Sector Interest Payment Projection As discussed above, Treasury departments in the U.K., Eurozone and Japan have taken advantage of ultra-low borrowing rates by extending the average maturity of public debt. The average maturity of the Barclays U.K. government bond index has extended to 16 years, while it is close to 10 years in Japan and the Eurozone (Chart II-5). The U.S. Treasury has not followed suit; the Barclays U.S. index is about 7½ years in maturity. The lengthy average maturity means that index coupon rates will continue to fall for years to come if rates are unchanged in the U.K., Japan and the Eurozone, resulting in a declining interest burden. Even if rates rise by another 100 basis points, the interest burden is roughly flat as a percent of GDP for the U.K. and Eurozone, and rises only modestly in Japan. The limited impact reflects the fact that the starting point for current yields is well below the average coupon on the stock of government debt. In contrast, the U.S. interest burden is roughly flat in the "no change" scenario, and rises by a half percentage point by 2025 in the 100 basis point shock scenario. Keep in mind that we took the neutral assumption that the stock of government debt grows at the same pace as nominal GDP growth. This assumes that governments deal effectively with the impact of aging populations on entitlement programs in the coming years. As many studies have shown, debt levels will balloon if entitlements are not adjusted and/or taxes are not raised to cover rising health care and pension costs. We do not wish to downplay this long-term risk, but we are focused on the impact of higher interest rates on interest expense over the next five years for the purposes of this Special Report. As with the household and corporate sectors, the pain becomes much more serious in the event of a 300 basis point rise in interest rates. Interest payments rise by about 1 percentage point of GDP in the U.S. and U.K. to high levels by historically standards. It takes a decade for the full effect to unfold, although the ratios rise quickly in the early years as the short-term debt adjusts rapidly to the higher rate environment. For the Eurozone, the roughly 100 basis points rise takes the level of the interest burden back to about 2003 levels (i.e. it does not exceed the previous peak). Given Japan's extremely high government debt-to-GDP ratio, it is not surprising that a 300 basis point rise in interest rates would generate a whopping surge in the interest burden from near zero to almost 5% of GDP by the middle of the next decade. Nonetheless, this paints an overly pessimistic picture for two reasons. First, the Bank of Japan is likely to hold short-term rates close to zero for years as the authorities struggle to reach the 2% inflation target. This means that only long-term JGB yields have room to move higher in the event of a continued global bond selloff. Second, 40% of the JGB market is held by the central bank and this proportion will continue to rise until the Bank of Japan's QE program ends. Interest paid to the BoJ simply flows back to the Ministry of Finance. The net interest payments data used in our analysis are provided by the OECD. These data net out interest payments made between all arms of the government except for the central bank. The implication is that rising global bond yields in the coming years will not place the Japanese government under any fiscal strain. The same is true in the U.S., U.K. and Eurozone, where the respective central banks also hold a large portion of the stock of government debt (although this conclusion does not necessarily apply to the peripheral European governments). Conclusion The spike in bond yields since the U.S. election has focussed investor attention on the economic implications of higher borrowing costs given the sea of debt that has accumulated. As discussed in our 2017 BCA Outlook, we believe that the secular bond bull market is over but foresee only a gradual uptrend in yields in the coming years. Inflation is likely to remain subdued in the major countries and bond supply will continue to be absorbed by the ECB and Bank of Japan. The stock of government bonds available to the private sector will drop by $750 billion in 2017 for the U.S., Eurozone, Japan and the U.K. as a group. This follows a contraction of $546 billion in 2016. Forward guidance from the BoJ and ECB will also help to cap the upside for global bond yields. Still, we believe that the combination of gradually rising U.S. inflation, Fed rate hikes and the Trump fiscal stimulus plan will push Treasury yields above current forward rates in 2017. Other bond markets will outperform in local currency terms, but will suffer losses via contagion from the U.S. Despite the dizzying amount of debt accumulated since the Great Recession, it does not appear that debt service will sink the economies of the advanced economies as the Fed continues to normalize U.S. monetary policy. Debt service will rise from a low starting point and the swing in interest payments as a percent of GDP is unlikely to exceed previous cycles on a 2-year horizon for a 100 basis point rise in yields. The level of the interest payments/GDP ratio should not exceed previous peaks in most cases. The picture is much more threatening if yields were to surge by 300 basis points over the next couple of years, although this scenario would require an unexpected acceleration of inflation in the U.S. and/or the other advanced economies. We are not making the case that the buildup of debt is benign. Academic research has linked excessive leverage with slower trend economic growth and a higher risk of financial crisis. For governments, elevated debt can result in a rising risk premium that will crowd out spending in important areas, such as health and pensions, in the long run. For consumers and the corporate sector, excessive leverage could result in financial distress and a spike in defaults in the next downturn, reinforcing the contraction in output. The Bank for International Settlements agrees: "Increased household indebtedness, in and of itself, is not likely to be the source of a negative shock to the economy. Rather the primary macroeconomic implication of higher debt levels will be to amplify shocks to the economy coming from other sources, particularly those that affect household incomes, most notably rises in unemployment." 4 Debt lies at the heart of BCA's longstanding Debt Supercycle thesis. For several decades, the willingness of both lenders and borrowers to embrace credit was a lubricant for economic growth and rising asset prices and, importantly, underpinned the effectiveness for monetary policy. During times of economic and/or financial stress, it was relatively easy for the Fed and other central banks to improve the situation by engineering a new credit upcycle. That all ended with the 2007-09 meltdown. Since then, even zero policy rates have been unable to trigger a strong revival in private credit growth in the major developed countries because the starting point for leverage is already elevated. Growth headwinds finally appear to be ebbing, at least in the U.S., prompting the FOMC to begin the process of "normalizing" short-term interest rates. The U.S. economy could suffer another setback in 2017 for a number of reasons. Nonetheless, the key point of this report is that the cash-flow effect of rising interest rates should not be included in the list of reasons for believing that Fed officials will be quickly thwarted if they proceed with their rate hike plan over the next couple of years. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 For China, the BIS only provides an estimate of the debt service ratio for the household and non-financial corporate sectors combined. 2 See: U.S. Consumer Titanic Meets the Fed Iceberg? The BCA U.S. Fixed Income Analyst, July 2004. 3 The absence of a rise in volatility of the cash flow effect is partly due to the decline in, and the volatility of, interest rates after the 1980s. 4 Guy Debelle, "Household Debt and the Macroeconomy," BIS Quarterly Review, March 2004. Appendix Charts Chart II-16, Chart II-17, Chart II-18, Chart II-19 Chart II-16U.S. Debt By Sector Chart II-17U.K. Debt By Sector Chart II-18Japan Debt By Sector Chart II-19Euro Area Debt By Sector III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equities have been in a holding pattern so far in 2017, consolidating the gains made at the end of last year. Our key equity indicators are mixed at the moment. The Valuation indicator continues to hover at about a half standard deviation on the expensive side. The effect of the rise in global equity indexes late last year on valuation was offset by a surge in profits. Stocks are not cheap but, at this level, valuation not a roadblock to further price gains. Our Monetary indicator deteriorated further over the past couple of months, driven by a stronger dollar and higher bond yields. A shift in this indicator below the zero line would be negative for stock markets. Sentiment is also frothy, which is bearish from a contrary perspective, although our Technical indicator is positive. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators continue to send a positive message for stock markets. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. The WTP indicators have all turned higher from a low level for the Japanese, the European and the U.S. markets. This suggests that investors, after loading up on bonds last year, have "dry powder" available to buy stocks as risk tolerance improves. The U.S. WTP has risen the fastest and is closing in on the 0.95 level. Our tests show that, historically, investors would have reaped impressive gains if they had over-weighted stocks versus bonds when the WTP was rising and reached 0.95. The WTPs suggest that the U.S. market should outperform the Eurozone and Japanese markets in the near term, although for macro reasons we still believe the U.S. will lag the other two. We expect the global stock-to-bond total return ratio to rise through this year. The latest selloff has pushed U.S. Treasurys slightly into "inexpensive" territory based on our Valuation model. Bonds are still technically oversold and sentiment remains bullish, suggesting that the consolidation phase may last a little longer. Nonetheless, we expect to recommend short-duration positions again once the overbought conditions unwind. The U.S. dollar is near previous secular peaks according to our valuation measure. Nonetheless, policy divergences are likely to drive the U.S. dollar to new valuation highs before the bull market is over. Technically overbought conditions have almost unwound, clearing the way for the next leg of the dollar bull run. Commodities have been on a tear on the back of improving and synchronized growth across the major countries (and some dollar weakness very recently). The commodity price outlook is clouded by the prospect of a border tax, which could send the U.S. dollar soaring. The broad commodity market is also approaching overbought levels. The cyclical growth outlook is positive for commodity demand, although supply factors favor oil to base metals. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro TechnicalsChart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights President Trump is as protectionist as Candidate Trump; USD shortage to tighten global financial conditions; Go Long MXN/RMB as a tactical play on U.S.-China trade war; Brexit risks are now overstated; EU will not twist the knife. EUR/GBP is overbought; go short. Feature "We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it's going to be America First." U.S. President Donald Trump, January 20, 2017, Inaugural Address What are the investment implications of an "America First" world? First, it may be useful to visualize the "America Second" world that President Trump is looking to leave in the rear-view mirror. Chart 1 shows the cost of hegemony. Since the Nixon shock in 1971, the U.S. has seen its trade balance deepen and its military commitments soar, in absolute terms. For President Donald Trump, the return on American investment has been low. Wasteful wars, crumbling infrastructure, decaying factories, stagnant wages, this is what the U.S. has to show for two decades of hegemony. Chart 1United States: The Cost Of Hegemony On the other hand, the U.S. has enjoyed the exorbitant privilege of its hegemonic position. In at least one major sense, America's allies (and China) are already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets. Chart 2 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege." Despite a deeply negative net international investment position, the U.S. has a positive net investment income.1 Chart 2The "Exorbitant Privilege" Being the global hegemon effectively lowers U.S. borrowing costs and domestic interest rates, giving U.S. policymakers and consumers an "interest rate they do not deserve." That successive administrations decided to waste this privilege on redrawing the map of the Middle East and giving the wealthiest Americans massive tax cuts, instead of rebuilding Middle America, is hardly the fault of the rest of the world! Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability and deep liquidity of the market, and the perceived stability of its political system. More importantly, they hold U.S. assets because the U.S. acts as both a global defender and a consumer of last resort. If Washington were to raise barriers to its markets and become a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and decide to diversify more rapidly. Investors can interpret Trump's "America First" agenda broadly as an effort to dramatically reduce the U.S. current account deficit. Certainly we see his statements on renegotiating NAFTA, facing off against China on trade, and encouraging U.S. exports with tax legislation as parts of a broad effort aimed at improving the U.S. trade balance. If the U.S. were to pursue these protectionist policies aggressively, the end result would be a massive shortage of U.S. dollars globally, a form of global financial tightening. The rest of the world is not blind to the dangers of an America focused on reducing its current account deficit. According to the reporting of Der Spiegel magazine, Chancellor Angela Merkel sent several delegations to meet with the Trump team starting in 2015! No doubt Berlin was nervous hearing candidate Trump's protectionist talk, given that Germany runs one of the largest trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In the last such meeting, taking place after the election was decided, Trump's son-in-law and White House advisor, Jared Kushner, asked the Germans a point-blank question, "What can you do for us?"2 In the 1980s, the U.S. asked West Germany and Japan the same question. The result was the 1985 Plaza Accord that engineered the greenback's depreciation versus the deutschmark and the yen (Chart 4). Recent comments from Donald Trump suggest that he would like to follow a similar script, where dollar depreciation does the heavy lifting in adjusting the country's current account deficit.3 Chart 3Trump's Black List Chart 4The Impact Of The Plaza Accord The Trump administration may have dusted off the Reagan playbook from the 1980s, but the world is playing a different game in 2017. First, the Soviet Union no longer exists and certainly no longer has more than 70,000 tanks ready to burst through the "Fulda Gap" towards Frankfurt. President Trump will find China, Germany, and Japan less willing to help the U.S. close its current account deficit, particularly if Trump continues his rhetorical assault on everything from European unity to Japanese security to the One China policy. Second, China, not U.S. allies Germany and Japan, has the largest trade surplus with the U.S. It is very difficult to see Beijing agreeing to a coordinated currency appreciation of the RMB, particularly when it is being threatened with a showdown over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Third, even if China wanted to kowtow to the Trump administration, it is not clear that RMB appreciation can be engineered. The country's capital outflows have swelled to a record level of $205 billion (Chart 5) and the PBoC has continued to inject RMB into the banking system via outright lending to banks and open-market operations (Chart 6). Unlike Japan in 1985, China is at the peak of its leveraging cycle and thus unwilling to see its currency - and domestic interest rates - appreciate. At best, Beijing can continue to fight capital outflows and close its capital account. But even this creates a paradox, since the U.S. administration can accuse it of currency manipulation even if such manipulation is preventing, not enabling, currency depreciation!4 Chart 5China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows Chart 6PBoC Injects Massive Liquidity To conclude, the world is (re)entering a mercantilist era and sits at the Apex of Globalization.5 The new White House is almost singularly focused on bringing the U.S. current account deficit down. It intends to do this by means of three primary tools: Protectionism: The Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed a "destination-based border adjustment tax," which would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. (It would levy the corporate tax on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs, thus giving a rebate to exporters who make revenues abroad while incurring costs domestically.)6 While the proponents of the new tax system argue it is equivalent to the VAT systems in G7 economies, the change would nonetheless undermine America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." In our view, it would be the opening salvo of a global trade war. Dirigisme: President Trump has not shied away from directly intervening to keep corporate production inside the U.S. He has also insisted on a vague proposal to impose a 35% "border tax" on U.S. corporates that manufacture abroad for domestic consumption. (Details are scant: His Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has denied an across-the-board tax of this nature, but has confirmed that one would apply to specific companies.) Structural Demands: Trump's approach suggests that he wishes to force structural changes on trade surplus economies in order to correct structural imbalances in the American economy - and in this process he is not adverse to lobbing strategic threats. While he holds out the possibility of charging China with currency manipulation, in fact he can draw from a whole sheet of American trade grievances not limited to the currency to demand major changes to their trade relationship. The fundamental problem for the global economy is that in order to reduce the U.S. current account deficit, the world must experience severe global tightening. Dollars held by U.S. multinationals abroad, which finance global credit markets, will come back to the U.S. and tighten liquidity abroad. And emerging market corporate borrowers who have overextended themselves borrowing in U.S. dollars will struggle to repay debts in appreciating dollars. These structural trends are set to exacerbate an already ongoing cyclical process. As BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has recently pointed out, global demand for U.S. dollars is rising faster than the supply of U.S. dollars.7 Our EM team's first measure of U.S. dollar liquidity is "the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for official and international accounts." The second measure "is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreign residents." As Chart 7 and Chart 8 illustrate, both calculations indicate that dollar liquidity is in a precipitous decline already. Meanwhile, foreign official holdings of U.S. Treasury securities is contracting, while the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreigners has stalled (Chart 9). Chart 7Dollar Liquidity Declining... Chart 8... Any Way You Look At It Chart 9Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Chart 10It Hurts To Borrow In USD Concurrently, U.S. dollar borrowing costs continue to rise (Chart 10). Our EM team expects EM debtors with U.S. dollar liabilities to either repay U.S. dollar debt or hedge it. This will ultimately increase the demand for U.S. dollars in the months ahead. Near-term U.S. dollar appreciation will only reinforce and accelerate the mercantilist push in the White House and Congress. President Trump and the GOP in the House will find common ground on the border-adjustment tax, which Trump recently admitted he did not understand or look favorably upon. The passage of the law, or some such equivalent, has a much greater chance than investors expect. So does a U.S.-China trade war, as we argued last week.8 How should investors position themselves for the confluence of geopolitical, political, and financial factors we have described above? The world is facing both the cyclical liquidity crunch that BCA's Emerging Markets Team has elucidated and the potential for a secular tightening as the Trump administration focuses its efforts on closing the U.S. current account deficit. Five investment implications are top of our mind: Chart 11Market Response To Trump Win On High End Chart 12Market Is Priced For 'Magnificent' Events Buy VIX. The S&P 500 has continued to power on since the election, buoyed by positive economic surprises, strong global earnings, and the hope of a pro-business shift in the White House. The equity market performance puts the Trump presidency in the upper range of post-election market outcomes (Chart 11). However, with 10-year Treasuries back above fair value, the VIX near 12, and EM equities near their pre-November high, the market is pricing none of the political and geopolitical risks of an impending trade war between the U.S. and China, nor is it pricing the general mercantilist shift in Washington D.C. (Chart 12). As a result, we recommend that clients put on a "mercantilist hedge," like deep out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts, or VIX calls. For instance, a long VIX 20/25 call spread for March expiry. Long DM / Short EM. Mercantilism and the U.S. dollar bull market are the worst combination possible for EM risk assets. We therefore reiterate our long-held strategic recommendation of being long developed markets / short emerging markets. Overweight Euro Area Equities. Investors should overweight euro area equities relative to the U.S. As we have discussed in the 2017 Strategic Outlook, political risks in Europe this year are a red herring.9 We will expand on the upcoming French elections in next week's report. Meanwhile, investors appear complacent about protectionism and what it may mean for the S&P 500, which sources 44% of its earnings abroad. European companies, on the other hand, could stand to profit from a China-U.S. trade war. Chart 13Peso Is A Buy Versus Trump's Enemy #1 Chart 14Peso As Cheap As During Tequila Crisis Long MXN/RMB. As a tactical play on the U.S.-China trade war, we recommend clients go long MXN/RMB (Chart 13). The peso is now as cheap as it was in early 1995, at the heights of the Tequila Crisis, as per the BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy model (Chart 14). While Mexico remains squarely in Trump's crosshairs on immigration and security, the damage to the currency appears to be done and has ironically made the country's exports more competitive. In addition, Trump's pick for Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has informed his NAFTA counterparts that "rules of origin" will be central to NAFTA re-negotiation. This can be interpreted as the U.S. using every tool at its disposal to impose punitive measures on China, including forcing NAFTA partners to close off the "rules of origin" loophole.10 But the reality is that the U.S. trade deficit with its NAFTA partners is far less daunting than that with China (Chart 15). Meanwhile, we remain negative on the RMB for fundamental reasons that we have stressed in our research. Small Is Beautiful. We continue to recommend that clients find protection from rising protectionism in small caps. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, also points out that small caps in the U.S. will benefit as the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, which will benefit small caps disproportionally to large caps given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies will benefit most from any cuts in regulations, most of which have been written by multinationals in order to create barriers to entry (Chart 16). Of course, we could just be paranoid! After all, much of Trump's proposed policies - massive tax cuts, infrastructure spending, major rearmament, the border wall - would increase domestic spending and thus widen the current account deficit, not shrink it. And all the protectionism and de-globalization could just be posturing by the Trump administration, both to get a better deal from China and Europe and to give voters in the Midwest some political red meat. Chart 15China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Chart 16Small Is Beautiful But Geopolitical Strategy analysts get paid to be paranoid! And we worry that much of Trump's promises that would widen U.S. deficits are being watered down or pushed to the background. Yes, we have held a high conviction view that infrastructure spending would come through, but now it appears that it will be complemented with significant spending cuts. The next 100 days will tell us which prerogatives the Trump Administration favors: rebuilding America directly, or doing so indirectly via protectionism. If the former, then the current market rally is justified. If the intention is to reduce the current account deficit, look out. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Brexit: A Brave New World Miranda: O brave new world! Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. — Shakespeare, The Tempest The U.K. Supreme Court ruled on January 24 that parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which enables the U.K. to "exit" the European Union. This decision, as well as Theresa May's January 17 "Brexit means exit" speech, caught us in London while visiting clients. Reactions were mixed. The pound continues to rally. January 16 remains the low point in the GBP/USD cross since the vote to leave on June 23 last year (Chart 17). Chart 17Has Brexit Uncertainty Bottomed? Should investors expect more downside to the pound or do the recent events mark a bottom in political uncertainty? The market consensus suggests that further volatility in the pound is warranted for three reasons: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Prime Minister May's assertion that the U.K. would seek to exit the common market is negative for the country's economy; Legal uncertainties about Brexit remain. We disagree with this assessment, at least in the short and medium term. Therefore, the pound rally on the day of May's speech was warranted, although we agree that exiting the EU Common Market will ultimately be suboptimal for the country's economy. First, by setting out a clean break from the EU, including the common market, Prime Minister May has removed a considerable amount of political uncertainty. As we pointed out in our original net assessment of Brexit, leaving the EU while remaining in its common market is illogical.11 Paradoxically, the U.K. stood to lose rather than regain sovereignty if it left the EU yet remained in the common market (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Quite Un-British Lack Of Common Sense Behind Soft Brexit Why? Because membership in the common market entails a financial burden, full adoption of the acquis communautaire (the EU body of law), and acceptance of the "Four Freedoms," including the freedom of movement of workers. Given that the Brexit vote was largely motivated by concerns of sovereignty and immigration (Chart 18), it did not make sense to vote to leave the EU and then seek to retain membership in the common market. Apparently May and her cabinet agree. Chart 18It's Sovereignty, Stupid! Second, now that the U.K. has chosen to depart from the common market, the EU no longer needs to take as hostile of a negotiating position as before. The EU member states were not going to let the U.K. dictate its own terms of membership. That would have set a precedent for future Euroskeptic governments looking for an alternative relationship with the bloc, i.e. the so-called "Europe, à la carte" that European policymakers dread. But now that the U.K. is asking for a clean exit, with a free trade agreement to be negotiated in lieu of common market membership, the EU has less reason to punish London. An FTA arrangement will be beneficial to EU exporters, who want access to the U.K. market, and it will send a message to Euroskeptics on the continent that there is no alternative to full membership. Leaving the EU means leaving the market and falling back - at best - to an FTA-level relationship that the EU shares with Mexico and (most recently) Canada. Third, leaving the EU and the common market are political, not legal, decisions, and the lingering legal battles are neither avoidable nor likely to be substantive. Theresa May had already stolen thunder when she said that the final deal with the EU would be put to a vote in parliament. The Supreme Court ruling - as well as other legal hangups - could conceivably give rise to complications that bind the government's hands, but most likely parliament will pass a simple bill or motion granting permission for the government to invoke Article 50. That is because the referendum, and public opinion since then, speak loud and clear (Chart 19). The Conservative Party remains in a comfortable lead over the Labour Party (Chart 20), which itself is not opposing the referendum outcome. In addition, the House of Commons has already approved the government's Brexit timetable by a margin of 372 seats in a 650-seat body - with 461 ayes. That is a stark contrast with a few months ago when around 494 MPs were said to be against Brexit. Chart 19No 'Bremorse' Or 'Bregret' Chart 20Tories Still Triumphant The bigger question comes down to the parliamentary vote on the deal that is to be negotiated over the next two years. Could the Parliament vote down the final agreement with the EU? Absolutely. However, it is unlikely. The economic calamity predicted by many commentators has not happened, as we discuss below. Bottom Line: The combination of the Supreme Court decision and Prime Minister May's speech has reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The EU will negotiate hard with the U.K., but the main cause of consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - is now off the table. Yes, the EU does hold all the cards when it comes to negotiating an FTA agreement, and the process could entail some alarming twists and turns (given the last-minute crisis in the EU-Canada FTA). But we do not expect EU-U.K. negotiations to imperil the pound dramatically beyond what we've already seen. Will Leaving The Common Market Hurt Britain? Does this mean that Brexit is "much ado about nothing?" In the short and medium term, we think the answer is yes. In the long-term, leaving the EU Common Market is a suboptimal outcome for three reasons: Trade - Net exports rarely contribute positively to U.K. growth (Chart 21) and the trade deficit with the EU is particularly deep. As such, proponents of Brexit claim that putting up modest trade barriers against the EU could be beneficial. However, the U.K. has a services trade surplus with the EU (Chart 22). While it is not as large as the trade deficit, there was hope that the eventual implementation of the 2006 EU's Services Directive would have opened up new markets for U.K.'s highly competitive services industry and thus reduced the trade deficit over time. As the bottom panel of Chart 22 shows, the U.K.'s service exports to the rest of the world have outpaced those to the EU, suggesting that there is much room for improvement. This hope is now dashed and the EU may go back to putting up non-tariff barriers to services that reverse Britain's modest surplus with the bloc. Free Trade Agreements rarely adequately cover services, which means that the U.K.'s hope of expanding service exports to a new high is probably gone. Chart 21U.K. Is Consumer-Driven Chart 22Service Exports At Risk After Brexit Foreign Investment - FDI is declining, whether for cyclical reasons or because foreign companies fear losing access to Europe via the U.K. It remains to be seen how FDI will respond to the U.K.'s renunciation of the common market, but it is unlikely to be positive (Chart 23). The U.K.'s financial sector will also be negatively impacted since leaving the common market will mean that London will no longer have recourse to the EU judiciary in order to stymie European protectionism.12 This is unlikely to destroy London's status as the global financial center, but it will impact FDI on the margin. Labor Growth - The loss of labor inflow will be the biggest cost of Brexit. A decrease of immigration from the EU could reduce the U.K.'s labor force growth by a maximum of two-thirds, translating to a 25% loss in the potential GDP growth rate (Chart 24). While the U.K. is not, in fact, closing off all immigration, labor-force growth will decline, and potential GDP with it. Chart 23FDI To Suffer From Brexit? Chart 24Labor Growth Suffers Most From Brexit In addition, the EU Common Market forces companies to compete for market share in the developed world's largest consumer market. This competition is supposed to accelerate creative destruction and thus productivity, while giving the winners of the competition the spoils, i.e. a better ability to establish "economies of scale." In a 2011 report, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) published an econometric study that compared four scenarios: the U.K. remains in the common market as the EU fully liberalizes trade; the U.K. remains in the EU's single market, but does not fully liberalize trade with the rest of the EU; the U.K. leaves the common market; the U.K. enters NAFTA.13 Of the four scenarios, only the first leads to an increase in wealth for the U.K., with 7.1% additional GDP over ten years. U.K. exports would increase by 47%, against 38.1% for its imports. Wages of both skilled and unskilled workers would increase as well. Meanwhile, the report finds that closer integration with NAFTA would not compensate for looser U.K. ties with the EU. In fact, the U.K. national income would be 7.4% smaller if the U.K. tied up with NAFTA instead of taking part in further trade liberalization on the continent. Why rely on a 2011 report for the assessment of benefits of the common market? Because it was written by a competent, relatively unbiased international body and predates the highly politicized environment surrounding Brexit that has since infected almost all think-tank research. And yet the more recent research echoes the 2011 report in terms of the negative consequences of leaving the common market.14 In addition, the BIS study actually attempts to forecast the benefit of further removing trade barriers in the single market, which is at least the intention of the EU Commission. That said, our concerns regarding the U.K. economy are long-term. It may take years before the full economic impact of leaving the common market can be assessed. In addition, much of our analysis hinges on the Europeans fully liberalizing the common market and removing the last remaining non-tariff barriers to trade, particularly of services. At the present-day level of liberalization, the U.K. may benefit by leaving. In addition, we do not expect a balance-of-payments crisis in the U.K. any time soon. The U.K. current account is deeply negative, unsurprisingly so given the deep trade imbalance with the EU and world. However, our colleague Mathieu Savary, Vice-President of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has pointed out that the elasticity of imports to the pound is in fact negative, a very surprising result. This reflects an extremely elevated import content of British exports. A lower pound is therefore unlikely to be the most crucial means of improving the current-account position. Certainly leaving the common market will not improve the competitiveness of British exports in the EU. Chart 25The U.K.'s Basic Balance Is Healthy But this raises a bigger question: why does the U.K. have to improve its current account deficit? As our FX team points out in Chart 25, despite having a current-account deficit of nearly 6% of GDP, the U.K. runs a basic balance-of-payments surplus of 12%, even after the recent fall in FDI inflows. The reason for the massive balance-of-payments surplus is the financial account surplus of 6.17% of GDP, a feature of the U.K. being a destination for foreign capital, which flows from its status as a global financial center and prime real estate destination. In other words, leaving the common market will not change the fundamentals of the U.K. balance of payments much. The country will remain a global financial center and will still run a capital account surplus, which will suppress the country's interest rates, buoy the GBP, and give tailwinds to imports of foreign goods. Meanwhile, exports will not benefit as they will face marginally higher tariffs as the country exits the EU Common Market. At best, new tariffs will be offset by a cheaper GBP. As such, leaving the common market is not going to be a disaster for the U.K. Nor will it be a panacea for the country's deep current account deficit. And that is okay. The U.K. will not face a crisis in funding its current account deficit. What is clear is that for the time being, the U.K. economy is holding up. Our forex strategists recently argued that U.K.'s growth has surprised to the upside and that the improvement is sustainable: Monetary and fiscal policy are both accommodative (Chart 26); Inflation is limited; Tight labor market drives up wages and puts cash in consumers' pockets (Chart 27); Credit growth remains robust (Chart 28). Chart 26Easy Money Smooths The Way To Brexit Chart 27British Labor Market Tightening Chart 28U.K. Credit Growth Looking Good This means that the political trajectory is set for the time being. "Bremorse" and "Bregret" will remain phantoms for the time being. Bottom Line: Leaving the common market is a suboptimal but not apocalyptic outcome for the U.K. The combination of decent economic performance and lowered political uncertainty in the near term will support the pound. Given the pound's 20% correction since the June referendum, we believe that the market has already priced in the new, marginally negative, post-Brexit paradigm. The Big Picture It is impossible to say whether the long-term negative economic effects of Brexit will affect voters drastically enough and quickly enough for Scotland, or parliament, to act in 2018 or 2019 and modify the government's decision to pursue a "Hard Brexit." It seems conceivable if something changes in the fundamental dynamics outlined above, but we wouldn't bet on it. At the moment even a new Scottish referendum appears unlikely (Chart 29). Scottish voters have soured on independence, perhaps due to a combination of continued political uncertainty in the EU (Scotland's political alternative to the U.K.) and a collapse in oil prices (arguably Scotland's economic alternative to the U.K.). The issue is not resolved but on ice for the time being. Chart 29Brexit Not Driving Scots To Independence (Yet) More likely, the government will get its way on Brexit and the 2020 elections will mark a significant popular test of the Conservative leadership and the final deal with the EU. Then the aftermath will be an entirely new ballgame for the U.K. and all four of its constituent nations. If Britain's new beginning is founded on protectionism and dirigisme - as the government suggests - then the public is likely to be disappointed. The "brave new world" of Brexit may prove to be rather mundane, disappointing, and eerily reminiscent of the ghastly 1970s.15 Hence the Shakespeare quote at the top of this report. The political circumstances of Brexit resemble the U.K. landscape before it joined the European Economic Community in 1973: greater government role in the economy, trade protectionism, tight labor market, higher wages, and inflation. Yet this was a period when the U.K. economy underperformed Europe's. The U.K.'s eventual era of outperformance was contingent on the structural reforms of the Thatcher era and expanded access to the European market (Chart 30). It remains to be seen what happens when the U.K. leaves the market and rolls back Thatcherite reforms. The weak pound and proactive fiscal policy will fail to create a manufacturing revolution. That is because most manufacturing has hollowed out because of automation, not foreign workers stealing Britons' jobs. Moreover, as for the pound, it is important to remember that currency effects are temporary and any boost to exports that the weak pound is generating will be short-lived, as with the case of China in the 1990s and the EU in the past two years (Chart 31). Chart 30U.K. Growth To Lag Europe's Once Again? Chart 31Export Boost From Devaluation Is Fleeting In addition, we would argue that, in an environment of de-globalization - in which tariffs are rising, albeit slowly for the time being (Chart 32) - the EU Common Market provides Europe with a mechanism by which to protect its vast consumer market. The U.K. may have chosen the precisely wrong time in which to abandon the protection of continental European protectionism. It could suffer by finding itself on the outside of the common market as global tariffs begin to rise significantly. Chart 32Protectionism On The March What about the restoration of the "Special Relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S.? Could moving to the "front of the queue" on negotiating an FTA with the world's largest economy make a difference for the U.K.? Perhaps, but as the BIS study above indicates, an FTA with North America or the U.S. alone is unlikely to replace the benefits of the common market. In addition, it is difficult to imagine how a protectionist U.S. administration that is looking to massively decrease its current account deficit will help the U.K. expand trade with the U.S. By contrast, Trump's election in the United States poses massive risks to globalization, both through his protectionism and the strong USD implications of his core policies. This will reverberate negatively across the commodities and EM space. In such an environment, the U.K. may not be able to make much headway in its "Global Britain" initiatives to conclude fast trade deals with EM economies that stand to lose the most in the de-globalization era. Bottom Line: As a trading nation, the U.K. is likely to lose out in a prolonged period of de-globalization. Membership in the EU could have served as a bulwark against this global trend. Investment Implications We diverge from our colleagues in the Foreign Exchange Strategy and European Investment Strategy when it comes to the assessment of political risk looming over Brexit.16 The decision to leave the common market will alleviate the pressure on Europeans to seek vindictive punishment. Earlier, the U.K. was forcing them to choose between making an exception to the rules and demonstrating the negative consequences of leaving the bloc. Now the U.K. is self-evidently taking on its own punishment - the economic burden of leaving the common market - and the EU will probably deem that sufficient. Will the EU play tough? Yes, especially since the EU retains considerable economic leverage over Britain (Chart 33). But the stakes are far smaller now. Furthermore, investors should remember that core European states - especially France and Germany - remain major military allies of the U.K. and will continue to be deeply intertwined economically. As such, we believe that the pound has already priced in the new economic paradigm and that the expectations of political uncertainty ahead of the U.K.-EU negotiations may be overdone. We therefore recommend that investors short EUR/GBP outright. Our aforementioned forex strategist Mathieu Savary argues that, on an intermediate-term basis, the outlook for this cross is driven by interest rate differentials and policy considerations. Due to the balance-sheet operations conducted by the BoE and ECB, interest rates in the U.K. and the euro area do not fully reflect domestic policy stances. Instead, Mathieu uses the shadow rates. Currently, shadow rates unequivocally point toward a lower EUR/GBP (Chart 34). In fact, balance-sheet dynamics point toward shorting EUR/GBP. Chart 33EU Holds The Cards In FTA Negotiation Chart 34Shadow Rates Point To Stronger GBP For full disclosure, Mathieu cautions clients to wait on executing a short EUR/GBP until after Article 50 is enacted. By contrast, we think that political uncertainty regarding Brexit likely peaked on January 16. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive a much lower return on U.S. assets while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 2 Please see Spiegel Online, "Donald Trump and the New World Order," dated January 20, 2017, available at Spiegel.de. 3 In a widely-quoted interview with The Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump said that the U.S. dollar is "too strong." He continued that, "Our companies can't compete with [China] now because our currency is too strong. And it's killing us." Please see The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Warns on House Republican Tax Plan," dated January 16, 2017, available at wsj.com. 4 We would note that the Trump administration and its Treasury Department have considerable leeway over how they choose to interpret China's foreign exchange practices. In 1992, when the U.S. government last accused China of currency manipulation, it issued a warning in its spring report before leveling the accusation in the winter report. The RMB did not depreciate in the meantime but remained stable, and Treasury noted this approvingly; however, Treasury chose 1989 as the base level for its assessment, and found manipulation. The Trump administration could use much more aggressive interpretive methods than this to achieve its ends. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, and Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options," dated January 11, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Critics, including Trump supporters, claim that NAFTA sets too low of a threshold for the domestic content of a good deemed to have originated within the NAFTA countries. Goods that are nearly 40% foreign-made can thus be treated as NAFTA-made. This is one of many contentious points in the trade deal. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 In 2015, the U.K. took the ECB to court over its decision to require financial transactions denominated in euros to be conducted in the euro area, i.e. out of the City, and won. This avenue of legal redress will no longer be available for the U.K., allowing EU member states to slowly introduce rules and regulations that corral the financial industry - or at least to the parts focused on transactions in euros - out of London. 13 Please see Bank of International Settlements, "The economic consequences for the U.K. and the EU of completing the Single Market," BIS Economics Paper No. 11, dated February 2011, available at www.gov.uk. 14 Please see Her Majesty's Government, "H.M. Treasury Analysis: The Long-Term Economic Impact Of EU Membership And The Alternatives," Cmnd. 9250, April 2016, available at www.gov.uk. and Jagjit S. Chadha, "The Referendum Blues: Shocking The System," National Institute Economic Review 237 (August 2016), available at www.niesr.ac.uk. 15 We were going to use "grey" to describe Britain in the 1970s. However, our colleague Martin Barnes, BCA's Chief Economist, insisted that "grey" did not do the "ghastly" 1970s justice. When it comes to the U.K. in the 1970s, we are going to defer to Martin. 16 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “May’s Brexit Speech: No Substance,” dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights U.S. Investment Grade (IG): We recommend overweights in Energy, Financials, Airlines, Building Materials within an overall neutral allocation to U.S. Investment Grade. Euro Area IG: Maintain overweights in Euro Area IG vs U.S. equivalents, favoring Energy, Financials and Wireless sectors. U.K. IG: Maintain an above-benchmark stance on U.K. IG, favoring Banks, Technology and Telecommunications sectors. Feature Last September, we introduced a new element to the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy investment framework - translating our views on individual bond markets into a model portfolio. This was intended to be a tool providing something closer to a "real world" percentage allocation among the various countries and sectors that we cover, more in line with the day-to-day decisions faced by a typical bond manager. We came up with a custom benchmark for that portfolio, combining government debt, corporate bonds and other spread products from the major developed economies. We used the market capitalization weightings of the Bloomberg Barclays bond indices to determine the relative size of each sector. Our chosen benchmark index goes into considerable detail for our government bond allocations, with several maturity buckets, to allow for more precision in our overall country and duration calls. As the next step in the evolution of our model portfolio framework, we are adding a detailed sectoral breakdown of the Investment Grade (IG) corporate bond universes for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. This will provide more granularity in our IG recommendations, and give our clients additional investment ideas beyond our major portfolio allocation calls. Going forward, we will provide a regular update of our sector allocations in our first Weekly Report published each month. For this week, we are recommending sectors that have cheaper valuations but with riskiness close to the overall IG indices where spreads remain tight. For example, in the U.S., overweight Energy within an overall neutral IG allocation; in the Euro Area, overweight Wireless within an overall above-benchmark IG allocation; and in the U.K., overweight Basic Industries within an overall above-benchmark IG allocation (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekSome Of Our Preferred IG Sectors A Brief Description Of Our Sectoral Relative Value Framework Our existing sector relative value methodology assesses the attractiveness of each IG sector within a cross-sectional analysis. The option-adjusted spread (OAS) for each sector is regressed against common risk factors (interest rate duration and credit quality) with the residual spread determining the valuation of each sector. As an additional measure of the overall riskiness of each sector, we use the concept of "duration times spread" (DTS). We have shown in previous research that allocating to sectors in an IG corporate bond portfolio using a DTS weighting scheme produces better risk-adjusted returns with lower drawdown risk.1 It is our plan to eventually incorporate DTS-weightings into our asset allocation framework more directly, as we build out our model portfolio infrastructure to include quantitative risk management metrics. For now, we will look at the relationship between the OAS residuals from our sector relative value models to the DTS of each sector to give a reading on the risk/reward tradeoff for each sector. In some cases, we may not wish to overweight sectors with cheap spreads (positive residuals in our model) that have an above-average DTS, if we are relatively more cautious on taking overall spread risk. The opposite could also occur, where we could overweight sectors that do not have positive spread residuals but have a DTS close to our desired level of credit risk. At the moment, we see overall IG spreads as fully valued in the U.S., Europe and the U.K., so we are aiming for sectors with credit risk closer to the levels of the benchmark indices. Therefore, in the absence of any strong sector-specific views, we are looking for sectors with positive residuals from our relative value model, but with a DTS close to the level of the overall IG index for each region. U.S. Investment Grade - Stay Cautious In Sector Allocations, Except For Energy In Table 1, we present the output of our U.S. IG sector valuation model. The index OAS, model residual ("risk-adjusted valuation"), and DTS is provided for each sector. In addition, a four-letter abbreviation is shown which is used in Chart 2, a scatter diagram showing the residuals versus the DTS for all the sectors. TABLE 1U.S. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation* Within the U.S. IG universe, our valuation model shows spreads are attractive in sectors within Basic Industry (most notably, Metals & Mining and Paper), Building Materials, Energy (most notably, Independent, Refining and Midstream), Communications (most notably, Cable & Satellite and Wireless), Airlines and Financials (most notably, Brokerages/Asset Mangers/Exchanges, Finance Companies, Life Insurers and Property/Casualty Insurers). Among those sectors, the names that have a DTS relatively close to, or lower than, the overall U.S. IG index DTS are: Finance Companies, Building Materials, Airlines, and Brokerages/Asset Managers/Exchanges. These are also sectors with an absolute (non-risk-adjusted) OAS above that of the overall U.S. IG index, adding to their attractiveness. Despite our overall cautiousness on spread risk, the Energy-related sectors represent a special case where we would consider overweighting these higher DTS names. As global oil markets have rebalanced in the latter half of 2016, the subsequent rise in oil prices helped reduce the large risk premiums that had built up in Energy corporate debt (both IG and high-yield). BCA's Commodity strategists see oil prices holding up well over the next year, trading in a range between $50/bbl and $65/bbl for the Brent benchmark. In that scenario, we see a full convergence of the spread between Energy related names and the U.S. IG index, which makes the case for overweighting the cheaper Energy sub-sectors a compelling one, even with the higher risk as measured by DTS. This is particularly true given the large weighting of those names in the overall IG benchmark (just over 6%). Therefore, in our recommended U.S. IG sector allocation, we are adding overweights in Independent Energy, Refining and Midstream to the other names mentioned above. The actual percentage sector allocations for our model portfolio are shown in Table 2. The table is presented in a similar format to the model portfolio tables that we present in the back of our Weekly Reports. The weightings reflect all the investment goals outlined above, including the preferred overweights, while delivering a portfolio DTS that is equal to the overall IG index DTS of 9. Bottom Line: We recommend overweights in Energy, Financials, Airlines, Building Materials within an overall neutral allocation to U.S. Investment Grade. Chart 2U.S. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Risk Vs Reward* TABLE 2Our Recommended U.S. IG Corporate Sector Portfolio Allocation Euro Area Investment Grade - Overweight Vs U.S., Favoring Wireless, Energy & Financials In Table 3, we show the output for our Euro Area IG sector model and, in an identical fashion to the U.S. IG analysis above, we show a scatter diagram showing the model residuals versus the sector DTS scores in Chart 3. TABLE 3Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation* Chart 3Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Risk Vs Reward* In this case, we are sticking with our current model portfolio recommendation to overweight Euro Area IG, but while maintaining the same relatively cautious stance towards the DTS exposure given tight overall spread levels. Our call to overweight European IG is a relative one versus U.S. IG, given the stronger signals given by our relative Corporate Health Monitors and the ongoing presence of European Central Bank corporate bond asset purchases (Chart 4). Within Euro Area IG, the cheapest valuations within our model framework are among the Financials - specifically, within the Insurance sectors. The Insurers, however, have very high DTS scores relative to the overall index, and thus we are choosing not to overweight the names despite the wider risk-adjusted spreads on offer. From a fundamental perspective, higher Euro Area interest rates will be required to make us turn more bullish on the Insurers, which is an outcome that we do not anticipate until at least the latter half of 2017. We are recommending overweights in sectors with non-zero model residuals that have relatively neutral DTS scores: Wireless, Packaging, Integrated Energy, Banks, Brokerages/Asset Managers/Exchanges, and Other Finance. Our recommended Euro Area IG sector allocations are presented in Table 4, with the weighted DTS of our portfolio in line with the index DTS of 6. Bottom Line: Maintain overweights in Euro Area IG vs U.S. equivalents, favoring Energy, Packaging, Financials and Wireless sectors. Chart 4Continue To Favor Europe IG Over U.S. IG TABLE 4Our Recommended Euro Area IG Corporate Sector Portfolio Allocation U.K. Investment Grade - Stay Overweight, Focusing on Financials, Technology & Telecommunications Table 5 contains the output from our U.K. IG sector model, while the scatter diagram of model residuals versus DTS scores is in Chart 5. Again, the Insurers look attractive in the U.K. as in the Euro Area, but the high DTS score deters us from overweightings these names. Banks and Other Financials look attractive, with lower DTS scores, as does the debt of Metals & Mining, Cable & Satellite, Wireless, & Technology. TABLE 5U.K. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation* Chart 5U.K. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Risk Vs Reward* We continue to recommend an above-benchmark allocation to U.K. IG within out model portfolio, given the highly stimulative monetary settings in the U.K. (low interest rates, a deeply undervalued currency), as well as the continued presence of Bank of England corporate bond asset purchases. Our recommended allocation within the above-benchmark allocation to U.K. IG can be found in Table 6. Again, we sought an overall DTS score in line with the U.K. IG DTS of 12. Bottom Line: Maintain an above-benchmark stance on U.K. IG, favoring Banks, Technology and Telecommunications sectors. TABLE 6Our Recommended U.K. IG Corporate Sector Portfolio Allocation Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Managing Bond Portfolios In A Rising Spread Environment, Part 1: Choosing The Right Benchmark", dated September 1, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Global Growth: If global demand follows the recent improvements seen in economic sentiment, growth will surprise positively relatively to expectations in 2017. With global inflation also likely to continue drifting higher over the course of the year, the medium-term bearish implications for bonds are clear. Duration Technicals: Government bond markets remain technically stretched, as the bearish positioning from late 2016 is still intact. Combined with price momentum measures that have barely corrected from oversold extremes, yields are not quite ready to resume their ascent. It is too soon to reduce portfolio duration exposure to position for the higher yields that we expect this year. Canada: The Canadian economy has shown clear signs of improvement of late. This trend can continue in the first half of 2017, thus we are closing our short Canadian corporates/long Canadian provincial debt trade and entering a new position - shorting Canadian 10-year government bonds versus 10-year U.S. Treasuries. Feature Chart of the Week Post-Truth: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. - Oxford Dictionary Oxford voted that term, "post-truth", as the 2016 international word of the year. That is not a surprise, as the two dominant news stories of the past twelve months, Brexit and Trump, represented triumphs of hot emotional arguments over cold hard facts. Pessimists may argue that what we are currently seeing in the U.S. is a "post-truth" economic upturn, where confidence is soaring in expectation of the potential positive impact from Donald Trump's proposed pro-business agenda, but without a corresponding boost in actual growth. Financial markets appear to have already discounted a more rapid pace of growth, as evidenced by the surge in government bond yields in November/December and sharp outperformance of economically-sensitive asset classes like equities and high-yield (Chart of the Week). We do expect growth to deliver some upside surprises in 2017, putting additional upward pressure on government bond yields and downward pressure on credit spreads. In the meantime, however, markets need to consolidate the recent moves while the hard economic data catches up to booming sentiment. This leads us to maintain a cautious tactical investment stance, both towards duration exposure and credit allocations, while looking for more attractive levels to position for the improving global growth dynamic in 2017 by re-establishing below-benchmark duration positions and increasing corporate bond exposure. Real Growth Or Fake News? In our previous Weekly Report, we discussed how improving U.S. business confidence within the corporate sector could lead to a revival of capital spending after three years of decline.1 Not all of this is attributable to the "Trump effect", though. Global leading economic indicators were already starting to tick upward even before the U.S. election, while actual data in the major economies was surprising to the upside. This suggests that some pickup in global growth is likely in the next few quarters which would put additional upward pressure on the real component of government bond yields (Chart 2). Growth forecasts remain subdued, however, even with the recent bump in sentiment. The Bloomberg consensus expectation for real global GDP growth in 2017 is 3.2%. The International Monetary Fund is slightly more optimistic, projecting growth of 3.4% in 2017 but with only 2.3% growth in the U.S. (this is an updated forecast released yesterday, so after the U.S. election). Central bank growth forecasts at the country level are also relatively downbeat; for example, the Fed is expecting U.S. growth of only 2.1% in 2017 while the European Central Bank (ECB) is projecting Euro Area growth of 1.7%. Given the relatively high level of uncertainty over the potential effects of the incoming Trump administration's economic agenda, it is no surprise that professional forecasters are being cautious as they wait for the details to unfold. Yet while improving sentiment among consumers and businesses does not guarantee a faster pace of economic growth in the absence of rising household incomes and healthier corporate profits. However, greater confidence (i.e. "animal spirits") is often a prerequisite before a cyclical upturn can blossom, turning "post-truth" sentiment into a true recovery. Looking at the data among the major economic regions shows that, if the confidence indicators are to be believed, then global growth could deliver some upside surprises this year: United States: Consumer confidence is soaring, with the Conference Board measure reaching an 8-year high at the end of 2016. The December reading for U.S. National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey released last week showed a similar spike in confidence among U.S. small businesses, with capital expenditures, hiring plans and overall optimism returning to levels not seen since before the Great Recession (Chart 3). This is a similar move to the strong confidence data for corporate CEOs that we presented in last week's report. Chart 2A Cyclical Upturn In Growth & Yields Chart 3U.S. Economic Confidence Improving Euro Area: Euro Area sentiment measures, such as the European Commission confidence surveys or the widely-followed German IFO and ZEW indices, hooked upward at the end of 2016 (Chart 4). Both household and business confidence improved, underscoring how the current cyclical upturn in the Euro Area is broad-based. Japan: While Japan should not be expected to be a major contributor to overall global growth given its well-known structural economic impediments (contracting population, weak productivity, high government debt, etc), the most recent data does show a slight uptick in consumer confidence, business confidence and the Japan leading economic indicator (Chart 5). Chart 4A Solid Uptick In Euro Area Confidence Chart 5Japanese Sentiment Inching Higher Chart 6Upside Risks For Chinese Growth? China: Both consumer and business confidence have improved alongside the cyclical Chinese recovery seen in 2016, but this has not been enough to boost consensus forecasts for Chinese growth this year. Importantly, this creates the possibility of an upside growth surprise as both the OECD leading indicator for China and the proprietary GDP growth model from our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy are calling for faster growth in 2017 (Chart 6).2 A potential increase in trade or even military tensions between China and the U.S. is a potential risk to this sunny scenario but, given what we know now about the underlying economy, China looks poised to deliver another year of solid growth. The data does show that the improvement in economic sentiment goes beyond what is happening in the U.S. Some of that could be the spillover effect from greater optimism on the Trump-fueled U.S. economy to the rest of the world. The synchronized uptick in global leading economic indicators, however, suggests that there is more going on than a simple post-election hope that Trump can deliver faster U.S. growth. A genuine synchronized global upturn is underway, which is not "fake news" (which we expect will be the Oxford word of the year in 2017!) Bottom Line: If global demand follows the improvements seen in economic sentiment, growth will surprise positively relative to expectations. With global inflation also likely to continue drifting higher over the course of 2017, the bearish implications for bonds are clear. Bond Market Technicals Have Not Moved Much Normally, such a growing body of evidence pointing to improving global economic sentiment would be a bearish development for bond prices. Fixed income markets have already moved very rapidly, however, to discount a more optimistic outlook for growth. The rise in yields over the final two months of 2016 has left the major sovereign bond markets in a highly stretched position. This was one of the reasons we shifted our recommended duration stance from below-benchmark to neutral in early December.3 Looking at technical indicators such as the deviation of 10-year government bond yields from their 200-day moving averages, or momentum measures such as the 26-week total return for the sovereign bond indices, show that bonds remain deeply oversold in the main "G-4" markets: the U.S. (Chart 7), Germany (Chart 8), the U.K. (Chart 9) and Japan (Chart 10). Chart 7UST Technicals: Stretched Chart 8German Bund Technicals: Stretched Chart 9U.K. Gilt Technicals: Stretched Chart 10JGB Technicals: Stretched In the case of U.S. Treasuries, indicators of market positioning suggest that most traders have not unwound their bearish bets. The Commitment of Traders report shows that speculators currently have the largest net short position in Treasury futures in the history of the data. Meanwhile, the Market Vane index of Treasury sentiment has bounced slightly off the recent lows, but remains at generally downbeat levels (Chart 11) - and still above the levels that heralded prior peaks in yields in 2010, 2013 & 2015. Only the JPMorgan duration survey has shown a closing of net short positions for the more "active" trader base, but not for the overall set of bond investors. We will continue to monitor these positioning and momentum indicators in the weeks ahead to assess when the oversold market conditions have unwound enough to justify a shift back to a below-benchmark duration stance. For now, keep portfolio duration exposure at benchmark. Bottom Line: Government bond markets remain technically stretched, as the bearish positioning from late 2016 is still intact. Combined with price momentum measures that have barely corrected from oversold extremes, yields are not quite ready to resume their ascent. It is too soon to reduce portfolio duration exposure to position for the higher yields that we expect this year. Encouraging Signs From Canada Last October, this publication laid out a sobering view on the Canadian economy.4 Softening exports were a concern, especially in the non-commodity related sectors and even with a weaker Canadian dollar. Growth in corporate capital spending growth was still contracting, constrained by tight lending conditions. Moreover, household consumption appeared at risk, given the depressed labor force participation rate and low wage increases. This view led us to adopt: a neutral stance - but with a positive bias - on Canadian bonds versus global hedged benchmarks; a slightly more dovish view then the consensus on the next monetary policy move by the Bank of Canada (BoC), not discarding the possibility of a rate cut in 2017 and; a short position on Canadian corporates versus Canadian provincial government debt. Since then, however, the Canadian economic cycle has taken a positive turn. The euphoria surrounding Trump's economic plan for Canada's largest trading partner has definitely prompted some of the improvements. The enthusiasm towards possible pro-business American economic policies seems to have seeped into Canadian business owners' mindset as well (Chart 12). Chart 11UST Positioning Still Very Short Chart 12Trump Is Also Influencing Canada's Mood But there is more to it than that. First, employment data have firmed up. The net change in Canadian employment has been positive in each of the last five months, increasing on average by a robust 47.5k. The previously declining labor force participation rate has stabilized, posting a 65.8% reading in December versus the July low of 65.3%. Plus, more jobs have been created in the private sector versus the public sector and in more stable "regular" employment rather than self-employment (Chart 13). Second, the business sector's mood has brightened. According to the BoC's Winter Business Outlook Survey, sales expectations, investment plans and employment intentions are all recovering.5 More striking, firms' pricing power has jumped higher; prices of products and services sold are expected to increase substantially in the next twelve months (Chart 14, top panel). Better pricing power should help Canadian corporate profits, going forward. Chart 13Employment Firming up Chart 14A Business Cycle Reversal? Chart 15Exports Perking Up This, combined with better credit conditions, could potentially turn the Canadian economic cycle around. Real capital expenditure has been the big missing ingredient to a healthy economic expansion in the last few years. This is about to change as the BoC's Senior Loan Officer survey shows that Canadian bank lending conditions re-entered "easing" territory in Q4 2016 (Chart 14, bottom panel).6 Looser credit conditions usually lead to faster loan growth and stronger investment spending. Third, better sentiment globally, and especially in the U.S., has lifted demand for Canadian products, with growth for both commodity and non-commodity-related exports showing improvement in the last quarter of 2016. While higher commodity prices have certainly boosted commodity-related exports, improving U.S. consumer confidence suggests that Canadian goods exports numbers will perk up in the coming months (Chart 15). Fourth, Canadian housing prices could still grind higher for a while longer and a broad retrenchment in the construction sector might be avoided again in 2017. Granted, the backdrop remains quite risky given high prices and soaring household debt levels. According to the BoC, about 15% of high loan-to-income mortgages issued in 2016 would have been ineligible under the new regulatory framework for allowable mortgage lending.7 Hence, the construction sector will face some headwinds going forward as some new mortgage loans will be harder to come by, on the margin. However, it is not a given either that housing affordability (or lack thereof) has reached peak levels yet (Chart 16).8 Lately, the housing market has held up relatively well, despite the regulatory tightening measures put in place to reduce the systemic risks from overvalued Canadian real estate. New house prices grew at a 3% year-over-year rate in December - the fastest pace in four years - while housing starts have averaged 198k in the last twelve months, surpassing the levels seen during the previous three years. In sum, the Canadian economy has performed better than we previously expected. As such, we remain open to the idea that it could continue in that vein over at least the first half of 2017. That said, our optimism remains guarded. The health of the Canadian non-financial, non-energy corporate sector has been deteriorating over the last two years, limiting the potential for the kind of revival of animal spirits that we are seeing in the U.S. Plus, the cyclical data for Alberta - Canada's fourth most important province - remains moribund. A more robust expansion in that province would be necessary to solidify our conviction level towards the strength of the overall economy. Chart 16Not That Unaffordable Chart 17No Inflation On The Horizon Canada remains fragile; consumer indebtedness levels are elevated by international standards. Accordingly, this economy remains a hiccup away from disappointing in the event of an external shock. A global equity market correction, softer oil prices, a reversal in the latest Chinese reflationary push, a Trump geopolitical blunder and/or a move toward more trade protectionism in the U.S. (especially concerning NAFTA9) could negatively impact Canada at any moment - and in a much bigger fashion compared to most other developed economies. As such, the BoC will be prudent and probably stay on hold in 2017. Inflationary pressures are simply not strong enough to justify turning hawkish. Unemployment at 6.9% remains close to half a percentage point away from full employment levels.10 Our Canadian weekly earnings diffusion index is pointing to lower wage pressures, as well (Chart 17). The 30% probability of a rate hike by year-end currently discounted in the OIS market could easily be priced out if inflation remains subdued. Nonetheless, we have to acknowledge the improving backdrop in our portfolio recommendations: we are choosing to close our trade, shorting Canadian corporates versus Canadian provincial debt, at a loss of -53bps. The defensive characteristics of that trade, which also incurs negative carry, now appear less appealing, especially considering the global "risk on" environment currently in place. For now, we are maintaining our neutral stance on Canadian bonds in our global model portfolio, with Canada unlikely to see the same degree of upside inflation pressures that we expect in the other developed economies. However, we are opening a tactical trade, shorting Canadian government bonds versus U.S. Treasuries at the 10-year maturity. From a historical stand point, Canadian yields are very low compared to the U.S., offering an interesting entry point. In addition, the Canada-U.S. employment ratio and the price ratio of Brent oil to lumber - which have been broadly correlated to the Canada-U.S. spread over the years - are both hooking up, pointing to a wider Canada-U.S. spread and representing an interesting macro signal (Chart 18). U.S. inflation prospects add to this trade's attractiveness. Our colleagues at BCA U.S. Investment Strategy recently made a compelling case for U.S. inflation not being a major threat in 2017 after assessing the prospects for the main components of U.S. core PCE inflation (shelter, core goods and core services).11 Core PCE should converge on the Fed's target of 2% in the second half of 2017, but an inflation overshoot beyond that is not the base case (Chart 19). That could allow Canadian bonds yields to catch up to higher U.S. yields, especially if the oversold conditions in the U.S. Treasury market described earlier persist. Chart 18Go Short Canadian Bonds Versus U.S. Treasuries Chart 19Only A Mild Uptrend Is Likely In 2017 Bottom Line: The Canadian economy has shown clear signs of improvement of late. This trend can continue in the first half of 2017, thus we are closing our short Canadian corporates/long Canadian provincial debt trade and entering a new position - shorting Canadian 10-year government bonds versus 10-year U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "4 Big Questions For Bond Markets In 2017", dated January 10, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard", dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Bond Vigilantes Take A Break For The Holidays", dated December 6, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Bond Bear Phase Continues", dated October 11, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2017/01/bos-winter-2016-17/ 6 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/slos-winter2016.pdf 7 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2016/12/fsr-december-2016/ 8 A description of the Bank of Canada Housing Affordability Index can be found at http://credit.bankofcanada.ca/financialindicators/hai 9 NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) is a treaty between Canada, the United States, and Mexico aimed at removing trade barriers and encouraging economic activity. 10 NAIRU stands at 6.5% 11 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat", dated January 9, 2017, available at usis.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

Special Report

"That as the only possible policy in our day for a conqueror to pursue is to leave the wealth of a territory in the complete possession of the individuals inhabiting that territory, it is a logical fallacy and an optical illusion in Europe to regard a nation as increasing its wealth when it increases its territory, because when a province or state is annexed, the population, who are the real and only owners of the wealth therein, are also annexed, and the conqueror gets nothing." 1 Norman Angell's "The Great Illusion" posited in the early 1910s that war would be futile for developed nations, especially given the rising importance of economic and financial ties. Nevertheless, the arms race from the late-1800s gained momentum and eventually led to the Great War, dealing a devastating blow to his arguments. The European armament dynamics of the late-19th century/early 20th century are eerily reminiscent of the current post-Great Recession global arms race. Back then Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy on one side, and Britain, France and Russia on the other, were fiercely trying to outpace each other in military expenditures. The crumbling Ottoman Empire along with the newly created smaller states in Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania were also eager weapons purchasers. Today, a fresh military expenditure-related development pops up almost daily. Not only are the U.S. and China boosting military spending, but also Japan, Australia, India, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, etc (Chart 1).2 The list goes on and on. The driving factor is "multipolarity," i.e. the emergence of multiple competing great powers, which BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has shown to be a key investment theme.3 Chart 1U.S. Defense Spending Is More Than The Rest Of The World Combined While we are not arguing that WWIII will erupt in the coming years, the purpose of this Special Report is to identify the winning global equity sectors from the intensifying global arms race (Chart 2): global defense stocks come atop of our list, but also global space-related equities and cyber security firms would be beneficiaries of the secular increase in military outlays. On a regional basis, the U.S. defense stocks are the only game in town, but undiscovered Chinese, and to a lesser extent Russian, defense stocks are intriguing as are Israeli defense and tech stocks (please refer to the Appendix below for ticker symbols). Chart 2Intensifying Global Arms Race Late 19th/Early 20th Century: Militarism, Globalization & Finance Back in the late-1800s, the ascendancy of Germany was challenging the hegemony of Britain, fueling a European-wide arms race. Smaller newly formed states were also on the hunt for the latest and greatest weaponry. During the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 airplanes were deployed in combat for the very first time, highlighting the importance of new technology. Behind this explosive European rearmament were a few large British companies (Vickers Sons & Maxim Ltd, Armstrong and Whitworth, and Coventry Ordnance Works). "By 1905, its capital of £7.4 million ranked Vickers sixth amongst British companies; Armstrong Whitworth, with 5.3 million pounds capital was eleventh".4 Basil Zaharoff, who acted as general representative for business abroad for Vickers,5 was reputedly one of the richest men in the world.6 Moreover, globalization was on the rise in the late 19th century, as evidenced by global imports as a percentage of GDP (Chart 3). Industrialization coupled with imperialism and the colonization of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa along with population growth and rising demand for commodities were key drivers behind the jump in 19th century globalization. Finally, all of this was made possible by cross-boarder finance. Trade finance and credit growth skyrocketed in the late-1800s and the rising interconnectedness of global financial centers was most evident in the 1907 stock market panic that originated in the U.S., but spread like wildfire to the rest of the world. Chart 3Twin Peaks Of Globalization? Chart 4Heeding The Early 1960s Parallel What About The 1960s? The idea of militarily outspending opponents was very evident in the early-1960s when U.S. defense spending surged by 20% on a year-over-year basis (Chart 4), bolstering demand once again for military contractors. The mutually assured destruction (MAD) doctrine of military strategy and national security policy declared overtly in the early-1960s by U.S. defense secretary Robert McNamara and the Space Race competition between the Cold War rivals also have striking similarities with today, as far as investment implications are concerned. Parallels With Today China's ascendency to a world power large enough to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. is a sea change.7 The rearmament of East Asia is reminiscent of late 19th and early 20th century Europe and involves Japan, Australia, South Korea, Vietnam and India. All of the Middle East, along with Turkey and Russia, are on a structural military spending spree. European NATO fringe states are also arming furiously (Chart 5), trying to thwart Russia's regional ambitions. In the U.S., despite the Budget Control Act of 2011 (sequestration), the CBO projects that defense spending will rise gradually from $586 billion in 2015 to $739 billion by 2026 (Chart 6). This is before any push for a fiscal spending thrust that both presidential candidates have proposed, which would include increased defense outlays. While as a percentage of GDP defense spending may drift sideways, in absolute terms it will likely rise, and thus boost demand for defense contractors. Chart 5Stealthy Rise In Defense Outlays Chart 6CBO Estimates New Defense Spending Highs Globalization has hit an apex recently (Chart 3).8 The world is still licking its wounds from the recent GFC, where U.S. financials stocks were so intertwined with their global peers that the crisis effectively brought down to its knees the global financial system and gave birth to unorthodox monetary policy that Central Banks are still currently deploying. Global Rearmament Beneficiaries If our hypothesis that a global arms race will continue to heat up in coming years pans out, then owning global defense stocks as a structural bet will pay handsome dividends. The global push away from austerity and toward more fiscal spending should also support aggregate defense demand. Thus, there are high odds that global defense stocks are primed to deliver absolute positive returns, irrespective of where the broad global equity market drifts in the next five years. Similar to Vickers and Armstrong and Whitworth making impressive stock market strides early last century, global defense stocks should continue to be high flyers. The early-1960s U.S. aerospace & defense (A&D) stocks are the only close stock market parallel we have come across in our analysis (given data constraints) and comparing this index's available metrics of that era with today is in order. A big pushback to the U.S. Equity Strategy service's constructive view on the U.S. defense index (since the late-2015 inception) has been that the valuations of these stocks are already full, leaving no valuation cushion for any mishaps (Chart 7). True, defense stocks are on the expensive side, but not if they manage to grow into their valuations, as we expect. Relative performance was up over 100% in a span of four years in the 1960s (Chart 8), as U.S. aerospace & defense industrial production (IP) swelled to a 20% per annum clip with utilization rates running at 95% (Chart 8). A&D factories were humming, racing to fulfill orders as U.S. military expenditures were thriving (Chart 4). Chart 7Buy Global Defense Stocks Chart 8In The 1960s A&D Factories Were Humming... This demand surge translated into a jump in sector sales momentum (Chart 4), and given the industry's high operating leverage, earnings and book values soared. From trough to peak, sector EPS rose more than 400%, margins expanded from sub 2% to nearly 8%, and book value doubled (Chart 9). That stellar performance justified initial valuation premiums at the time. Using that period as a guide would imply that there is ample upside left for relative performance of the global defense index (that is a pure play on global defense spending). For comparison consistency, we use U.S. A&D figures. Currently, U.S. A&D IP is contracting, with resource utilization running at 80%. U.S. A&D relative performance has risen a mere 30% since the Great Recession (Chart 10). Chart 9...Boosting The Allure Of ##br## A&D Stocks Chart 10If History At Least Rhymes, ##br## There Is Still Ample Upside... Likely, the advance is still in the early innings, and analysts have been very slow to upgrade their EPS estimates accentuating the apparent overvaluation. Importantly, 5-year forward relative EPS growth estimates are deep in negative territory which is very perplexing given the upward trajectory of industry demand (Chart 11). Given that we only have access to data for MSCI All-Country World aerospace & defense long-term EPS expectations the caveat is that some of the poor expectations and performance could be because of the waning aerospace delivery cycle. Unlike the deteriorating health of the broad corporate sector, profit margins are expanding and net debt-to-EBITDA is a comfortable 1.2x. Similarly, interest coverage ratio is near an all-time high of 8x (Chart 12), while the overall markets EBIT/interest expense ratio is half that. Chart 11...Especially ##br## Given Depressed Analysts' Expectations Chart 12Defense ##br## Wins Championships Global defense sector return on equity (ROE) is almost 30% and rising (Chart 13), whereas global non-financial corporate (NFC) ROE is hitting multi-year lows, with the U.S. NFC ROE plumbing all-time lows (Chart 14). Free cash flow is also growing briskly and the industry is making greenfield investments, with capex growing 9.5% year-over-year, the mirror image of the global NFC sector that is pruning capital outlays (middle and bottom panels, Chart 13). Chart 13Defense Flexing ##br## Its Muscles... Chart 14...Vs. The Atrophy In The U.S. ##br## Non-Financial Corporate Sector On the valuation front, modest overvaluation exists, as portrayed by the high relative price-to-cash flow and price-to-book multiples. However, the global defense stocks forward P/E ratio and EV/EBITDA multiple are on an even keel with the broad market (Chart 15), and if our thesis that a secular uptrend in defense-related demand looms proves accurate, then these stocks are not expensive, but on the contrary still represent a buying opportunity. Chart 15Mixed Signals On The Relative Valuation Front Chart 16Defense Is The Best Offense The Rise In Terrorism, Global Space Race And Cyber Security Threat The unfortunate structural increase in terrorist activity will also embolden governments around the world to step up defense spending (top panel, Chart 16).9 The latter tends to move in long cycles. U.S. defense industry revenues have already begun to outpace those of the overall S&P 500, and a prolonged upturn lies ahead, based on the message from the previous upcycle. From a cyclical perspective, the defense capital goods shipments-to-inventories ratio is outpacing the overall manufacturing sector (second panel. Chart 16), reinforcing the case for ongoing earnings outperformance. The same also holds true in Europe. Western European terrorist attacks have increased, heralding further relative gains for the euro area aerospace & defense index (bottom panel, Chart 16). Beyond the disastrous spike in terrorism, the global space race is also gaining traction, with China spearheading the charge. There is a good chance that China will attain geosynchronous orbit satellites (residing more than 20,000 miles above the earth), challenging U.S. space dominance. India's space aspirations are grand and it is slowly and stealthily rising up the ranks on the space race. Moreover, as more countries aim to have manned space missions, that translates into higher space budgets and thus firming demand for space-related expenditures (Chart 17). Chart 17Space, The Final Frontier Finally, the number of cyber-attacks is also on the rise globally. Defending against attacks is a challenge. Not only does the cyber space domain definition remain elusive, but tracking hackers down is also increasingly difficult given the vastest of the internet, lack of global uniform policing methods and physical country borders. Crudely put, it is a lot easier for a Chinese or Russian hacker to deal a blow, for example, to U.S. nuclear infrastructure rather than physically deliver an attack. All of this suggests that investment in anti-hacking and counter cyber-attack capabilities is necessary around the globe in order to thwart cyber-terrorism. Risks To Our View While there is conceivably a risk that China will abruptly halt its intense militarization and make a U turn in its long-term strategy of becoming a military superpower, we assign a very low probability to such a turn of events. The global push for more fiscal spending may not materialize, which would be a risk to our sanguine global defense spending view. As Paul Volcker and Peter Peterson recently opined in a NY Times article10 - offering a different view from the always-articulate Larry Summers - prudent and fiscally responsible spending is in order given the excessive debt-to-GDP ratio that is probing war-like levels (Chart 18). This excessive debt overhang is not only a U.S. phenomenon, but also a global one spanning both advanced and emerging economies. Chart 18Excessive Debt Is A Risk To Bullish View On Global Defense Stocks One final risk is that the world will enter a prolonged peace phase and global terrorism will get quashed, with conflicts dying down in the Middle East, Russia reining in its imperialistic ambitions and China ceasing to stir the waters in the South and East China Seas. We would also assign low odds to this optimistic "no conflict phase" scenario, but it would indeed be welcome. Investment Conclusion Factors are falling into place for a structural outperformance period in the global defense index. The early-1900s and early-1960s parallels, coupled with the trifecta of terrorism, space race and cyber security all point to upbeat demand for defense-related goods and services. Expressing this buoyant view can be done from a bottom up perspective. The Appendix below highlights all the companies in the global defense index we track from Datastream and the alternative one from Bloomberg. An investable proxy is the U.S. aerospace & defense index as the U.S. dominates global A&D indexes and aerospace outfits also sport significant defense corporate segments (please see the Appendix below for relevant tickers). There are also three fairly liquid ETFs mimicking the U.S. A&D index: ITA:US, PPA:US & XAR:US. Moreover, below are a few more speculative investment ideas. Given China's dominance of global defense spending (ex-U.S.) we are confident that Chinese A&D stocks will also be eagerly sought after and deliver alpha in the coming years (please refer to the Appendix below for a list of China plays). If one has the resilience and the stomach to invest in Russian equities given high political and currency risk, then Russian A&D stocks may be a desirable vehicle. Russia remains a massive weapons exporter with a large sphere of influence. We would not underestimate the returns in local currency of some Russian A&D stocks (the Appendix below lists some Russian A&D listed firms). Finally, Israel A&D and IT companies either listed on NASDAQ or domestically in Tel Aviv offer some great opportunities for investors that can handle riskier investments. Not only Israel's geography, but also its intense IT/military focus and entrepreneurial culture imply that a number of these companies will be long-term winners (please see the Appendix below for relevant tickers). While most of the drones, space-related, and highly specialized IT companies are private, there is a drone and an anti-hacking ETF (IFLY:US & HACK:US). On the space front, we are tracking an index that comprises a number of space-related constituents that we show in the Appendix below. Nevertheless, most of these companies are categorized under A&D. Bottom Line: We are initiating a structural overweight in the global defense index with a longer-than-usual five year secular investment horizon. The re-rating phase in this index is still in the early innings. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table A1BI Global Defense Primes Competitive Peers Table A2World Defense Index (DS: DEFENWD) Table A3S&P 500 Aerospace & Defense Index ##br## (S5AERO Index) Table A4China ##br## Aerospace & Defense Table A5Russia & Israel Aerospace & Defense Table A6Kensho Space Index 1 Angell, Norman (1911), The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to their Economic and Social Advantage, (3 ed.), New York and London: G.P. Putnam's & Sons. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Angell, Warren, Kenneth (1989), Armstrongs of Elswick: Growth In Engineering And Armaments To The Merger with Vickers, London, The Macmillan Press Ltd. 5 http://www.oxforddnb.com/index/38/101038270/ 6 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Basil-Zaharoff 7 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 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," in Monthly Report, "Winter Is Coming," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 10 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/opinion/ignoring-the-debt-problem.html?_r=0

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