Global
Highlights The FOMC statement was somewhat more hawkish than expected. The Fed is on course to raise rates two to three times next year. Trump's policy views are squarely bearish for bonds, but more mixed for stocks. Investors are focusing too much on the positive aspects of Trump's agenda, while ignoring the glaringly negative ones. The 35-year bond bull market is over. Deep-seated political and economic forces will conspire to lift inflation over the coming years. For now, rising wages and prices are welcome news given that inflation remains below target in most economies. However, with productivity and labor force growth still weak around the world - and likely to stay that way - reflation will eventually morph into stagflation. Feature A Fork In The Road Charlie Wilson, the former CEO of General Motors, once famously declared that "what is good for GM is good for the country." There is little doubt that policies that boost economic growth can benefit both Wall Street and Main Street alike. On occasion, however, what is good for one may not be good for the other. Consider Donald Trump's campaign promise to curb illegal immigration and crack down on firms that move production abroad. Reduced immigration means fewer potential customers, and hence weaker sales growth. Fewer immigrant workers and less outsourcing also means higher wages for native-born workers. Bad news for Wall Street, but arguably good news for Main Street. Chart 1Diminished Labor Market Slack Boosting Wages The distinction between Wall Street and Main Street is critical for thinking about how various policies affect bonds and stocks. Bond prices tend to be more influenced by what happens to the broader economy (the key concern for Main Street), whereas equity prices tend to be more influenced by what happens to corporate earnings (the key concern for Wall Street). Corporate earnings have recovered much more briskly over the past eight years than the overall economy. Thus, it is no surprise that stock prices have surged while bond yields have tumbled. Things may be changing, however. A tighter U.S. labor market is pushing up wages, and this is starting to weigh on corporate profit margins (Chart 1). Meanwhile, bond yields are finally rebounding after hitting record low levels earlier this year. A Somewhat Hawkish Hike This week's FOMC statement reinforced the upward trajectory in yields. Both the median and modal "dot" in the Summary of Economic Projections shifted from two to three hikes next year. While Chair Yellen mentioned that a few participants "did incorporate some assumption about the change in fiscal policy," we suspect that many did not, reflecting the lack of clarity about the timing, composition, and magnitude of any fiscal package. As these details are fleshed out, it is probable that both growth and inflation assumptions will be revised up, helping to keep the Fed's tightening bias in place. The key question is whether U.S. growth will be strong enough next year to allow the Fed to keep raising rates. Our view is that it will. As we argued in October in "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen,"1 a recovery in business capex, a turn in the inventory cycle, a pick-up in spending at the state and local government level, and continued solid consumption growth driven by rising real wages will all support demand in 2017. Indeed, it is likely that the Fed will find itself a bit behind the curve, allowing inflation to drift higher. The Structural Case For Higher Inflation The cyclical acceleration in U.S. and global inflation that we will see over the next few years will be buttressed by structural trends. As we first spelled out in this year's Q3 Strategy Outlook entitled "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market,"2 a number of political and economic forces will conspire to lift inflation and nominal bond yields over time. Let us start with the politics. Here, three inflationary forces stand out: The retreat from globalization; The rejection of fiscal austerity; The continued will and growing ability of central banks to push up inflation. Globalization Under Attack Globalization is an inherently deflationary force. In a globalized world, if a country experiences an idiosyncratic shock which raises domestic demand, this can be met with more imports rather than higher prices. In addition, the entry of millions of workers from once labor-rich, but capital-poor economies such as China, has depressed the wages of less-skilled workers in developed economies.3 Poorer workers tend to spend a greater share of their incomes than richer workers (Chart 2). To the extent that globalization has exacerbated income inequality, it has also reduced aggregate demand. It is too early to know to what extent Donald Trump will try to roll back globalization. So far, his cabinet appointments - perhaps with the exception of immigration hawk Jeff Sessions - are little different from what a run-of-the-mill Republican like Jeb Bush would have made. Yet, as we noted last week, it will be difficult for Trump to backtrack from his protectionist views because his white working-class base will abandon him if he does.4 As Chart 3 shows, the share of Republican voters who support free trade has plummeted from over half to only one-third. For better or for worse, the Republican Party has become a populist party. Davos Man beware. Chart 2The Rich Save, The Poor Not So Much Chart 3Republican Voters Are Rejecting Free Trade In any case, even if populist pressures do not cause global trade to collapse over the coming years, the period of "hyperglobalization," as Arvind Subramanian has called it, is over. As we discussed three weeks ago,5 many of the things that facilitated globalization over the past 30 years were one-off developments: China cannot join the WTO more than once; tariffs in most developed countries cannot fall much more because they are already close to zero; there is nothing on the horizon that will match the breakthrough productivity gains in global shipping that stemmed from containerization; the global supply chain is already highly efficient, etc. Thus, at the margin, globalization will be less of a deflationary force than it once was. Back To Bread And Circuses After a brief burst of fiscal stimulus following the financial crisis, governments moved quickly to tighten their belts. Now, however, the pendulum is starting to swing back towards easier fiscal policy, as nervous politicians look for ways to thwart the populist backlash (Chart 4). The U.K. is a good example of this emerging trend. Prior to the Brexit vote, the Conservative government had planned to tighten fiscal policy by a further 3.3% of GDP over the remainder of this decade. This goal has been thrown out the window, with Theresa May now even hinting about the prospect of some fiscal stimulus. Elsewhere in Europe, governments continue to flout their fiscal targets. Not only has the European Commission turned a blind eye to this development, but a recent report by the Commission actually suggested that a "desirable fiscal orientation" would entail larger budget deficits next year than what member states are currently targeting (Chart 5). Chart 4The End Of Austerity Chart 5The European Commission Recommends Greater Fiscal Expansion In Japan, Prime Minister Abe has scrapped plans to raise the sales tax next year. The supplementary budget announced in August will boost annual spending by 0.5% of GDP over the next three years. Our geopolitical team thinks that further spending measures will be introduced, especially on defense. For his part, Donald Trump has pledged massive fiscal stimulus consisting of increased infrastructure and defense expenditures, along with a whopping $6.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next 10 years even before accounting for additional interest costs. Investors shouldn't rejoice too much, however. Effective tax rates for S&P 500 companies are already well below statutory levels on account of the numerous loopholes in the tax code (Chart 6). Small businesses rather than large corporations will disproportionately benefit from Trump's tax measures. Chart 6The U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low Moreover, it is doubtful that the maximum fiscal thrust from Trump's policies will be reached before 2018. By that time, the economy is likely to have reached full employment. As such, much of the stimulus is likely to show up in the form of higher wages rather than increased real corporate sales. More Monetary Ammo The global financial crisis set off the biggest deflation scare the world has seen since the Great Depression. Eight years later, central banks are still struggling to raise inflation. The conventional wisdom is that central banks are "out of bullets." This view, however, is much too pessimistic. Even if one excludes the use of such radical measures as helicopter money, it is still the case that traditional monetary policy becomes more effective as spare capacity is reduced. Consider the case of forward guidance. If an economy has a large output gap, a central bank's promise to keep interest rates at zero, even after full employment has been reached, may hold little sway. After all, many things can happen between now and then: A change of central bank leadership, another adverse economic shock, etc. In contrast, if the output gap is already quite small, as is the case in the U.S. today, a promise to let the economy run hot is more likely to be taken seriously. Chart 7 shows that the level of the U.S. core PCE deflator, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge, is nearly 4% lower than it would have been if inflation had remained at its 2% target since 2008. Given that the Fed has a symmetric target - meaning that inflation overshoots should be just as common as undershoots - aiming for an inflation rate above 2% over the next few years makes some sense. If inflation does move up to the 2.5%-to-3% range, the Fed might be reluctant to bring it back down since this would require slower growth and higher unemployment. In fact, a case could be made that the Fed and other central banks should simply raise their inflation targets. Both private and public debt levels are still quite elevated all over the world (Chart 8). Higher inflation would be one way to reduce the real value of those liabilities. Chart 7Inflation Has Undershot the Fed's Target Chart 8Elevated Debt Levels The difficulty in pushing nominal short-term rates much below zero is another reason to aim for a higher inflation rate. Back in 1999 when the FOMC first broached the idea of introducing a 2% inflation target, the Fed's simulations suggested that the zero lower bound would only be reached once every 20 years, and even on these rare occurrences, interest rates would be pinned to zero for only four quarters (Table 1). In reality, the U.S. economy has spent more than half of the time since then either at the zero bound or close to it. While we do not expect any central bank to raise their inflation targets anytime soon, long-term investors should nevertheless prepare for this possibility. Table 1The Fed Underestimated The Probability Of Rates Being Stuck At Zero Slow Potential Growth: Deflationary At First, Inflationary Later On The narrowing of output gaps around the world has given central banks more traction over monetary policy. However, there has been a dark side to this development - and one that also leans in the direction of higher inflation. As Chart 9 shows, spare capacity has declined in every major economy not because demand has been strong, but because supply has been weak. Chart 9AWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Chart 9BWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps The decline in potential GDP growth reflects both slower productivity and labor force growth. As we have discussed in past reports, while cyclical factors have weighed on potential growth, structural factors also loom large.6 The former include falling birth rates, flat-lining labor participation, plateauing educational attainment, and a shift in technological innovation away from business productivity and towards consumer-centric applications such as social media. Chart 10A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Critically, slower potential GDP growth tends to be deflationary at the outset but becomes inflationary later on. Initially, lower productivity growth reduces investment, pushing down aggregate demand. Lower productivity growth also reduces consumption, as households react to the prospect of slower real wage gains. Eventually, however, economies that suffer from chronically weak productivity growth tend to find themselves rubbing up against supply-side constraints. This leads to higher inflation (Chart 10). One only needs to look at the history of low-productivity economies in Africa and Latin America to see this point - or, for that matter, the U.S. in the 1970s, a period when productivity growth slowed and inflation accelerated. Likewise, a slowdown in labor force growth tends to morph from being deflationary to inflationary over time. When labor force growth slows, two things happen. First, investment demand drops. Why build new factories, office towers, and shopping malls if the number of workers and potential consumers is set to grow more slowly? Second, savings rise, as spending on children declines and a rising share of the workforce moves into its peak saving years (ages 35-to-50). The result is a large excess of savings over investment, which generates downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. As time goes by, the deflationary impact of slower labor force growth tends to recede (Chart 11). Workers who once brought home paychecks start to retire en masse and begin drawing down their accumulated wealth. Since there are few young workers available to take their place, labor shortages emerge. At the same time, health care spending and pension expenditures rise as a larger fraction of the population enters its golden years. The result is less aggregate savings and higher interest rates. Chart 11An Aging Population Eventually Pushes Up Interest Rates Japan provides a good example of how this transition might occur. Chart 12 shows that the household savings rate has fallen from over 14% in the early 1990s to only 2% today. Meanwhile, the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has reached a 25-year high. Amazingly, the tightening in the labor market has occurred despite anemic GDP growth and a huge surge in female employment. Prime-age female labor participation has already risen above U.S. levels (Chart 13). As participation rates stabilize, labor force growth in Japan will decline from a cyclical high of around 0.8% at present to -0.2%. That may be enough to precipitate a sharp labor shortage, leading to higher wages and an end to deflation. Chart 12Japan: Declining Household Savings ##br## Rate And A Tightening Labor Market Chart 13Japan: Female Labor Force ##br## Participation Now Exceeds The U.S. What will the Bank of Japan do when this fateful day arrives? The answer is probably nothing. The BoJ would welcome a virtuous circle in which rising inflation pushes down real rates, leading to a weaker yen, a stronger stock market, and even higher inflation expectations. Such a virtuous circle almost emerged in 2012 had the Japanese government not short-circuited it by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP. It won't make the same mistake again. Investment Conclusions Global assets have swung wildly in the weeks following the U.S. presidential election. The selloff in bonds and the rally in the dollar make perfect sense to us - indeed, we predicted as much in our September report entitled "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies."7 In contrast, the surge in U.S. equities seems overdone. Yes, certain elements of Trump's political agenda such as deregulation and lower corporate tax rates are good news for stocks. But other aspects such as trade protectionism and tighter immigration controls are not. Others still, such as increased government spending, are good in theory but carry sizeable side-effects, the chief of which is that the stimulus may arrive at a time when the economy no longer needs it. Some commentators have argued that the good aspects of Trump's agenda will be implemented before the bad ones, giving investors a reason to focus on the positive. We are not so sure. If Trump gives the Republican establishment everything it wants on taxes and regulations, he will lose all his remaining leverage over trade and immigration. Rather than waiting to be stabbed in the back by Paul Ryan, strategically, Trump is likely to insist that Congress implement his populist platform before he hands it the keys to the economy. Even if one ignores the political intrigue, it is still the case that global stocks have tended to suffer following major spikes in bond yields such as the one we have just experienced (Table 2). We suspect that this time will not be any different. As such, investors would be wise to adopt a more defensive tactical posture over the next few months. Table 2Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike Chart 14Global Growth Is Accelerating Things look better over a one-to-two year cyclical horizon. Outside of the U.S., much of the global economy continues to suffer from excess spare capacity. Recent data suggesting that global growth is accelerating is welcome news in that regard (Chart 14). Not only will stronger growth boost corporate earnings, but with the ECB, BoJ, and many other central banks firmly on hold, any increase in inflation expectations will translate into lower real rates, providing an additional fillip to spending. We continue to prefer European and Japanese stocks over their U.S. counterparts, on a currency-hedged basis. Emerging markets are a tougher call. The real trade-weighted dollar probably has another 5% or so of upside from current levels. Historically, a stronger greenback has been bad news for EM equities. On a more positive note, faster global growth should give some support to commodity prices. BCA's commodity strategists remain quite bullish on crude and natural gas, a view that has been further reinforced by both Saudi Arabia and Russia's announcements to restrict oil supply beginning in January. Still, on balance, we recommend a slightly underweight position in EM equities. Looking beyond the next two years, the outlook for global risk assets is likely to darken again. We are skeptical that Trump's much lauded supply-side policies will boost productivity to any great degree. Against a backdrop of rising budget deficits and brewing populist sentiment around the world, reflation may begin to give way to stagflation. In such an environment, bond yields could rise substantially from current levels, taking stocks down with them. Enjoy it while it lasts. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Third Quarter 2016: End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 8, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "Trade Adjustment: Worker-Level Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2014). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump And Trade," dated December 9, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Slower Potential Growth: Causes And Consequences," dated May 29, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Recommendation Allocation Highlights Growth was picking up before the election of President Trump. His election merely accelerates the rotation from monetary to fiscal policy. This is likely to cause yields to rise, the Fed to tighten and the dollar to strengthen further. That will be negative for bonds, commodities and emerging market assets, and equivocal for equities. Short term, markets have overshot and a correction is likely. But the 12-month picture (higher growth and inflation) suggests risk assets such as equities will outperform. Our recommendations mostly have cyclical tilts. We are overweight credit versus government bonds, underweight duration and, in equity sectors, overweight energy, industrials and IT (and healthcare for structural reasons). Among alts, we prefer real estate and private equity over hedge funds and structured products. We limit beta through overweights (in common currency terms) on U.S. equities versus Europe and emerging markets. We also have a (currency-hedged) overweight on Japanese stocks. Feature Overview A Shift To Reflation The next 12 months are likely to see stronger economic growth, particularly in the U.S., and higher inflation. That will probably lead to higher long-term interest rates, the Fed hiking two or three times in 2017, and further dollar strength. The consequences should be bad for bonds, but mixed for equities - which would benefit from a better earnings outlook, but might see multiples fall because of a higher discount rate. The election of Donald Trump merely accelerates the rotation from monetary policy to fiscal policy that had been emerging globally since the summer. Trump's fiscal plans are still somewhat vague,1 but the OECD estimates they will add 0.4 percentage points to U.S. GDP growth in 2017 and 0.8 points in 2018, and 0.1 and 0.3 points to global growth. Growth was already accelerating before the U.S. presidential election. Global leading indicators have picked up noticeably (Chart 1), and the Q3 U.S. earnings season surprised significantly on the upside, with EPS growth of 3% (versus a pre-results expectation of -2%) - the first YoY growth in 18 months (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Growth Picking Up Chart 2U.S. Earnings Growing Again The problem with the shift to fiscal, then, is that it comes at a time when slack in U.S. economy has already largely disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the output gap is now only -1.5%, which means it is likely to turn positive in 2017 (Chart 3). Unemployment, at 4.6%, is below NAIRU2 (Chart 4). Historically, the output gap turning positive has sown the seeds of the next recession a couple of years later, as the Fed tightens policy to choke off inflation. Chart 3Output Gap Will Close In 2017 Chart 4Will This Trigger Inflation Pressures? As the Fed signaled at its meeting on December 14, it is likely to raise rates two or three times more in 2017. But we don't see it getting any more hawkish than that. Janet Yellen has made it clear that she will not preempt Trump's fiscal stimulus but rather wait to see it passed by Congress. The market is probably about right in pricing in an 80% probability of two rate hikes in 2017, and a 50% probability of three. With the Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker rising 3.9% YoY and commodity prices (especially energy) starting to add to headline inflation, the Fed clearly wants to head off inflation before it sets in. We do not agree with the argument that the Fed will deliberately allow a "high-pressure economy." The result is likely to be higher long-term rates. The 10-year U.S. yield has already moved a long way (up 100 BP since July), and our model suggests fair value currently is around 2.3% (Chart 5). Short term, then, a correction is quite possible (and would be accompanied by moves in other assets that have overshot since November 9). But stronger global growth and an appreciating dollar over the next 12 months could easily push fair value up to 3% or beyond. The relationship between nominal GDP growth (which is likely to be 4.5-5% in 2017, compared to 2.7% in 1H 2016) and long-term rates implies a rise to a similar level (Chart 6). Accordingly, we recommend investors to be underweight duration and prefer TIPs over nominal bonds. Chart 5U.S. 10-Year At Fair Value Chart 6Rise In Nominal GDP Could Push It Up To 3% Global equities, on a risk-adjusted basis, performed roughly in line with sovereign bonds in 2016 - producing a total return of 9.2%, compared to 3.3% for bonds (though global high yield did even better, up 15.1%). If our analysis above is correct, the return on global sovereign bonds over the next 12 months is likely to be close to zero. Chart 7Will Investors Reverse The Move##br## from Equities To Bonds? The outlook for equities is not unclouded. Higher rates could dampen growth (note, for example, that 30-year fixed-rate mortgages in the U.S. have risen over the past two months from 3.4% to 4.2%, close to the 10-year average of 4.6%). The U.S. earnings recovery will be capped by the stronger dollar.3 And a series of Fed hikes may lower the PE multiple, already quite elevated by historical standards. Erratic behavior by President Trump and the more market-unfriendly of his policies could raise the risk premium. But we think it likely that equities will produce a decent positive return in this environment. Portfolio rebalancing should help. Since the Global Financial Crisis investors have steadily shifted allocations from equities into bonds (Chart 7). They are likely to reverse that over the coming quarters if bond yields continue to trend up. Accordingly, we moved overweight equities versus bonds in our last Monthly Portfolio Update.4 Our recommended portfolio has mostly pro-cyclical tilts: we are overweight credit versus government bonds, overweight most cyclical equity sectors, and have a preference for risk alternative assets such as real estate and private equity. But our portfolio approach is to pick the best spots for taking risk in order to make a required return. We, therefore, balance this pro-cyclicality by some lower beta stances: we prefer investment grade debt over high yield, and U.S. and Japanese equities over Europe and emerging markets. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Trump Do? Trump made several speeches in September with details of his tax plan. He promised to (1) simplify personal income tax, cutting seven brackets to three, with 12%, 25% and 33% tax rates; (2) cut the headline corporate tax rate to 15% (from 35%); and (3) levy a 10% tax on the $3 trillion of corporate retained earnings held offshore. He was less specific on infrastructure spending, but Wilbur Ross, the incoming Commerce Secretary, mentioned $550 billion, principally financed through public-private partnerships. The Tax Policy Center estimates the total cost of the tax plan at $6 trillion (with three-quarters from the business tax cut). But it is not clear how much will be offset by reduced deductions. Incoming Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, for example, said that upper class taxpayers will get no absolute tax cut. TPC estimates the tax plan alone will increase federal debt to GDP by 25 percentage points over the next 10 years (Chart 8). The OECD, assuming stimulus of 0.75% of GDP in 2017 and 1.75% in 2018, estimates that this will raise U.S. GDP growth by 0.4 percentage points next year and by 0.8 points in 2018, with positive knock-on effects on the rest of the world (Chart 9). While there are questions on the timing (and how far Trump will go with trade and immigration measures), BCA's geopolitical strategists sees few constraints on getting these plans passed.5 Republications in Congress like tax cuts (and will compromise on the public spending element) and it is wrong to assume that Republican administrations reduce the fiscal deficit - historically the opposite is true (Chart 10). Chart 8Massive Increase In Debt Chart 9GDP Impact Of U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Chart 10A Lot of Stimulus, And Extra Debt Implications for markets? Short term positive for growth and inflation; longer-term a worry because of crowding out from the increased government debt. How Will The Strong USD Impact Global Earnings? We have a strong U.S. dollar view and also favor U.S. equities over the euro area and emerging markets. Some clients question our logic because conceptually a strong USD should benefit earnings growth in the non-U.S. markets, and therefore non-U.S. equities should outperform. Chart 11USD Impact On Global Earnings Currency is just one of the factors that we consider when we make country allocation decisions, and our weights are expressed in USD terms unhedged. We will hedge a currency only when we have very high conviction, such as our current Japan overweight with a yen hedge, which is based on our belief that the BOJ will pursue more unconventional policies to stimulate the economy. This is undoubtedly yen bearish but positive for Japanese stocks. As shown in Chart 11, a stronger USD has tended to weaken U.S. earnings growth (panel 1). However, what matters to country allocation is relative earnings growth. Panels 3 and 5 show that in local currency terms, earnings growth in emerging markets and the euro area did not always outpace that in the U.S. when their currencies depreciated against the USD. In fact, when their currencies appreciated, earnings growth in USD terms tended to outpace that in the U.S. (panels 2 and 4), suggesting that the translation impact plays a very important role. This is consistent with what we have found for relative equity market returns (see Global Equity section on page 13). Currency affects revenues and costs in different proportions. If both revenues and costs are in same currency, then only net profit is affected by the currency. But, since many companies manage their forex exposure, at the aggregate level the currency impact will always be "weaker than it should be". What Is The Outlook For Brexit And The Pound? The U.K. shocked the world on 24 June 2016 with its vote to leave the European Union. However, the process and terms of exit are yet to be finalized pending the Supreme Court's decision on the role of parliament in invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Depending on this decision, there is a spectrum of possible outcomes for the U.K./EU relationship. At the two ends of the spectrum are: 1) a hard Brexit - complete separation from the EU, in which case the pound will plunge further; 2) a soft Brexit - with a few features of the current relationship retained, in which case the pound will rally. Chart 12What's Up Brexit? The fall in the nominal effective exchange rate to a 200-year low (Chart 12) is a clear indication of the potential serious long-term damage. With the nation's dependence on foreign direct investment (FDI) to finance its large current account deficit (close to 6% of GDP), more populist policies and increased regulation will hurt corporate profitability, making local assets less profitable to foreigners. The pound is currently caught up in a vicious circle of more depreciation, leading to higher inflation expectations and depressed real rates, which adds further selling pressure. This is the likely path of the pound in the case of a hard Brexit. For U.K. equities, under a hard Brexit that adds downward pressure to the pound, investors should favor firms with global revenues (FTSE 100) and underweight firms exposed more to domestic business and a potential recession (FTSE 250). The opposite holds true in the case of a soft Brexit. Investors should also underweight U.K. REITs because of cyclical and structural factors that will affect commercial real estate. In the case of a hard Brexit, structural long-term impacts to the British economy include: 1) a decline in the financial sector - the EU will introduce regulations that will force euro-denominated transactions out of London; 2) a slowdown in FDI - the U.K. will cease to be a platform for global companies to access the EU, triggering a long-term decline in foreign inflows; 3) weaker growth - with EU immigration into the U.K. expected to fall by 90,000 to 150,000 per year, estimates.6 point to a 3.4% to 5.4% drop in per capita GDP by the year 2030. What Industry Group Tilts Do You Recommend? In October 2015, we advocated that, because long-term returns for major asset classes would fall short of ingrained expectations, investors should increase alpha by diving down into the Industry Group level.7 How have these trades fared, and which would we still recommend? Long Household And Personal Products / Short Energy. We closed the trade for a profit of 12.2% in Q12016. This has proven to be quite timely as oil prices, and Energy stocks along with it, have rallied substantially since. Long Insurance / Short Banks. The early gains from this trade reversed in Q2 as long yields have risen rapidly, leading to yield curve steepening. However, our cyclical view is still intact. Relative performance is still holding its relationship with the yield curve (Chart 13). Historically, Fed tightening has almost always led to bear flattening. We expect the same in this cycle, which should lead to Insurance outperformance. Long Health Care Equipment / Short Materials. This trade generated early returns but has since underperformed as Materials bounced back sharply. Nevertheless, we remain bearish on commodities and EM-related plays, viewing this rise in Materials stocks as more of a technical bounce from oversold valuations (Chart 14). Commodities remain in a secular bear market. On health care, we maintain our structural bullish outlook given aging demographics, increased spending on health care and attractive valuations. Short Retail / Global Broad. We initiated trade in January after the Fed initiated liftoff. Consumer Discretionary stocks collapsed after, and this trade has provided a gain of 2.01%. We maintain this view as the recent hike and 2017 hikes will continue to dampen Retail performance (Chart 15). Additionally, Retail has only declined slightly while other Consumer Discretionary stocks have falling drastically, suggesting downside potential from convergence. Chart 13Flatter Yield Curve Is Bullish Chart 14An Oversold Bounce Chart 15Policy Tightening = Underperformance Global Economy Overview: The macro picture looks fairly healthy, with growth picking up in developed economies and China, though not in most emerging markets. The weak patch from late 2015 through the first half of 2016, with global industrial and profits recessions, appears to be over. The biggest threat to growth now is excessive dollar strength, which would slow U.S. exports and harm emerging markets. U.S.: U.S. growth was surprising on the upside (Chart 16) even before the election. Q2 real GDP growth came in at 3.2% and the Fed's Nowcasting models indicate 2.6-2.7% in Q4. After rogue weak ISMs in August, the manufacturing indicator has recovered to 53.2 and the non-manufacturing ISM to 57.2. However, growth continues to be driven mainly by consumption, with capex as yet showing few signs of recovery. A key question is whether a Trump stimulus will be enough to reignite "animal spirits" and push corporates to invest more. Euro Area: Eurozone growth has also been surprisingly robust. PMIs for manufacturing and services in November came in at 53.7 and 53.8 respectively; the manufacturing PMI has been accelerating all year. This is consistent with the ECB's forecasts for GDP growth of 1.7% for both this year and next. However, risk in the banking system could derail this growth. Credit growth, highly correlated with economic activity, has picked up to 1.8% YOY but could slow if banks turn cautious. Japan: Production data has reacted somewhat to Chinese stimulus, with IP growth positive (Chart 17) for the past three months and the Leading Economic Index inching higher since April. But the strength of the yen until recently and disappointing inflation performance (core CPI -0.4% YOY) have depressed exports and consumer sentiment. The effectiveness of the BoJ's 0% yield cap on 10-year government bonds, which has weakened the yen by 14% in two months, should trigger a mild acceleration of growth in coming quarters. Chart 16U.S. Economy Surprising ##br##On The Upside Chart 17Growth Picks Up In##br## Most DMs And China Emerging Markets: China has continued to see positive effects from its reflation of early 2016, with the manufacturing PMI close to a two-year high. The effects of the stimulus will last a few more months, but the authorities have reined back now and the currency is appreciating against its trade basket. The picture is less bright in other emerging markets, as central banks struggle with weak growth and depreciating currencies. Credit growth is slowing almost everywhere (most notably Turkey and Brazil) which threatens a further slowdown in growth in 2017. Interest rates: Inflation expectations have risen sharply in the U.S. following the election, but less so in the eurozone and Japan. They may rise further - pushing U.S. bond yields close to 3% - if the Trump administration implements a fiscal stimulus anywhere close to that hinted at. This could, in turn, push the Fed to raise rates at least twice more in 2017. The ECB has announced a reduction in its asset purchases starting in April 2017, too, but the Bank of Japan will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening. Chart 18Earnings Bottoming But##br## Valuation Stretched Global Equities Cautiously Optimistic: Global markets have embraced the "hoped for" pro-growth and inflationary policies from the new U.S. administration since Trump's win on November 8. In the latest GAA Monthly Update published on November 30,8 we raised our recommendation for global equities relative to bonds to overweight from neutral on a 6-12 month investment horizon. However, the call was driven more by underweighting bonds than by overweighting equities, given the elevated equity valuations and declining profit margins.(Chart 18) The hoped-for U.S. pro-growth policies would, if well implemented, be positive for earnings growth, but the "perceived" earnings boost has not yet shown up in analysts' earnings revisions (panel 3). In fact, only three sectors (Financials, Technology and Energy) currently have positive earnings revisions, because analysts had already been raising forward earnings estimates since early 2016. According to I/B/E/S data as of November 2016, about 80% of sectors are forecast to have positive 12-month forward earnings growth, while only about 20% have positive 12-month trailing earnings growth (panel 3). Within global equities, we continue to favor developed markets over emerging market on the grounds that most EMs are at an early stage of a multi-year deleveraging.9 We also favor the U.S. over the euro area (see more details on the next page). The Japan overweight (currency hedged) is an overwrite of our quant model: we believe that the BoJ will pursue increasingly unconventional monetary policy measures over the coming 12 months. The quant model (in USD and unhedged) has suggested a large underweight in Japan but has gradually reduced the underweight over the past two months. Our global sector positioning is more pro-cyclical than our more defensively-oriented country allocations. In line with our asset class call, we upgrade Financials to neutral and downgrade Utilities to underweight, and continue to overweight Energy, Technology, Industrials, and Healthcare while underweighting Telecom, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples. Country Allocation: Still Favor U.S. Over Euro Area GAA's portfolio approach is to take risk where it is likely to be best rewarded. Having taken risk at the asset class level (overweight equities vs. bonds), at the global equity sector level with a pro-cyclical tilt, and at the bond class level with credit and inflation tilts, we believe it's appropriate to maintain our more defensive equity tilt at the country level by being market weight in euro area equities on an unhedged USD basis while maintaining a large overweight in the U.S. Chart 19Uninspiring profit Outlook It's true that the euro area PMI has been improving. Relative to the U.S., however, the euro area's cyclical improvement, driven by policy support, has lost momentum. It's hard to envision what would reverse this declining growth momentum, suggesting European earnings growth will remain at a disadvantage to the U.S. (Chart 19, panel 1) It's also true that the underperformance of eurozone equities versus the U.S. has reached an historical extreme in both local and common currency terms, and that euro equities are trading at significant discount to the U.S. But Europe has always traded at a discount, and the current discount is only slightly lower than its historical average. Our work has shown that valuation works well only when it is at extremes, which is not the case currently. Conceptually, a weak euro should boost euro area equity performance at least in local currency terms, yet empirical evidence does not strongly support such a claim: the severe underperformance since 2007 has been accompanied by a 43% drop in the euro versus the USD (Chart 19 panel 2). In fact, in USD terms, the euro area tended to outperform the U.S. when the euro was strong (panel 3), suggesting that currency translation plays a more dominant role in relative performance. Our currency house view is that the euro will depreciate further against the USD, given divergences in monetary and fiscal policy between the two regions. As such, we recommend clients to continue to favor U.S. equities versus the euro area, but not be underweight Europe given that it is technically extremely oversold. Sector Allocation: Upgrade Financials To Neutral Our sector quant model shifted global Financials to overweight in December from underweight, largely driven by the momentum factor. We agree with the direction of the quant model as the interest rate environment has changed (Chart 20, panel 1) and valuation remains very attractive (panels 2), but we are willing to upgrade the sector only to market weight due to our concern on banks in the euro area and emerging markets. Within the neutral stance in the sector, we still prefer U.S. and Japanese Financials to eurozone and emerging market ones. Despite the poor performance of the Financials sector relative to the global benchmark, U.S. and Japanese financials have consistently outperformed eurozone financials, driven by better relative earnings without any valuation expansion (panel 3). U.S. banks have largely repaired their balance sheets since the Great Recession, and the "promised" deregulation by the new U.S. administration will probably help U.S. banks. In the euro area, however, banks, especially in Italy, are still plagued with bad loans (panel 4). We will watch banking stress in the region very closely for signs of contagion (panel 5) The upgrade of financials is mainly financed by downgrading the bond proxy Utilities to underweight from neutral, in line with our asset class view underweighting fixed income. Chart 20Global Financials: Regional Divergence Chart 21Global Equities: No Style Bet Smart Beta Update: No Style Bet In a Special Report on Smart Beta published on July 8 2016,10 we showed that it is very hard to time style shifts and that an equal-weighted composite of the five most enduring factors (size, value, quality, minimum volatility and momentum) outperforms the broad market consistently on a risk-adjusted basis. Year-to-date, the composite has performed in line with the broad market, but over the past three months there have been sharp reversals in the performance of the different factors, with Min Vol, Quality and Momentum sharply underperforming Value and Size (Chart 21 panel 1). We showed that historically the Value/Growth tilt has been coincident with the Cyclical/Defensive sector tilt (panel 3). Panel 2 also demonstrates that the Min Vol strategy's relative performance can also be well explained by the Defensives/Cyclicals sector tilt. Sector composition matters. Compared to Growth, Value is now overweight Financials by 25.6%, Utilities by 13.2%, Energy by 8.3% and Materials by 2.5%, while underweight Tech by 23%, Healthcare by 12.7%, and Consumer Discretionary by 10%. REITs is in pure Growth, while Utilities and Telecom are in pure Value, and Energy has very little representation in Growth. In our global sector allocation, we favor Tech, REITs, Energy, and Healthcare, while underweight Utilities, Consumer Discretionary and Telecoms, and neutral on Financials and Materials. As such, maintaining a neutral stance on Value vs. Growth is consistent with our sector positioning. Government Bonds Maintain slight underweight duration. After 35 years, the secular bull market in government bonds is over. Even with Treasury yields skyrocketing since the Trump victory, the path of least resistance for yields is upward (Chart 22). Yields should grind higher slowly as inflation rises and growth indicators continue to improve. Bullish sentiment has dropped considerably, but there is further downside potential. Additionally, fiscal stimulus from Japan and further rate hikes from the Fed will provide considerable tailwinds. Overweight TIPS vs. Treasuries. Despite still being below the Fed's target, with headline and core CPI readings of 1.6% and 2.2% respectively, U.S. inflation has clearly bottomed for the cycle (Chart 23). This continued rise is a result of cost-push inflation driven by faster wage growth. Trump's increased spending and protectionist trade policies are both inflationary. As real GDP growth should remain around 2% annualized and the labor market continues to tighten, this effect will only intensify. Valuations have become less attractive but very gradual Fed hikes will not be enough to derail the upward momentum in consumer prices. Overweight JGBs. The BoJ has ramped up its commitment to exceeding 2% inflation by expanding its monetary base and locking in 10-year sovereign yields at zero percent. Additionally, the end of the structural decline in interest rates suggests global bonds will perform poorly going forward. During global bond bear markets, low-beta Japanese government debt has typically outperformed (Chart 24). This will likely hold true again as global growth improves and Japanese authorities increase fiscal stimulus while maintaining their cap on bond yields. Chart 22Maintain Slight Underweight Duration Chart 23Inflation Uptrend Intact Chart 24Overweight JGBs Corporate Bonds The BCA Corporate Health Monitor remains deeply in "Deteriorating Health" territory, indicating weakness within corporate balance sheets (Chart 25). Over the last quarter, the rate of deterioration actually slowed, with all six ratios improving slightly. Nevertheless, the trend toward weaker corporate health has been firmly established over the past eleven quarters. This is consistent with the very late stages of past credit cycles. Maintain overweight to Investment Grade debt. In the absence of a recession, spread product will usually outperform. U.S. growth should accelerate in 2017, with consumer confidence being resilient, fiscal spending expected to increase, and the drag from inventories unwinding. Monetary conditions are still accommodative and the potential sell-off from the rate hike should be milder than it was in December 2015 (Chart 26). Additionally, credit has historically outperformed in the early stages of the Fed tightening cycle. However, there are two key risks to our view. The end of the structural decline in interest rates presents a substantial headwind to investment grade performance. Since 1973, median and average returns were slightly negative during months where long-term yields rose. During the blow-off in yields in the late 1970s, corporate debt performed very poorly. However, yields had reached very high levels. Secondly, valuations are unattractive, with OAS spreads at their lowest in about one and a half years (Chart 27). Chart 25Balance Sheets Deteriorating Chart 26Still Accommodative Chart 27Expensive Valuations Commodities Secular Perspective: Bearish We reiterate our negative long-term outlook on the commodity complex on the back of a structural downward shift in global demand led primarily by China's transition to a services-driven economy. With this slack in demand, global excess capacity has sent deflationary impulses across the globe, limiting upside in commodity prices.11 Chart 28OPEC To The Rescue Cyclical Perspective: Neutral A divergent outlook for energy and base metals gives us a neutral view for aggregate commodities over the cyclical horizon (Chart 28). Last month's OPEC deal supports our long-standing argument of increasing cuts in oil supply, which will support energy prices. However, metal markets suffer from excess supply. A stronger U.S. dollar will continue to be a major headwind over the coming months. Energy: OPEC's agreement to cut production by 1.2 mb/d has spurred a rally in the crude oil price, as prospects for tighter market conditions next year become the base case. However, with the likelihood that the dollar will strengthen further in coming months, oil will need more favorable fundamentals to rise substantially in price from here. Base Metals: The U.S. dollar has much greater explanatory power12 than Chinese demand in price formation for base metals. The recent rally in base metals is overdone with metals prices decoupling from the dollar; we expect a correction in the near-term driven by further dollar strength. Metal markets remain oversupplied as seen by rising iron ore and copper inventories. We remain bearish on industrial and base metals. Precious Metals: Gold, after decoupling from forward inflation expectations in H1 2016 - rising while inflation expectations were weak - has converged back in line with the long-term inflation gauge. Our expectation of higher inflation, coupled with rising geopolitical uncertainties, remain the two key positives for the gold price. However, our forecast of U.S. dollar appreciation will limit upside potential for the precious metal. Currencies Key Themes: USD: Much of the post-Trump rally in the dollar can be explained by the sharp rally in U.S. bond yields (Chart 29). We expect more upside in U.S. real rates relative to non-U.S. rates, driven by the U.S.'s narrower output gap and the stronger position of its household sector. As labor market slack continues to lessen and wage pressures rise, the Fed will be careful not to fall behind the curve; this will add upward pressure to the dollar. Chart 29Dollar Continues It's Dominance Euro: Since the euro area continues to have a wider output gap than the U.S., the euro will face additional downward pressure on the back of diverging monetary policy. As the slack diminishes, the ECB will respond appropriately - we believe the euro has less downside versus the dollar than does the yen. Yen: Although the Japanese economy is nearing fully employment, the Abe administration continues to talk about additional stimulus. As inflation expectations struggle to find a firm footing despite the stimulus, the BOJ is explicitly aiming to stay behind the curve. Additionally, with the BOJ pegging the 10-year government bond yield at 0% for the foreseeable future, we expect further downward pressure on the currency. EM: We expect more tumult for this group as rising real rates have been negative for EM assets in this cycle. EM spreads have widened in response to rising DM yields which has led to more restrictive local financial conditions. The recovery in commodity prices has been unable to provide any relief to EM currencies - a clear sign of continued weak fundamentals (rising debt, excess capacity and low productivity). Commodity currencies will face more downside driven by their tight correlation with EM equities (0.82) and with EM spreads. Alternatives Overweight private equity / underweight hedge funds. Global growth is fairly stable and has the potential to surprise on the upside. In the absence of a recession, private equity typically outperforms as the illiquidity premium should provide a considerable boost to returns. Hedge funds, on the other hand, have displayed a negative correlation with global growth. Historically, they have outperformed private equity only during recessions or periods of high credit market stress (Chart 30). Overweight direct real estate / underweight commodity futures. Commercial real estate (CRE) assets are in a "goldilocks" scenario: Growth is sufficient to generate sustainable tenant demand without triggering a new supply cycle. Favor Industrials for its income potential and Retail given resilient consumer spending. Overweight trophy markets, as demand remains robust given multiple macro risks. Commodities have bounced, but remain in a secular bear market caused by a supply glut and exacerbated by a market-share war (Chart 31). Overweight farmland & timberland / underweight structured products. The trajectory of Fed policy, the run-up in equity prices and the weak earnings backdrop have increased the importance of volatility reduction. Favor farmland & timberland. Substantial portfolio diversification benefits, resulting from low correlations with traditional assets, coupled with a positive skew, make these assets highly attractive. As the most bond-like alternative, structured products tend to outperform during recessions, which is not our base case (Chart 32). Chart 30PE: Tied To Real Growth Chart 31Commodities: A Secular Bear Market Chart 32Structured Products Outperform In Recessions Risks To Our View Our main scenario is for stronger growth, higher inflation and an appreciating dollar in 2017, leading to equities outperforming bonds. Where could this go wrong? Growth stagnates. U.S. growth could fail to pick up as expected: the stronger dollar will hurt profits, which might lead to companies cutting back on hiring; higher interest rates could affect the housing market and consumer discretionary spending; companies may fail to increase capex, given their low capacity utilization ratio (Chart 33). In Europe, systemic banking problems could push down credit growth which is closely correlated to economic growth. Emerging markets might see credit events caused by the stronger dollar and weaker commodities prices. Political risks. An unconventional new U.S. President raises uncertainty. How much will Trump emphasize his more market-unfriendly policies, such as tougher immigration control, tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports, and interference in companies' decisions on where to build plants? His more confrontational foreign policy stance risks geopolitical blow-ups. Elections in France, the Netherland and Germany in 2017 could produce populist government. The Policy Uncertainty Index currently is high and this historically has been bad for equities (Chart 34). Chart 33Maybe Companies Won't Increase Capex Chart 34Policy Uncertainty Is High Synchronized global growth. If the growth acceleration were not limited to the U.S. but were to spread, this might mean that the dollar would depreciate, particularly as it is already above fair value (Chart 35). In this environment, given their inverse correlation with the dollar (Chart 36), commodity prices and EM assets might rise, invalidating our underweight positions. Chart 35Dollar Already Above##br## Fair Value Chart 36How Would EM And Commodities Move##br## If USD Weakens? 1 We discuss them in the "What Our Clients Are Asking," section of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook. 2 Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment - the level of unemployment below which inflation tends to rise. 3 Please see "How Will The Strong USD Impact Global Earnings," in the What Our Clients Are Asking section of this Quarterly Portfolio Outlook. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Monthly Portfolio Update: The Meaning of Trump," dated November 30, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency", dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 According to National Institute of Economic Research.com. 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Asset Allocation In A Low-Return World, Part IV: Industry Groups," dated October 25, 2015, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation,"Monthly Portfolio Update," dated November 30, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report,"Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated December 5, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?," dated July 8, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 11,12 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes," dated December 5, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation
Highlights Multipolarity will peak in 2017 - geopolitical risks are spiking; Globalization is giving way to zero-sum mercantilism; U.S.-China relations are the chief risk to global stability; Turkey is the most likely state to get in a shooting war; Position for an inflation comeback; Go long defense, USD/EUR, and U.S. small caps vs. large caps. Feature Before the world grew mad, the Somme was a placid stream of Picardy, flowing gently through a broad and winding valley northwards to the English Channel. It watered a country of simple beauty. A. D. Gristwood, British soldier, later novelist. The twentieth century did not begin on January 1, 1900. Not as far as geopolitics is concerned. It began 100 years ago, on July 1, 1916. That day, 35,000 soldiers of the British Empire, Germany, and France died fighting over a couple of miles of territory in a single day. The 1916 Anglo-French offensive, also known as the Battle of the Somme, ultimately cost the three great European powers over a million and a half men in total casualties, of which 310,862 were killed in action over the four months of fighting. British historian A. J. P. Taylor put it aptly: idealism perished on the Somme. How did that happen? Nineteenth-century geopolitical, economic, and social institutions - carefully nurtured by a century of British hegemony - broke on the banks of the Somme in waves of human slaughter. What does this have to do with asset allocation? Calendars are human constructs devised to keep track of time. But an epoch is a period with a distinctive set of norms, institutions, and rules that order human activity. This "order of things" matters to investors because we take it for granted. It is a set of "Newtonian Laws" we assume will not change, allowing us to extrapolate the historical record into future returns.1 Since inception, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued that the standard assumptions about our epoch no longer apply.2 Social orders are not linear, they are complex systems. And we are at the end of an epoch, one that defined the twentieth century by globalization, the spread of democracy, and American hegemony. Because the system is not linear, its break will cause non-linear outcomes. Since joining BCA's Editorial Team in 2011, we have argued that twentieth-century institutions are undergoing regime shifts. Our most critical themes have been: The rise of global multipolarity;3 The end of Sino-American symbiosis;4 The apex of globalization;5 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics;6 The passing of the emerging markets' "Goldilocks" era.7 Our view is that the world now stands at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The transition is not going to be pretty. Investors must stop talking themselves out of left-tail events by referring to twentieth-century institutions. Yes, the U.S. and China really could go to war in the next five years. No, their trade relationship will not prevent it. Was the slaughter at the Somme prevented by the U.K.-German economic relationship? In fact, our own strategy service may no longer make sense in the new epoch. "Geopolitics" is not some add-on to investor's asset-allocation process. It is as much a part of that process as are valuations, momentum, bottom-up analysis, and macroeconomics. To modify the infamous Milton Friedman quip, "We are all geopolitical strategists now." Five Decade Themes: We begin this Strategic Outlook by updating our old decade themes and introducing a few new ones. These will inform our strategic views over the next half-decade. Below, we also explain how they will impact investors in 2017. From Multipolarity To ... Making America Great Again Our central theme of global multipolarity will reach its dangerous apex in 2017. Multipolarity is the idea that the world has two or more "poles" of power - great nations - that pursue their interests independently. It heightens the risk of conflict. Since we identified this trend in 2012, the number of global conflicts has risen from 10 to 21, confirming our expectations (Chart 1). Political science theory is clear: a world without geopolitical leadership produces hegemonic instability. America's "hard power," declining in relative terms, created a vacuum that was filled by regional powers looking to pursue their own spheres of influence. Chart 1Frequency Of Geopolitical Conflicts Increases Under Multipolarity The investment implications of a multipolar world? The higher frequency of geopolitical crises has provided a tailwind to safe-haven assets such as U.S. Treasurys.8 Ironically, the relative decline of U.S. power is positive for U.S. assets.9 Although its geopolitical power has been in relative decline since 1990, the U.S. bond market has become more, not less, appealing over the same timeframe (Chart 2) Counterintuitively, it was American hegemony - i.e. global unipolarity after the Soviet collapse - that made the rise of China and other emerging markets possible. This created the conditions for globalization to flourish and for investors to leave the shores of developed markets in search of yield. It is the stated objective of President-elect Donald Trump, and a trend initiated under President Barack Obama, to reduce the United States' hegemonic responsibilities. As the U.S. withdraws, it leaves regional instability and geopolitical disequilibria in its wake, enhancing the value-proposition of holding on to low-beta American assets. We are now coming to the critical moment in this process, with neo-isolationist Trump doubling down on President Obama's aloof foreign policy. In 2017, therefore, multipolarity will reach its apex, leading several regional powers - from China to Turkey - to overextend themselves as they challenge the status quo. Chaos will ensue. (See below for more!) The inward shift in American policy will sow the seeds for the eventual reversal of multipolarity. America has always profited from geopolitical chaos. It benefits from being surrounded by two massive oceans, Canada, and the Sonora-Chihuahuan deserts. Following both the First and Second World Wars, the U.S.'s relative geopolitical power skyrocketed (Chart 3). Chart 2America Is A Safe-Haven,##br## Despite (Because Of?) Relative Decline Chart 3America Is Chaos-Proof Over the next 12-24 months, we expect the chief investment implications of multipolarity - volatility, tailwind to safe-haven assets, emerging-market underperformance, and de-globalization - to continue to bear fruit. However, as the U.S. comes to terms with multipolarity and withdraws support for critical twentieth-century institutions, it will create conditions that will ultimately reverse its relative decline and lead to a more unipolar tendency (or possibly bipolar, with China). Therefore, Donald Trump's curious mix of isolationism, anti-trade rhetoric, and domestic populism may, in the end, Make America Great Again. But not for the reasons he has promised-- not because the U.S. will outperform the rest of the world in an absolute sense. Rather, America will become great again in a relative sense, as the rest of the world drifts towards a much scarier, darker place without American hegemony. Bottom Line: For long-term investors, the apex of multipolarity means that investing in China and broader EM is generally a mistake. Europe and Japan make sense in the interim due to overstated political risks, relatively easy monetary policy, and valuations, but even there risks will mount due to their high-beta qualities. The U.S. will own the twenty-first century. From Globalization To ... Mercantilism "The industrial glory of England is departing, and England does not know it. There are spasmodic outcries against foreign competition, but the impression they leave is fleeting and vague ... German manufacturers ... are undeniably superiour to those produced by British houses. It is very dangerous for men to ignore facts that they may the better vaunt their theories ... This is poor patriotism." Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (1896) The seventy years of British hegemony that followed the 1815 Treaty of Paris ending the Napoleonic Wars were marked by an unprecedented level of global stability. Britain's cajoled enemies and budding rivals swallowed their wounded pride and geopolitical appetites and took advantage of the peace to focus inwards, industrialize, and eventually catch up to the U.K.'s economy. Britain, by providing expensive global public goods - security of sea lanes, off-shore balancing,10 a reserve currency, and financial capital - resolved the global collective-action dilemma and ushered in an era of dramatic economic globalization. Sound familiar? It should. As Chart 4 shows, we are at the conclusion of a similar period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. There are other forces at work, such as pernicious wage deflation that has soured the West's middle class on free trade and immigration. But the main threat to globalization is at heart geopolitical. The breakdown of twentieth-century institutions, norms, and rules will encourage regional powers to set up their own spheres of influence and to see the global economy as a zero-sum game instead of a cooperative one.11 Chart 4Multipolarity And De-Globalization Go Hand-In-Hand At the heart of this geopolitical process is the end of Sino-American symbiosis. We posited in February that Charts 5 and 6 are geopolitically unsustainable.12 China cannot keep capturing an ever-increasing global market share for exports while exporting deflation; particularly now that its exports are rising in complexity and encroaching on the markets of developed economies (Chart 7). China's economic policy might have been acceptable in an era of robust global growth and American geopolitical confidence, but we live in a world that is, for the time being, devoid of both. Chart 5China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed... Chart 6And Now China ##br##Is Exporting Deflation China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart 8). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Exports make up only 19% of China's GDP and 12% of U.S. GDP. The two leading economies are far less leveraged to globalization than the conventional wisdom would have it. Chart 7China's Steady Climb Up ##br##The Value Ladder Continues Chart 8Sino-American ##br##Symbiosis Is Over Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth, moving the economy up the value chain. Or they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers, as they have been doing - to defend their domestic market from competition.13 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West and protectionism is already on the march (Chart 9). Chart 9Protectionism On The March The problem with this likely choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into the international economic order (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle-class, which makes China potentially the world's second-largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism - particularly with regard to Chinese imports. Mercantilism was a long-dominant economic theory, in Europe and elsewhere, that perceived global trade to be a zero-sum game and economic policy to be an extension of the geopolitical "Great Game" between major powers. As such, net export growth was the only way to prosperity and spheres of influence were jealously guarded via trade barriers and gunboat diplomacy. What should investors do if mercantilism is back? In a recent joint report with the BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, we argued that investors should pursue three broad strategies: Buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps) across equity markets as the former are almost universally domestically focused; Favor closed economies levered on domestic consumption, both within DM and EM universes; Stay long global defense stocks; mercantilism will lead to more geopolitical risk (Chart 10). Chart 10Defense Stocks Are A No-Brainer Investors should also expect a more inflationary environment over the next decade. De-globalization will mean marginally less trade, less migration, and less free movement of capital across borders. These are all inflationary. Bottom Line: Mercantilism is back. Sino-American tensions and peak multipolarity will impair coordination. It will harden the zero-sum game that erodes globalization and deepens geopolitical tensions between the world's two largest economies.14 One way to play this theme is to go long domestic sectors and domestically-oriented economies relative to export sectors and globally-exposed economies. The real risk of mercantilism is that it is bedfellows with nationalism and jingoism. We began this section with a quote from an 1896 pamphlet titled "Made in Germany." In it, British writer E.E. Williams argued that the U.K. should abandon free trade policies due to industrial competition from Germany. Twenty years later, 350,000 men died in the inferno of the Somme. From Legal To ... Charismatic Authority Legal authority, the bedrock of modern democracy, is a critical pillar of civilization that investors take for granted. The concept was defined in 1922 by German sociologist Max Weber. Weber's seminal essay, "The Three Types of Legitimate Rule," argues that legal-rational authority flows from the institutions and laws that define it, not the individuals holding the office.15 This form of authority is investor-friendly because it reduces uncertainty. Investors can predict the behavior of policymakers and business leaders by learning the laws that govern their behavior. Developed markets are almost universally made up of countries with such norms of "good governance." Investors can largely ignore day-to-day politics in these systems, other than the occasional policy shift or regulatory push that affects sector performance. Weber's original essay outlined three forms of authority, however. The other two were "traditional" and "charismatic."16 Today we are witnessing the revival of charismatic authority, which is derived from the extraordinary characteristics of an individual. From Russia and the U.S. to Turkey, Hungary, the Philippines, and soon perhaps Italy, politicians are winning elections on the back of their messianic qualities. The reason for the decline of legal-rational authority is threefold: Elites that manage governing institutions have been discredited by the 2008 Great Recession and subsequent low-growth recovery. Discontent with governing institutions is widespread in the developed world (Chart 11). Elite corruption is on the rise. Francis Fukuyama, perhaps America's greatest political theorist, argues that American political institutions have devolved into a "system of legalized gift exchange, in which politicians respond to organized interest groups that are collectively unrepresentative of the public as a whole."17 Political gridlock across developed and emerging markets has forced legal-rational policymakers to perform like charismatic ones. European policymakers have broken laws throughout the euro-area crisis, with the intention of keeping the currency union alive. President Obama has issued numerous executive orders due to congressional gridlock. While the numbers of executive orders have declined under Obama, their economic significance has increased (Chart 12). Each time these policymakers reached around established rules and institutions in the name of contingencies and crises, they opened the door wider for future charismatic leaders to eschew the institutions entirely. Chart 11As Institutional Trust Declines, ##br##Voters Turn To Charismatic Leaders Chart 12Obama ##br##The Regulator Furthermore, a generational shift is underway. Millennials do not understand the value of legal-rational institutions and are beginning to doubt the benefits of democracy itself (Chart 13). The trend appears to be the most pronounced in the U.S. and U.K., perhaps because neither experienced the disastrous effects of populism and extremism of the 1930s. In fact, millennials in China appear to view democracy as more essential to the "good life" than their Anglo-Saxon peers. Chart 13Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Charismatic leaders can certainly outperform expectations. Donald Trump may end up being FDR. The problem for investors is that it is much more difficult to predict the behavior of a charismatic authority than a legal-rational one.18 For example, President-elect Trump has said that he will intervene in the U.S. economy throughout his four-year term, as he did with Carrier in Indiana. Whether these deals are good or bad, in a normative sense, is irrelevant. The point is that bottom-up investment analysis becomes useless when analysts must consider Trump's tweets, as well as company fundamentals, in their earnings projections! We suspect that the revival of charismatic leadership - and the danger that it might succeed in upcoming European elections - at least partly explains the record high levels of global policy uncertainty (Chart 14). Markets do not seem to have priced in the danger fully yet. Global bond spreads are particularely muted despite the high levels of uncertainty. This is unsustainable. Chart 14Are Assets Fully Pricing In Global Uncertainty? Bottom Line: The twenty-first century is witnessing the return of charismatic authority and erosion of legal-rational authority. This should be synonymous with uncertainty and market volatility over the next decade. In 2017, expect a rise in EuroStoxx volatility. From Laissez-Faire To ... Dirigisme The two economic pillars of the late twentieth century have been globalization and laissez-faire capitalism, or neo-liberalism. The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the communist challenge, anointing the U.S.-led "Washington Consensus" as the global "law of the land." The tenets of this epoch are free trade, fiscal discipline, low tax burden, and withdrawal of the state from the free market. Not all countries approached the new "order of things" with equal zeal, but most of them at least rhetorically committed themselves to asymptotically approaching the American ideal. Chart 15Debt Replaced Wages##br## In Laissez-Faire Economies The 2008 Great Recession put an end to the bull market in neo-liberal ideology. The main culprit has been the low-growth recovery, but that is not the full story. Tepid growth would have been digested without a political crisis had it not followed decades of stagnating wages. With no wage growth, households in the most laissez-faire economies of the West gorged themselves on debt (Chart 15) to keep up with rising cost of housing, education, healthcare, and childcare -- all staples of a middle-class lifestyle. As such, the low-growth context after 2008 has combined with a deflationary environment to produce the most pernicious of economic conditions: debt-deflation, which Irving Fisher warned of in 1933.19 It is unsurprising that globalization became the target of middle-class angst in this context. Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history: it exerted a strong deflationary force on wages (Chart 16). While it certainly lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in developing nations, globalization undermined those low-income and middle-class workers in the developed world whose jobs were most easily exported. World Bank economist Branko Milanovic's infamous "elephant trunk" shows the stagnation of real incomes since 1988 for the 75-95 percentile of the global income distribution - essentially the West's middle class (Chart 17).20 It is this section of the elephant trunk that increasingly supports populism and anti-globalization policies, while eschewing laissez faire liberalism. In our April report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," we posited that the pivot away from laissez-faire capitalism would be most pronounced in the economies of its greatest adherents, the U.S. and U.K. We warned that Brexit and the candidacy of Donald Trump should be taken seriously, while the populist movements in Europe would surprise to the downside. Why the gap between Europe and the U.S. and U.K.? Because Europe's cumbersome, expensive, inefficient, and onerous social-welfare state finally came through when it mattered: it mitigated the pernicious effects of globalization and redistributed enough of the gains to temper populist angst. Chart 16Globalization: A Deflationary Shock Chart 17Globalization: No Friend To DM Middle Class This view was prescient in 2016. The U.K. voted to leave the EU, Trump triumphed, while European populists stumbled in both the Spanish and Austrian elections. The Anglo-Saxon median voter has essentially moved to the left of the economic spectrum (Diagram 1).21 The Median Voter Theorem holds that policymakers will follow the shift to the left in order to capture as many voters as possible under the proverbial curve. In other words, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are not political price-makers but price-takers. Diagram 1The Median Voter Is Moving To The Left In The U.S. And U.K. How does laissez-faire capitalism end? In socialism or communism? No, the institutions that underpin capitalism in the West - private property, rule of law, representative government, and enforcement of contracts - remain strong. Instead, we expect to see more dirigisme, a form of capitalism where the state adopts a "directing" rather than merely regulatory role. In the U.S., Donald Trump unabashedly campaigned on dirigisme. We do not expand on the investment implications of American dirigisme in this report (we encourage clients to read our post-election treatment of Trump's domestic politics).22 But investors can clearly see the writing on the wall: a late-cycle fiscal stimulus will be positive for economic growth in the short term, but most likely more positive for inflation in the long term. Donald Trump's policies therefore are a risk to bonds, positive for equities (in the near term), and potentially negative for both in the long term if stagflation results from late-cycle stimulus. What about Europe? Is it not already quite dirigiste? It is! But in Europe, we see a marginal change towards the right, not the left. In Spain, the supply-side reforms of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy will remain in place, as he won a second term this year. In France, right-wing reformer - and self-professed "Thatcherite" - François Fillon is likely to emerge victorious in the April-May presidential election. And in Germany, the status-quo Grand Coalition will likely prevail. Only in Italy are there risks, but even there we expect financial markets to force the country - kicking and screaming - down the path of reforms. Bottom Line: In 2017, the market will be shocked to find itself face-to-face with a marginally more laissez-faire Europe and a marginally more dirigiste America and Britain. Investors should overweight European assets in a global portfolio given valuations, relative monetary policy (which will remain accommodative in Europe), a weak euro, and economic fundamentals (Chart 18), and upcoming political surprises. For clients with low tolerance of risk and volatility, a better entry point may exist following the French presidential elections in the spring. From Bias To ... Conspiracies As with the printing press, the radio, film, and television before it, the Internet has created a super-cyclical boom in the supply and dissemination of information. The result of the sudden surge is that quality and accountability are declining. The mainstream media has dubbed this the "fake news" phenomenon, no doubt to differentiate the conspiracy theories coursing through Facebook and Twitter from the "real news" of CNN and MSNBC. The reality is that mainstream media has fallen far short of its own vaunted journalistic standards (Chart 19). Chart 18Europe's Economy Is Holding Up Chart 19 We are not interested in this debate, nor are we buying the media narrative that "fake news" delivered Trump the presidency. Instead, we are focused on how geopolitical and political information is disseminated to voters, investors, and ultimately priced by the market. We fear that markets will struggle to price information correctly due to three factors: Low barriers to entry: The Internet makes publishing easy. Information entrepreneurs - i.e. hack writers - and non-traditional publications ("rags") are proliferating. The result is greater output but a decrease in quality control. For example, Facebook is now the second most trusted source of news for Americans (Chart 20). Cost-cutting: The boom in supply has squeezed the media industry's finances. Newspapers have died in droves; news websites and social-media giants have mushroomed (Chart 21). News companies are pulling back on things like investigative reporting, editorial oversight, and foreign correspondent desks. Foreign meddling: In this context, governments have gained a new advantage because they can bring superior financial resources and command-and-control to an industry that is chaotic and cash-strapped. Russian news outlets like RT and Sputnik have mastered this game - attracting "clicks" around the world from users who are not aware they are reading Russian propaganda. China has also raised its media profile through Western-accessible propaganda like the Global Times, but more importantly it has grown more aggressive at monitoring, censoring, and manipulating foreign and domestic media. Chart 20Facebook Is The New Cronkite? Chart 21The Internet Has Killed Journalism The above points would be disruptive enough alone. But we know that technology is not the root cause of today's disruptions. Income inequality, the plight of the middle class, elite corruption, unchecked migration, and misguided foreign policy have combined to create a toxic mix of distrust and angst. In the West, the decline of the middle class has produced a lack of socio-political consensus that is fueling demand for media of a kind that traditional outlets can no longer satisfy. Media producers are scrambling to meet this demand while struggling with intense competition from all the new entrants and new platforms. What is missing is investment in downstream refining and processing to convert the oversupply of crude information into valuable product for voters and investors.23 Otherwise, the public loses access to "transparent" or baseline information. Obviously the baseline was never perfect. Both the Vietnam and Iraq wars began as gross impositions on the public's credulity: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But there was a shared reference point across society. The difference today, as we see it, is that mass opinion will swing even more wildly during a crisis as a result of the poor quality of information that spreads online and mobilizes social networks more rapidly than ever before. We could have "flash mobs" in the voting booth - or on the steps of the Supreme Court - just like "flash crashes" in financial markets, i.e. mass movements borne of passing misconceptions rather than persistent misrule. Election results are more likely to strain the limits of the margin of error, while anti-establishment candidates are more likely to remain viable despite dubious platforms. What does this mean for investors? Fundamental analysis of a country's political and geopolitical risk is now an essential tool in the investor toolkit. If investors rely on the media, and the market prices what the media reports, then the same investors will continue to get blindsided by misleading probabilities, as with Brexit and Trump (Chart 22). While we did not predict these final outcomes, we consistently advised clients, for months in advance, that the market probabilities were too low and serious hedging was necessary. Those who heeded our advice cheered their returns, even as some lamented the electoral returns. Chart 22Get Used To Tail-Risk Events Bottom Line: Keep reading BCA's Geopolitical Strategy! Final Thoughts On The Next Decade The nineteenth century ended in the human carnage that was the Battle of the Somme. The First World War ushered in social, economic, political, geopolitical, demographic, and technological changes that drove the evolution of twentieth-century institutions, rules, and norms. It created the "order of things" that we all take for granted today. The coming decade will be the dawn of the new geopolitical century. We can begin to discern the ordering of this new epoch. It will see peak multipolarity lead to global conflict and disequilibrium, with globalization and laissez-faire economic consensus giving way to mercantilism and dirigisme. Investors will see the benevolent deflationary impulse of globalization evolve into state intervention in the domestic economy and the return of inflation. Globally oriented economies and sectors will underperform domestic ones. Developed markets will continue to outperform emerging markets, particularly as populism spreads to developing economies that fail to meet expectations of their rising middle classes. Over the next ten years, these changes will leave the U.S. as the most powerful country in the world. China and wider EM will struggle to adapt to a less globalized world, while Europe and Japan will focus inward. The U.S. is essentially a low-beta Great Power: its economy, markets, demographics, natural resources, and security are the least exposed to the vagaries of the rest of the world. As such, when the rest of the world descends into chaos, the U.S. will hide behind its Oceans, and Canada, and the deserts of Mexico, and flourish. Five Themes For 2017: Our decade themes inform our view of cyclical geopolitical events and crises, such as elections and geopolitical tensions. As such, they form our "net assessment" of the world and provide a prism through which we refract geopolitical events. Below we address five geopolitical themes that we expect to drive the news flow, and thus the markets, in 2017. Some themes are Red Herrings (overstated risks) and thus present investment opportunities, others are Black Swans (understated risks) and are therefore genuine risks. Europe In 2017: A Trophy Red Herring? Europe's electoral calendar is ominously packed (Table 1). Four of the euro area's five largest economies are likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. Table 1 Europe In 2017 Will Be A Headline Risk We expect market volatility to be elevated throughout the year due to the busy calendar. In this context, we advise readers to follow our colleague Dhaval Joshi at BCA's European Investment Strategy. Dhaval recommends that BCA clients combine every €1 of equity exposure with 40 cents of exposure to VIX term-structure, which means going long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. The logic is that the term structure will invert sharply if risks spike.24 While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As we have posited since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration.25 Crises driven by Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are not dealt with more effectively or easily by nation states acting on their own. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro (Chart 23) or the EU (Chart 24). In our July report called "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" we posited that the euro area will likely persevere over at least the next five years.26 Chart 23Support For The Euro Remains Stable Chart 24Few Europeans Want Out Of The EU Take the Spanish and Austrian elections in 2016. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite Austria's elevated level of Euroskepticism (Chart 24), its central role in the migration crisis, and the almost comically unenthusiastic campaign of the out-of-touch Van der Bellen. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. Next year, we expect more of the same in three crucial elections: The Netherlands: The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) will likely perform better than it did in the last election, perhaps even doubling its 15% result in 2012. However, it has no chance of forming a government, given that all the other parties contesting the election are centrist and opposed to its Euroskeptic agenda (Chart 25). Furthermore, support for the euro remains at a very high level in the country (Chart 26). This is a reality that the PVV will have to confront if it wants to rule the Netherlands. Chart 25No Government For Dutch Euroskeptics Chart 26The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair France: Our high conviction view is that Marine Le Pen, leader of the Euroskeptic National Front (FN), will be defeated in the second round of the presidential election.27 Despite three major terrorist attacks in the country, unchecked migration crisis, and tepid economic growth, Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013 (Chart 27). She continues to poll poorly against her most likely opponents in the second round, François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron (Chart 28). Investors who doubt the polls should consider the FN's poor performance in the December 2015 regional elections, a critical case study for Le Pen's viability in 2017.28 Chart 27Le Pen's Polling: ##br##Head And Shoulder Formation? Chart 28Le Pen Will Not Be##br## Next French President Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel's popularity is holding up (Chart 29), the migration crisis has abated (Chart 30), and there remains a lot of daylight between the German establishment and populist parties (Chart 31). The anti-establishment Alternative für Deutschland will enter parliament, but remain isolated. Chart 29Merkel's Approval Rating Has Stabilized Chart 30Migration Crisis Is Abating Chart 31There Is A Lot Of Daylight... The real risk in 2017 remains Italy. The country has failed to enact any structural reforms, being a laggard behind the reform poster-child Spain (Chart 32). Meanwhile, support for the euro remains in the high 50s, which is low compared to the euro-area average (Chart 33). Polls show that if elections were held today, the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory (Chart 34). However, it is not clear what electoral laws would apply to the contest. The reformed electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies remains under review by the Constitutional Court until at least February. This will make all the difference between further gridlock and a viable government. Chart 32Italy Is Europe's Chart 33Italy Lags Peers On Euro Support Chart 34Italy's Next Election Is Too Close To Call Investors should consider three factors when thinking about Italy in 2017: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum.29 The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential Itexit referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voter choices. Benefits of the EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as they allow the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions.30 Sans Europe, the Mezzogiorno (Southern Italy) is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether the rest of Italy's euro-area peers will allow the country to remain mired in its unsustainable status quo. We think the answer is yes. First, Italy is too big to fail given the size of its economy and sovereign debt market. Second, how unsustainable is the Italian status quo? OECD projections for Italy's debt-to-GDP ratio are not ominous. Chart 35 shows four scenarios, the most likely one charting Italy's debt-to-GDP rise from 133% today to about 150% by 2060. Italy's GDP growth would essentially approximate 0%, but its impressive budget discipline would ensure that its debt load would only rise marginally (Chart 36). Chart 35So What If Italy's Debt-To-GDP Ends Up At 170%? Chart 36Italy Has Learned To Live With Its Debt This may seem like a dire prospect for Italy, but it ensures that the ECB has to maintain its accommodative stance in Europe even as the Fed continues its tightening cycle, a boon for euro-area equities as a whole. In other words, Italy's predicament would be unsustainable if the country were on its own. Its "sick man" status would be terminal if left to its own devices. But as a patient in the euro-area hospital, it can survive. And what happens to the euro area beyond our five-year forecasting horizon? We are not sure. Defeat of anti-establishment forces in 2017 will give centrist policymakers another electoral cycle to resolve the currency union's built-in flaws. If the Germans do not budge on greater fiscal integration over the next half-decade, then the future of the currency union will become murkier. Bottom Line: Remain long the nearest-month VIX futures and equally short the subsequent month's contract. We have held this position since September 14 and it has returned -0.84%. The advantage of this strategy is that it is a near-perfect hedge when risk assets sell off, but pays a low price for insurance. Investors with high risk tolerance who can stomach some volatility should take the plunge and overweight euro-area equities in a global equity portfolio. Solid global growth prospects, accommodative monetary policy, euro weakness, and valuations augur a solid year for euro-area equities. Politics will be a red herring as euro-area stocks climb the proverbial wall of worry in 2017. U.S.-Russia Détente: A Genuine Investment Opportunity Trump's election is good news for Russia. Over the past 16 years, Russia has methodically attempted to collect the pieces from the Soviet collapse. Putin sought to defend the Russian sphere of influence from outside powers (Ukraine and Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia). Putin also needed to rally popular support at various times by distracting the public. We view Ukraine and Syria through this prism. Lastly, Russia acted aggressively because it needed to reassure its allies that it would stand up for them.31 And yet the U.S. can live with a "strong" Russia. It can make a deal if the Trump administration recognizes some core interests (e.g. Crimea) and calls off the promotion of democracy in Russia's sphere, which Putin considers an attempt to undermine his rule. As we argued during the Ukraine invasion, it is the U.S., not Russia, which poses the greatest risk of destabilization.32 The U.S. lacks constraints in this theater. It can be aggressive towards Russia and face zero consequences: it has no economic relationship with Russia and does not stand directly in the way of any Russian reprisals, unlike Europe. That is why we think Trump and Putin will reset relations. Trump's team may be comfortable with Russia having a sphere of influence, unlike the Obama administration, which explicitly rejected this idea. The U.S. could even pledge not to expand NATO further, given that it has already expanded as far as it can feasibly and credibly go. Note, however, that a Russo-American truce may not last long. George W. Bush famously "looked into Putin's eyes and ... saw his soul," but relations soured nonetheless. Obama went further with his "Russian reset," removing European missile defense plans from Poland and the Czech Republic. These are avowed NATO allies, and this occurred merely one year after Russian troops marched on Georgia. And yet Moscow and Washington ended up rattling sabers and meddling in each other's internal affairs anyway. Chart 37Thaw In Russian-West##br## Cold War Is Bullish Europe Ultimately, U.S. resets fail because Russia is in structural decline and attempting to hold onto a very large sphere of influence whose citizens are not entirely willing participants.33 Because Moscow must often use blunt force to prevent the revolt of its vassal states (e.g. Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014), it periodically revives tensions with the West. Unless Russia strengthens significantly in the next few years, which we do not expect, then the cycle of tensions will continue. On the horizon may be Ukraine-like incidents in neighboring Belarus and Kazakhstan, both key components of the Russian sphere of influence. Bottom Line: Russia will get a reprieve from U.S. pressure. While we expect Europe to extend sanctions through 2017, a rapprochement with Washington will ultimately thaw relations between Europe and Russia by the end of that year. Europe will benefit from resuming business as usual. It will face less of a risk of Russian provocations via the Middle East and cybersecurity. The ebbing of the Russian geopolitical risk premium will have a positive effect on Europe, given its close correlation with European risk assets since the crisis in Ukraine (Chart 37). Investors who want exposure to Russia may consider overweighing Russian equities to Malaysian. BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has initiated this position for a 55.6% gain since March 2016 and our EM strategists believe there is more room to run for this trade. We recommend that investors simply go long Russia relative to the broad basket of EM equities. The rally in oil prices, easing of the geopolitical risk premium, and hints of pro-market reforms from the Kremlin will buoy Russian equities further in 2017. Middle East: ISIS Defeat Is A Black Swan In February 2016, we made two bold predictions about the Middle East: Iran-Saudi tensions had peaked;34 The defeat of ISIS would entice Turkey to intervene militarily in both Iraq and Syria.35 The first prediction was based on a simple maxim: sustained geopolitical conflict requires resources and thus Saudi military expenditures are unsustainable when a barrel of oil costs less than $100. Saudi Arabia overtook Russia in 2015 as the globe's third-largest defense spender (Chart 38)! Chart 38Saudi Arabia: Lock And Load The mini-détente between Iran and Saudi Arabia concluded in 2016 with the announced OPEC production cut and freeze. While we continue to see the OPEC deal as more of a recognition of the status quo than an actual cut (because OPEC production has most likely reached its limits), nevertheless it is significant as it will slightly hasten the pace of oil-market rebalancing. On the margin, the OPEC deal is therefore bullish for oil prices. Our second prediction, that ISIS is more of a risk to the region in defeat than in glory, was highly controversial. However, it has since become consensus, with several Western intelligence agencies essentially making the same claim. But while our peers in the intelligence community have focused on the risk posed by returning militants to Europe and elsewhere, our focus remains on the Middle East. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in conflicts in Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The reason for this concern is that the defeat of the Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. We are particularly concerned about three potential dynamics: Direct intervention in Syria and Iraq: The Turkish military entered Syria in August, launching operation "Euphrates Shield." Turkey also reinforced a small military base in Bashiqa, Iraq, only 15 kilometers north of Mosul. Both operations were ostensibly undertaken against the Islamic State, but the real intention is to limit the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds. As Map 1 illustrates, Kurds have expanded their territorial control in both countries. Map 1Kurdish Gains In Syria & Iraq Conflict with Russia and Iran: President Recep Erdogan has stated that Turkey's objective in Syria is to remove President Bashar al-Assad from power.36 Yet Russia and Iran are both involved militarily in the country - the latter with regular ground troops - to keep Assad in power. Russia and Turkey did manage to cool tensions recently. Yet the Turkish ground incursion into Syria increases the probability that tensions will re-emerge. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Erdogan has cast himself as a defender of Sunni Arabs and has suggested that Turkey still has a territorial claim to northern Iraq. This stance would put Ankara in direct confrontation with the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, allied with Iran. Turkey-NATO/EU tensions: Tensions have increased between Turkey and the EU over the migration deal they signed in March 2016. Turkey claims that the deal has stemmed the flow of migrants to Europe, which is dubious given that the flow abated well before the deal was struck. Since then, Turkey has threatened to open the spigot and let millions of Syrian refugees into Europe. This is likely a bluff as Turkey depends on European tourists, import demand, and FDI for hard currency (Chart 39). If Erdogan acted on his threat and unleashed Syrian refugees into Europe, the EU could abrogate the 1995 EU-Turkey customs union agreement and impose economic sanctions. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a "shooting war" that could impact global investors in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. The broader point is that the redrawing of the Middle East map is not yet complete. As the Islamic State is defeated, the Sunni population of Iraq and Syria will remain at risk of Shia domination. As such, countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia could be drawn into renewed proxy conflicts to prevent complete marginalization of the Sunni population. While tensions between Turkey, Russia, and Iran will not spill over into oil-producing regions of the Middle East, they may cloud Iraq's future. Since 2010, Iraq has increased oil production by 1.6 million barrels per day. This is about half of the U.S. shale production increase over the same time frame. As such, Iraq's production "surprise" has been a major contributor to the 2014-2015 oil-supply glut. However, Iraq needs a steady inflow of FDI in order to boost production further (Chart 40). Proxy warfare between Turkey, Russia, and Iran - all major conventional military powers - on its territory will go a long way to sour potential investors interested in Iraqi production. Chart 39Turkey Is Heavily Dependent On The EU Chart 40Iraq Is The Big, And Cheap, Hope This is a real problem for global oil supply. The International Energy Agency sees Iraq as a critical source of future global oil production. Chart 41 shows that Iraq is expected to contribute the second-largest increase in oil production by 2020. And given Iraq's low breakeven production cost, it may be the last piece of real estate - along with Iran - where the world can get a brand-new barrel of oil for under $13. In addition to the risk of expanding Turkish involvement in the region, investors will also have to deal with the headline risk of a hawkish U.S. administration pursuing diplomatic brinkmanship against Iran. We do not expect the Trump administration to abrogate the Iran nuclear deal due to several constraints. First, American allies will not go along with new sanctions. Second, Trump's focus is squarely on China. Third, the U.S. does not have alternatives to diplomacy, since bombing Iran would be an exceedingly complex operation that would bog down American forces in the Middle East. When we put all the risks together, a geopolitical risk premium will likely seep into oil markets in 2017. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy argues that the physical oil market is already balanced (Chart 42) and that the OPEC deal will help draw down bloated inventories in 2017. This means that global oil spare capacity will be very low next year, with essentially no margin of safety in case of a major supply loss. Given the political risks of major oil producers like Nigeria and Venezuela, this is a precarious situation for the oil markets. Chart 41Iraq Really Matters For Global Oil Production Chart 42Oil Supply Glut Is Gone In 2017 Bottom Line: Given our geopolitical view of risks in the Middle East, balanced oil markets, lack of global spare capacity, the OPEC production cut, and ongoing capex reductions, we recommend clients to follow BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view of expecting widening backwardation in the new year.37 U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars President-elect Trump has called into question the U.S.'s adherence to the "One China policy," which holds that "there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China" and that the U.S. recognizes only the People's Republic of China as the legitimate Chinese government. There is widespread alarm about Trump's willingness to use this policy, the very premise of U.S.-China relations since 1978, as a negotiating tool. And indeed, Sino-U.S. relations are very alarming, as we have warned our readers since 2012.38 Trump is a dramatic new agent reinforcing this trend. Trump's suggestion that the policy could be discarded - and his break with convention in speaking to the Taiwanese president - are very deliberate. Observe that in the same diplomatic document that establishes the One China policy, the United States and China also agreed that "neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or in any other region." Trump is initiating a change in U.S. policy by which the U.S. accuses China of seeking hegemony in Asia, a violation of the foundation of their relationship. The U.S. is not seeking unilaterally to cancel the One China policy, but asking China to give new and durable assurances that it does not seek hegemony and will play by international rules. Otherwise, the U.S. is saying, the entire relationship will have to be revisited and nothing (not even Taiwan) will be off limits. The assurances that China is expected to give relate not only to trade, but also, as Trump signaled, to the South China Sea and North Korea. Therefore we are entering a new era in U.S-China relations. China Is Toast Asia Pacific is a region of frozen conflicts. Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty. Nor did China and Taiwan. Nor did the Koreas. Why have these conflicts lain dormant over the past seventy years? Need we ask? Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have seen their GDP per capita rise 14 times since 1950. China has seen its own rise 21 times (Chart 43). Since the wars in Vietnam over forty years ago, no manner of conflict, terrorism, or geopolitical crisis has fundamentally disrupted this manifestly beneficial status quo. As a result, Asia has been a region synonymous with economics - not geopolitics. It developed this reputation because its various large economies all followed Japan's path of dirigisme: export-oriented, state-backed, investment-led capitalism. This era of stability is over. The region has become the chief source of geopolitical risk and potential "Black Swan" events.39 The reason is deteriorating U.S.-China relations and the decline in China's integration with other economies. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were foundational: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 44).40 For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its aegis. Chart 43The Twentieth Century Was Kind To East Asia Chart 44Asia Sells, America Rules It is well known, however, that Japan's economic model led it smack into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s over its suppressed currency and giant trade surpluses. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result was ultimately financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away (Chart 45). Astute investors have always suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it denies the U.S. access to its vast consumer market. Today there are signs that the time for confrontation is upon us: Since the Great Recession, U.S. household debt and Chinese exports have declined as a share of GDP, falling harder in the latter than the former, in a sign of shattered symbiosis (see Chart 8 above). Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasurys have begun to decline (Chart 46). China's exports to the U.S., both as a share of total exports and of GDP, have rolled over, and are at levels comparable to Japan's 1980s peaks (Chart 47). China is wading into high-tech and advanced industries, threatening the core advantages of the developed markets. The U.S. just elected a populist president whose platform included aggressive trade protectionism against China. Protectionist "Rust Belt" voters were pivotal to Trump's win and will remain so in future elections. China is apparently reneging on every major economic promise it has made in recent years: the RMB is depreciating, not appreciating, whatever the reason; China is closing, not opening, its capital account; it is reinforcing, not reforming, its state-owned companies; and it is shutting, not widening, access to its domestic market (Chart 48). Chart 45Japan's Crisis Followed Currency Spike Chart 46China Backing Away From U.S. Treasuries There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s-90s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. Japan and the U.S. had established a strategic hierarchy in World War II. That is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the United States to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the United States. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. Chart 47The U.S. Will Get Tougher On China Trade Chart 48China Is De-Globalizing That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on longstanding American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. We see Sino-American rivalry as the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017: Trump will initiate a more assertive U.S. policy toward China;41 It will begin with symbolic or minor punitive actions - a "shot across the bow" like charging China with currency manipulation or imposing duties on specific goods.42 It will be critical to see whether Trump acts arbitrarily through executive power, or systematically through procedures laid out by Congress. The two countries will proceed to a series of high-level, bilateral negotiations through which the Trump administration will aim to get a "better deal" from the Xi administration on trade, investment, and other issues. The key to the negotiations will be whether the Trump team settles for technical concessions or instead demands progress on long-delayed structural issues that are more difficult and risky for China to undertake. Too much pressure on the latter could trigger a confrontation and broader economic instability. Chart 49China's Demographic Dividend Is Gone The coming year may see U.S.-China relations start with a bang and end with a whimper, as Trump's initial combativeness gives way to talks. But make no mistake: Sino-U.S. rivalry and distrust will worsen over the long run. That is because China faces a confluence of negative trends: The U.S. is turning against it. Geopolitical problems with its periphery are worsening. It is at high risk of a financial crisis due to excessive leverage. The middle class is a growing political constraint on the regime. Demographics are now a long-term headwind (Chart 49). The Chinese regime will be especially sensitive to these trends because the Xi administration will want stability in the lead up to the CCP's National Party Congress in the fall, which promises to see at least some factional trouble.43 It no longer appears as if the rotation of party leaders will leave Xi in the minority on the Politburo Standing Committee for 2017-22, as it did in 2012.44 More likely, he will solidify power within the highest decision-making body. This removes an impediment to his policy agenda in 2017-22, though any reforms will still take a back seat to stability, since leadership changes and policy debates will absorb a great deal of policymakers' attention at all levels for most of the year.45 Xi will also put in place his successors for 2022, putting a cap on rumors that he intends to eschew informal term limits. Failing this, market uncertainty over China's future will explode upward. The midterm party congress will thus reaffirm the fact that China's ruling party and regime are relatively unified and centralized, and hence that China has relatively strong political capabilities for dealing with crises. Evidence does not support the popular belief that China massively stimulates the economy prior to five-year party congresses (Chart 50), but we would expect all means to be employed to prevent a major downturn. Chart 50Not Much Evidence Of Aggressive Stimulus Ahead Of Five-Year Party Congresses What this means is that the real risks of the U.S.-China relationship in 2017 will emanate from China's periphery. Asia's Frozen Conflicts Are Thawing Today the Trump administration seems willing to allow China to carve a sphere of influence - but it is entirely unclear whether and where existing boundaries would be redrawn. Here are the key regional dynamics:46 The Koreas: The U.S. and Japan are increasingly concerned about North Korea's missile advances but will find their attempts to deal with the problem blocked by China and likely by the new government in South Korea.47 U.S. threats of sanctioning China over North Korea will increase market uncertainty, as will South Korea's political turmoil and (likely) souring relations with the U.S. Taiwan: Taiwan's ruling party has very few domestic political constraints and therefore could make a mistake, especially when emboldened by an audacious U.S. leadership.48 The same combination could convince China that it has to abandon the post-2000 policy of playing "nice" with Taiwan.49 China will employ discrete sanctions against Taiwan. Hong Kong: Mainland forces will bring down the hammer on the pro-independence movement. The election of a new chief executive will appear to reinforce the status quo but in reality Beijing will tighten its legal, political, and security grip. Large protests are likely; political uncertainty will remain high.50 Japan: Japan will effectively receive a waiver from Trump's protectionism and will benefit from U.S. stimulus efforts; it will continue reflating at home in order to generate enough popular support to pass constitutional revisions in 2018; and it will not shy away from regional confrontations, since these will enhance the need for the hawkish defense component of the same revisions. Vietnam: The above issues may provide Vietnam with a chance to improve its strategic position at China's expense, whether by courting U.S. market access or improving its position in the South China Sea. But the absence of an alliance with the U.S. leaves it highly exposed to Chinese reprisals if it pushes too far. Russia: Russia will become more important to the region because its relations with the U.S. are improving and it may forge a peace deal with Japan, giving it more leverage in energy negotiations with China.51 This may also reinforce the view in Beijing that the U.S. is circling the wagons around China. What these dynamics have in common is the emergence of U.S.-China proxy conflicts. China has long suspected that the Obama administration's "Pivot to Asia" was a Cold War "containment" strategy. The fear is well-grounded but the reality takes time to materialize, which is what we will see playing out in the coming years. The reason we say "proxy wars" is because several American allies are conspicuously warming up to China: Thailand, the Philippines, and soon South Korea. They are not abandoning the U.S. but keeping their options open. The other ASEAN states also stand to benefit as the U.S. seeks economic substitutes for China while the latter courts their allegiance.52 The problem is that as U.S.-China tensions rise, these small states run greater risks in playing both sides. Bottom Line: The overarching investment implications of U.S.-China proxy wars all derive from de-globalization. China was by far the biggest winner of globalization and will suffer accordingly (Chart 51). But it will not be the biggest loser, since it is politically unified, its economy is domestically driven, and it has room to maneuver on policy. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore are all chiefly at risk from de-globalization over the long run. Chart 51Globalization's Winners Will Be De-Globalization's Losers Japan is best situated to prosper in 2017. We have argued since well before the Bank of Japan's September monetary policy shift that unconventional reflation will continue, with geopolitics as the primary motivation for the country's "pedal to the metal" strategy.53 We will look to re-initiate our long Japanese equities position in early 2017. ASEAN countries offer an opportunity, though country-by-country fundamentals are essential. Brexit: The Three Kingdoms The striking thing about the Brexit vote's aftermath is that no recession followed the spike in uncertainty, no infighting debilitated the Tory party, and no reversal occurred in popular opinion. The authorities stimulated the economy, the people rallied around the flag (and ruling party), and the media's "Bregret" narrative flopped. That said, Brexit also hasn't happened yet.54 Formal negotiations with Europe begin in March, which means uncertainty will persist for much of the year as the U.K. and EU posture around their demands for a post-exit deal. However, improving growth prospects for Britain, Europe, and the U.S. all suggest that the negotiations are less likely to take place in an atmosphere of crisis. That does not mean that EU negotiators will be soft. With each successive electoral victory for the political establishment in 2017, the European negotiating position will harden. This will create a collision of Triumphant Tories and Triumphant Brussels. Still, the tide is not turning much further against the U.K. than was already the case, given how badly the U.K. needs a decent deal. Tightercontrol over the movement of people will be the core demand of Westminster, but it is not necessarily mutually exclusive with access to the common market. The major EU states have an incentive to compromise on immigration with the U.K. because they would benefit from tighter immigration controls that send highly qualified EU nationals away from the U.K. labor market and into their own. But the EU will exact a steep price for granting the U.K. the gist of what it wants on immigration and market access. This could be a hefty fee or - more troublingly for Britain - curbs on British financial-service access to euro markets. Though other EU states are not likely to exit, the European Council will not want to leave any doubt about the pain of doing so. The Tories may have to accept this outcome. Tory strength is now the Brexit voter base. That base is uncompromising on cutting immigration, and it is indifferent, or even hostile, to the City. So it stands to reason that Prime Minister Theresa May will sacrifice the U.K.'s financial sector in the coming negotiations. The bigger question is what happens to the U.K. economy in the medium and long term. First, it is unclear how the U.K. will revive productivity as lower labor-force growth and FDI, and higher inflation, take shape. Government "guidance" of the economy - dirigisme again - is clearly the Tory answer. But it remains to be seen how effectively it will be done. Second, what happens to the United Kingdom as a nation? Another Scottish independence referendum is likely after the contours of the exit deal take shape, especially as oil prices gin up Scottish courage to revisit the issue. The entire question of Scotland and Northern Ireland (both of which voted to stay in the EU) puts deeper constitutional and governmental restructuring on the horizon. Westminster is facing a situation where it drastically loses influence on the global stage as it not only exits the European "superstate" but also struggles to maintain a semblance of order among the "three kingdoms." Bottom Line: The two-year timeframe for exit negotiations ensures that posturing will ratchet up tensions and uncertainty throughout the year - invoking the abyss of a no-deal exit - but our optimistic outlook on the end-game (eventual "soft Brexit") suggests that investors should fade the various crisis points. That said, the pound is no longer a buy as it rises to around 1.30. Investment Views De-globalization, dirigisme, and the ascendancy of charismatic authority will all prove to be inflationary. On the margin, we expect less trade, less free movement of people, and more direct intervention in the economy. Given that these are all marginally more inflationary, it makes sense to expect the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," as our colleague Peter Berezin argued in July.55 That said, Peter does not expect the bond bull market to end in a crash - and neither do we. There are many macroeconomic factors that will continue to suppress global yields: the savings glut, search for yield, and economic secular stagnation. In addition, we expect peak multipolarity in 2017 and thus a rise in geopolitical conflict. This geopolitical context will keep the U.S. Treasury market well bid. However, clients may want to begin switching their safe-haven exposure to gold. In a recent research report on safe havens, we showed that gold and Treasurys have changed places as safe havens in the past.56 Only after 2000 did Treasurys start providing a good hedge to equity corrections due to geopolitical and financial risks. The contrary is true for gold - it acted as one of the most secure investments during corrections until that time, but has since become correlated with S&P 500 total returns. As deflationary risks abate in the future, we suspect that gold will return to its safe-haven status. In addition to safe havens, U.S. and global defense stocks will be well bid due to global multipolarity. We recommend that clients go long S&P 500 aerospace and defense relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We are also sticking with our tactical trade of long U.S. defense / short U.S. aerospace. On the equity front, we have closed our post-election bullish trade of long S&P 500 / short gold position for an 11.53% gain in just 22 days of trading. We are also closing our long S&P 600 / short S&P 100 position - a play on de-globalization - for an 8.4% gain. Instead, we are initiating a strategic long U.S. small caps / short U.S. large caps, recommended jointly with our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy. We are keeping our EuroStoxx VIX term-structure hedge due to mounting political risk in Europe. However, we are looking for an opening into European stocks in early 2017. For now, we are maintaining our long USD/EUR - return 4.2% since July - and long USD/SEK - return 2.25% since November. The first is a strategic play on our view that the ECB has to remain accommodative due to political risks in the European periphery. The latter is a way to articulate de-globalization via currencies, given that Sweden is one of the most open economies in the world. We are converting it from a tactical to a strategic recommendation. Finally, we are keeping our RMB short in place - via 12-month NDF. We do not think that Beijing will "blink" and defend its currency more aggressively just because Donald Trump is in charge of America. China is a much more powerful country than in the past, and cannot allow RMB appreciation at America's bidding. Our trade has returned 7.14% since December 2015. With the dollar bull market expected to continue and RMB depreciating, the biggest loser will be emerging markets. We are therefore keeping our strategic long DM / short EM recommendation, which has returned 56.5% since November 2012. We are particularly fond of shorting Brazilian and Turkish equities and are keeping both trades in place. However, we are initiating a long Russian equities / short EM equities. As an oil producer, Russia will benefit from the OPEC deal and the ongoing risks to Iraqi stability. In addition, we expect that removing sanctions against Russia will be on table for 2017. Europe will likely extend the sanctions for another six months, but beyond that the unity of the European position will be in question. And the United States is looking at a different approach. We wish our clients all the best in health, family, and investing in 2017. Thank you for your confidence in BCA's Geopolitical Strategy. Marko Papic Senior Vice President Matt Gertken Associate Editor Jesse Anak Kurri Research Analyst 1 In Michel Foucault's famous The Order of Things (1966), he argues that each period of human history has its own "episteme," or set of ordering conditions that define that epoch's "truth" and discourse. The premise is comparable to Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigms," which we have referenced in previous Strategic Outlooks. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2012," dated January 27, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2014 - Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, and Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 A military-security strategy necessary for British self-defense that also preserved peace on the European continent by undermining potential aggressors. 11 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trump And Trade," dated December 8, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see Max Weber, "The Three Types Of Legitimate Rule," Berkeley Publications in Society and Institutions 4 (1): 1-11 (1958). Translated by Hans Gerth. Originally published in German in the journal Preussische Jahrbücher 182, 1-2 (1922). 16 We do not concern ourselves with traditional authority here, but the obvious examples are Persian Gulf monarchies. 17 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). See also our review of this book, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see Irving Fisher, "The Debt-deflation Theory of Great Depressions," Econometrica 1(4) (1933): 337-357, available at fraser.stlouisfed.org. 20 Please see Milanovic, Branko, "Global Income Inequality by the Numbers: in History and Now," dated November 2012, Policy Research Working Paper 6250, World Bank, available at worldbank.org. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 In some way, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy was designed precisely to fill this role. It is difficult to see what would be the point of this service if our clients could get unbiased, investment-relevant, prescient, high-quality geopolitical news and analysis from the press. 24 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Roller Coaster," dated March 31, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 25 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Despite winning an extraordinary six of the 13 continental regions in France in the first round, FN ended up winning zero in the second round. This even though the election occurred after the November 13 terrorist attack that ought to have buoyed the anti-migration, law and order, anti-establishment FN. The regional election is an instructive case of how the French two-round electoral system enables the establishment to remain in power. 29 Please see BCA European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Italy: Asking The Wrong Question," dated December 1, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Cold War Redux?" dated March 12, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia: To Buy Or Not To Buy?" dated March 20, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Russia-West Showdown: The West, Not Putin, Is The 'Wild Card,'" dated July 31, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Russia's Trilemma And The Coming Power Paralysis," dated February 21, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 34 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Middle East: Saudi-Iranian Tensions Have Peaked," in Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 35 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 President Erdogan, speaking at the first Inter-Parliamentary Jerusalem Platform Symposium in Istanbul in November 2016, said that Turkey "entered [Syria] to end the rule of the tyrant al-Assad who terrorizes with state terror... We do not have an eye on Syrian soil. The issue is to provide lands to their real owners. That is to say we are there for the establishment of justice." 37 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy," dated December 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 38 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 39 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 40 In recent years, however, China's "official" defense budget statistics have understated its real spending, possibly by as much as half. 41 Please see "U.S. Election Update: Trump, Presidential Powers, And Investment Implications" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 44 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 45 The National Financial Work Conference will be one key event to watch for an updated reform agenda. 46 Please see "East Asia: Tensions Simmer ... Will They Boil?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 47 Please see "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 48 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, and "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 49 The Trump administration has signaled a policy shift through Trump's phone conversation with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The "One China policy" is the foundation of China-Taiwan relations, and U.S.-China relations depend on Washington's acceptance of it. The risk, then, is not so much an overt change to One China, a sure path to conflict, but the dynamic described above. 50 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hong Kong: From Politics To Political Economy," dated September 8, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 51 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Can Russia Import Productivity From China?" dated June 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 52 Please see "Thailand: Upgrade Stocks To Overweight And Go Long THB Versus KRW" in BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 53 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: The Emperor's Act Of Grace," dated June 8, 2016, and "Unleash The Kraken: Debt Monetization And Politics," dated September 26, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 54 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "BREXIT Update: Brexit Means Brexit, Until Brexit," dated September 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 55 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 56 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights Investors are understating the risks that the Trump administration will enact protectionist trade policies. Contrary to popular belief, the economic costs to the U.S. of a protracted "trade war" would be low. The geopolitical impact, however, would be much more sizeable, as would the impact on S&P 500 profits. The near-term risks to global equities are on the downside, although firmer growth in developed economies should provide support to stocks over a 12-month horizon. Global bond yields will be higher this time next year, as will the dollar. The yen is especially vulnerable. We are closing our long Spanish/short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of 6.2%. Feature They come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies. - Donald Trump in an interview with Oprah Winfrey discussing trade with Japan, 1988 Making Tariffs Great Again Donald Trump has flip-flopped on many issues. On trade, however, he has been perfectly consistent. As the quote above demonstrates, Trump has been advocating mercantilist policies ever since he entered the public spotlight in the 1980s. Even in the unlikely event that he wanted to pivot on this issue, he would be hard-pressed to do so. The Republican establishment and most Democrats will hate him no matter what he does. If Trump backpedals from his hardline stance on trade and immigration, he will lose a large chunk of his white, working-class base (Chart 1). One might argue that Trump would have no choice but to adopt a more conciliatory tone if the imposition of protectionist trade policies were to push the U.S. into a recession. However, contrary to widespread opinion, it is far from obvious that this would happen. While rising protectionism would have a major negative effect on many other economies, the impact on the U.S. would be modest, even if other countries were to match higher U.S. tariffs with retaliatory measures. Keep in mind that the U.S. is a relatively closed economy, with exports totaling only 12% of GDP. Exports to China and Mexico amount to 0.9% and 1.4% of GDP, respectively. And much of these exports are intermediate goods that are processed and reshipped back to the U.S. or some other third market. It would not make sense for China or Mexico to put up import barriers on these intermediate goods because this would just reduce domestic employment, without giving domestic firms much of a leg up. One should also remember that an appreciation of the dollar reduces U.S. export competitiveness in much the same way as higher tariffs placed by foreign governments on U.S.-made goods. The real trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 20% since mid-2014 (Chart 2). While this obviously has been unpleasant for U.S. exporters, it has not pushed the economy into recession. Neither will retaliatory foreign tariffs. Chart 1Trump's Supporters Are Not ##br##Free Trade Enthusiasts Chart 2The Dollar Has Been ##br##Appreciating Since Mid-2014 Why The Consensus On Trade Is Misleading The view expressed above is far outside the consensus and clashes strongly with the large number of studies arguing that the implementation of Trump's trade agenda would have grave consequences for the U.S. economy. Let me first enumerate the ways these studies fall short on strictly economic grounds, and then discuss why they may still ring true if one takes a broader perspective. As far as the pure economics are concerned, these studies all suffer from some combination of the following deficiencies: They assume that foreign producers can fully or almost fully pass on the cost of U.S. tariffs to their customers. In reality, the evidence suggests that foreign producers will absorb about half of the increase in tariffs through lower profit margins. In other words, the imposition of a 20% tariff would only raise U.S. import prices by around 10%. Granted, retaliatory tariffs would squeeze the profit margins of U.S. exporters. However, this effect would be mitigated by the fact that the U.S. runs large bilateral trade deficits with China and Mexico (Chart 3), as well as the fact that foreign producers have less pricing power in the relatively large U.S. market than American producers have abroad. On net, this implies that higher trade barriers could actually make the U.S. better off by shifting the terms of trade in its favor. Chart 3The U.S. Runs Large Bilateral Trade Deficits With China And Mexico These studies treat tariffs like regular old taxes. To the extent that tariffs are taxes whose burden is partly borne by domestic consumers, their imposition has a dampening effect on activity. However, to model the impact of higher tariffs simply as a tightening of fiscal policy implicitly assumes that any tariff revenue will be used to pay down debt, rather than being used to finance tax cuts and spending increases. Given that Trump is touting a program of fiscal stimulus, that is not a sensible assumption. Moreover, unlike, say, a sales tax hike, higher tariffs divert demand towards domestically-produced goods. This tends to boost employment. These studies overstate the adverse effect of tariffs on domestic investment. More than half of global trade consists of capital equipment and intermediate goods (Chart 4). To the extent that higher tariffs raise the cost of production, this can lower investment. Moreover, trade barriers tend to increase economic inefficiencies. This can lead to slower productivity growth, causing firms to reduce capital spending. In practice, however, neither effect is particularly significant. As we discussed two weeks ago, the negative impact of trade barriers on productivity growth is generally overstated, especially for large economies like the United States.1 Chart 5 shows that productivity growth was actually faster in the three decades following the Second World War than in the hyper-globalization era that began in the early 1980s. Chart 4Intermediate And Capital Goods ##br##Make Up Over Half Of Global Trade Chart 5Rising Trade Has Not ##br##Boosted Productivity Growth While the price of capital goods does influence investment spending, for the most part, firms tend to base their investment decisions on the expected demand for their products. Since the U.S. runs a trade deficit, an equal percentage-point decline in both exports and imports would increase final demand through the familiar Y=C+I+G+X-M identity. This should lead to higher investment. Moreover, even if higher trade barriers leave final demand unaffected, there are reasons to think that investment would still rise. Think about a closed economy where most households decide all of a sudden that they prefer strawberry ice cream over vanilla ice cream. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that shifting production from vanilla to strawberry ice cream is very difficult and requires a lot of new investment. What do you expect would happen to overall investment in this economy? The answer is that it would likely rise, as companies scramble to build out new strawberry ice cream-making capacity. Now extend the analogy to trade. If the U.S. slaps tariffs on manufacturing imports, this will lead to a wave of new domestic investment in industries that benefit from tariff protection. This is bad news for companies that must incur the cost of relocating production back onshore, but it is good news for American workers who can now find gainful employment. The Bigger Picture Our guess is that in purely economic terms, the U.S. would not suffer much if the Trump administration were to forge ahead with its protectionist trade agenda, and could actually benefit if America's trading partners felt restrained in how they could retaliate. Yet, focusing only on the economics misses the bigger picture. Trade agreements are also about politics - they help form the geopolitical glue that holds the global community together. As we noted two weeks ago, the real reason the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was so disastrous was not because it contributed to the Great Depression, but because it led to a breakdown of international relations among democratic governments at a time when fascism was on the rise.2 Donald Trump's threat to pull out of trade deals and unilaterally impose tariffs on countries that he feels are engaging in unfair trade practices is likely to accelerate the shift to a multipolar geopolitical order where competing countries strive to carve out their own spheres of influence. As Chart 6 shows, such geopolitical orders have often contributed to the breakdown of globalization, and at times, have even led to military conflict. Chart 6AIncreasing Multipolarity And De-Globalization Tend To Go Hand-In-Hand Chart 6BIncreasing Multipolarity And De-Globalization Tend To Go Hand-In-Hand The fact that rising protectionism could benefit the U.S. at the expense of other countries is bound to stoke anger abroad. China, the focus of much of Trump's rhetoric, is especially vulnerable. Trump has threatened to declare the country a "currency manipulator," even though it meets only one of the three criteria for such a designation as set out by the Treasury Department.3 Other countries should not breathe a sigh of relief, however. There is a certain logic about protectionism that makes it difficult to hike tariffs on just one or two countries. For example, if the U.S. raises tariffs on China, some of the existing demand for Chinese goods will be diverted to countries such as Korea or Vietnam, rather than back to the U.S. This creates an incentive to raise tariffs on those countries as well. It is easy to see how the whole global trading system can break down under such circumstances. Investment Conclusions Donald Trump's threat of across-the-border tariffs of 35% on Mexican goods and 45% on Chinese goods will likely turn out to be a negotiating ploy. That said, some increase in trade barriers seems inevitable. These need not even be explicit barriers. Trump's success in browbeating Carrier into keeping its plant open in Indiana is an example of things to come. Corporate America does a lot of business with the government, and the subtle threat of cancelled government contracts will make any CEO take notice. Good news for Main Street perhaps, but definitely bad news for Wall Street. For now, investors are focusing on the positive elements of Trump's agenda. That may change soon. Yes, increased infrastructure spending and corporate tax cuts are both bullish for stocks. However, effective U.S. corporate tax rates are already quite low thanks to numerous loopholes. Thus, any cuts to statutory rates may not boost S&P 500 profits by as much as investors are hoping (Chart 7). And while more infrastructure investment is welcome, there simply are not enough "shovel ready" projects around. Chart 7U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low Moreover, Trump's plan to finance infrastructure spending through private-public partnerships greatly narrows the universe of possible projects. The U.S. Society Of Civil Engineers estimates that most of the "infrastructure gap" consists of deferred maintenance (i.e., potholes to fix, bridges to repair).4 It is difficult to get investors interested in such work, which is why it is typically financed directly through government budgets. Meanwhile, financial conditions have tightened via a stronger dollar and higher bond yields (Chart 8). Historically, such a tightening has been bearish for stocks (Table 1). We are tactically cautious on a three-month horizon, and are positioned for this by being short the NASDAQ 100 futures. Our guess is that global equities will correct by about 5%-to-10% from current levels, setting the stage for positive returns down the road. U.S. high-yield spreads, which are near post-crisis lows, are also likely to widen (Chart 9). Chart 8U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased Chart 9U.S. High-Yield Spreads Likely To Widen Table 1Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike A correction in risk assets could temporarily knock down Treasury yields. Nevertheless, the long-term path for global bond yields is to the upside. The three key features of Trump's platform - fiscal stimulus, tighter immigration controls, and trade protectionism - are all inflationary. Only JGB yields are likely to stay put for the foreseeable future due to the BOJ's well-timed decision to peg the 10-year yield at zero. As bond yields elsewhere rise, the yen will come under further downward pressure. We see USD/JPY reaching 125 in 12 months' time. Chart 10Global Growth Is Accelerating A weaker yen should boost Japanese stocks, at least in local-currency terms. European equities will also benefit from a somewhat cheaper euro and firming global growth (Chart 10). Steeper yield curves are helping to boost European bank shares, despite ongoing concerns about the health of the Italian financial sector. As we have discussed in the past, systemic risks around the Italian banks are overstated.5 With that in mind, we are closing our long Spanish/short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of 6.2%. The recent rally in commodity markets and the uptick in global activity indicators are welcome developments for emerging markets. Still, it will be hard for EM equities to muster a sustainable rally as long as the dollar remains in an uptrend and protectionist sentiment is on the rise. For now, a modest underweight in EM stocks is warranted. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1,2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The U.S. Treasury is allowed to define a country as a currency manipulator if: i) it runs a large trade surplus with the U.S.; ii) it has an excessively large current account surplus with the rest of the world; and iii) it is engaging in direct foreign exchange intervention in order to weaken its currency. While the first criterion arguably holds, the other two do not, given that China's overall current account surplus currently stands at 2.4% of GDP and recent currency intervention has been designed to prevent the yuan from depreciating more than it would have otherwise. 4 Please see "Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America's Economic Future," American Society of Civil Engineers (2016). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Italian Bank Job," dated July 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Dear Client, This week's BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy contains our 2017 Outlook for Energy markets. After surprising the markets with a production cut last week, OPEC and Russia likely will do so again with a successful implementation of their agreement next year. Even if they only get buy-in on 60% to 70% of the 1.8 mm b/d in cuts they believe they've secured, production cuts and natural declines in production that are not reversed via enhanced oil recovery (EOR) will accelerate the drawdown in global crude oil and refined products inventories, which is the stated goal of the agreement. We expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl next year, up $5 from our previous forecast, on the back of last week's announced cut. We are moving the bottom of the range in which we expect WTI prices to trade most of the time next year to $45/bbl and keeping the upside at $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. Any sign either or both will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand and replace natural declines could spike prices further out the curve. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, things get a bit complicated next year: As the spread between Brent and WTI prices widens - the Feb17 spread was pricing at ~ $2.10/bbl earlier this week (Brent over) - we expect U.S. WTI exports to increase from current levels averaging ~ 500k b/d, which should keep the price differential in check next year. For the near term, we are using a +$1.50/bbl differential (Brent over) for our 2017 central tendency, although this could narrow and invert as U.S. exports grow. We closed out our long Feb/17 Brent $50/$55 call spread last week - recommended November 3, 2016, expecting OPEC and Russia to agree a production cut - with a 156% indicated profit. We are taking profits of 80.6% on our long Aug/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI, basis Tuesday's close, and replacing it with a long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread at today's closing levels, expecting backwardation to widen next year. We remain bullish U.S. natural gas near term, given reduced year-on-year production growth going into year-end. A normal-to-colder winter will be especially bullish. We remain long 2017Q1 natural gas, which is up 21.1% since we recommended the position on November 2, 2016. Longer term, we are neutral natgas, expecting production growth to resume in 2017. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Feature KSA, Russia Deal Drives Oil Prices In 2017 The evolution of oil prices next year will be dominated by the agreement between OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC, with Russia in the lead, to cut production by up to 1.8 mm b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 mm from OPEC, 300k b/d from Russia, and another 300 from other non-OPEC producers. Later this week, other non-OPEC producers are scheduled to arrive in Vienna to discuss cuts they will pledge to make starting in January. Non-OPEC production is down ~ 900k b/d this year, according to the IEA's November Oil Market Report, so it is difficult to see where these cuts will come from. Outside Russia, Kazakhstan and Oman, anything coming out of the meetings with non-OPEC producers in Vienna this week will be decline-curve losses disguised as production cuts. Still, it means they're not funding EOR programs to replace lost production (e.g., China's 10% yoy losses). Even if actual cuts only amount to 60 - 70% of the volumes agreed at OPEC's November 30 meeting in Vienna, we expect OECD storage levels - combined commercial inventories of both crude oil and refined products - to fall some 10%, or 300 million bbls, to ~ 2.75 billion bbls by the end of 2017Q3. This would put stocks roughly at their five-year average levels, the stated goal of OPEC, and its reason for negotiating the production cut (Chart of the Week). In addition, this will flatten the forward Brent and WTI curves, and deepen an already-developing backwardation in WTI beginning with contracts delivering in December 2017 (Chart 2). This will reverse the contango structure in place since mid-2014, which allowed commercial OECD oil inventories to swell by 400 mm bbls, and non-OECD inventories to increase by 240 mm bbls, according to OPEC estimates. Chart of the WeekOPEC's, Russia's Goal: Normalize Storage##br## To Five-year Average Level Chart 2Backwardation Expected ##br##In WTI And Brent Analysts Expect Cheating On The Deal Most analysts expect cheating on this deal: OPEC's production is expected to fall to 33mm b/d following production cuts, from a record high in November of 34.2mm b/d, according to a Reuters poll.1 At 33mm b/d, OPEC's output would be 500k b/d above the targeted production level of 32.5mm b/d agreed at OPEC's November 30 meeting in Vienna with Russia (Table 1). In other words, most analysts think OPEC will only deliver 700k b/d of the 1.2 mm b/d it pledged to cut under this deal. We disagree. Table 1Allocation of OPEC Cuts This Deal's Going To Work: KSA And Russia Want And Need It OPEC's goal is to get inventories back to 5-year average levels. The Cartel's latest Monthly Oil Market Report puts the global stock overhang at 304mm over the 5-year average, just slightly over our calculated value to end October (Chart of the Week).2 To get stocks to the 5-year average level by the end of June 2017 - when the Vienna agreement runs out - would require an average weekly draw of ~ 11.7mm bbl in OECD oil and products stocks, or roughly 1.7mm b/d. Between normal decline-curve losses and the production cuts, if KSA and Russia got full compliance on this deal, it stands a good chance of meeting OPEC's goal by the end of June. Even if they don't and get, say, a total of 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d in cuts from OPEC and non-OPEC producers, the Agreement's storage goal will be achieved by the end of 2017Q3 or the beginning of Q4. Chart 3KSA And Russia Need To Back Off ##br##After Near-Vertical Output Increases Unlike past production-cut deals, we think there is a good chance KSA and Russia will get fairly high compliance on this agreement. Given the results of the Reuters survey on expected compliance, our out-of-consensus call is predicated on our belief this round of cuts is fundamentally different from what we've seen before. KSA and Russia - and their allies - want and need this deal. KSA and Russia have made their point by massively increasing production in a down market, but both now need to - and want to - back off of flogging their fields and driving prices lower (Chart 3). Given the extremely high dependence both have on oil revenues, they need higher prices.3 For starters, Russia was an active participant in this deal: its energy minister, Alexander Novak, told KSA's oil minister, Khalid Al-Falih, Russia would cut - not freeze - production in the lead-up to the November 30 meeting, and would contribute half the cut OPEC wanted from producers outside the Cartel. In addition, Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, was "directly involved" in the deal, mediating between KSA and its arch rival Iran, according to various press reports.4 Politically, after having invested so much capital, we do not think Russia will backslide on this agreement. There may be some fudging on what actually constitutes a "cut" - e.g., 2017Q1 maintenance that removes 200k b/d or so from production may be called a "cut" - but by Q2 we expect to see the full 300k b/d cut taken. By the same token, we do not think KSA will backslide on its commitment. Saudi's new oil minister Al-Falih invested considerable political capital in getting a deal done, as well, over the course of meetings in Algiers, Istanbul and finally around the November 30 Vienna meeting. Practically, both KSA and Russia have burned through considerable foreign reserves to fund government expenditures following the price collapse (Chart 4). By our estimates, KSA will have burned through $220 billion in reserves between July 2014, just prior to its decision to launch OPEC's market-share war, and December 2016, equivalent to 30% of foreign reserves. Russia will have drawn down its official reserves by $77 billion over the same period, or 16% of its total holdings. Chart 4Lower Oil Prices Forced KSA And Russia ##br##To Burn Through Reserves In addition, both want to tap foreign direct investment (FDI) for cash, investments and technology, and will find it difficult to do so if oil markets remain chronically oversupplied and subject to large downdrafts as producers relentlessly increase production, as we noted in recent research.5 Both KSA and Russia are working on larger agendas next year and 2018. And both require higher prices. They cannot afford to run down reserves any further. Russia is looking to sell 19.5% of Rosneft, after the state pushed through a $5.2 billion merger with Bashneft in October. KSA is looking to issue additional debt, having raised $17.5 billion in October, and will look to IPO 5% of state-owned Aramco next year or in 2018. Both must convince FDI that money invested in their economies will not be wasted because oil production cannot be reined in. And, they both must attend to increasingly restive populations. As a result of the production cuts, KSA's and Russia's export revenues will increase: KSA's 2017 oil export revenues will increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's will increase by ~ $9 billion, following the ~ $10/bbl lift in oil prices the agreement has provided. Both will be able to lever their production to support more debt issuance. KSA will need that leverage to pull off the diversification it is attempting under its Vision 2030 initiative. Russia needs higher prices for its secondary offering of Rosneft, and to get some much-needed breathing room for its budget after years of sanctions, recession and lower government revenues. We would not be surprised if Russia sees additional production cuts next year, which will goose prices a little and put a firmer support under the ~ $50/bbl floor (basis Brent crude oil prices). Given the dire straits in which Russia finds itself, the government likely will increase taxes in 2017, which will result in lower production at the margin. We expect, however, that this will be spun in such a way as to show that when Putin gets involved, positive results occur.6 KSA's Allies Will Cut; Iran And Iraq Are Maxed Out For Now We believe this is a deal that will hold up, which, net, will generate something along the lines of 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d in production cuts in 2017H1. UAE and Kuwait can be counted on to support KSA, as they always have, and cut. And Oman - now at 1mm b/d - will step up for a small slug of the cuts too, and have said they'll match OPEC up to a 10% cut. Iran and Iraq have taken production as far as it can go over the next six months to a year, and do not represent a threat to the KSA-Russia deal (Chart 5). Iran's maxed out - they're not capable of adding all that much to their current 3.7mm b/d output. Iraq could cheat, but we don't think they can go much above 4.5mm b/d, despite their assertion they're at 4.7 mm b/d. Besides, producing at 4.4mm b/d, per the agreement, will produce more revenue for them at higher prices than producing 4.7 mm b/d at lower prices (if they actually could get to that level), and they realize that. According to press reports, Iraq only signed on to the deal in Vienna after they saw the rally in prices following leaks a deal had been reached. Maybe at this time next year, they will have mobilized some FDI to get production ramping, but even that's doubtful. With the exception of Libya and Nigeria - both of which are exempt under this deal - everyone in OPEC outside Iraq, KSA and the GCC OPEC members is producing at max (Chart 6). Libya and Nigeria are equally likely to raise output as prices increase as they are to lose output. The higher prices go the more likely these states are to see increased violence, as warring factions within their borders vie for control of rising oil revenues. Internal conflicts have not been resolved: Any increase in prices accompanied by increased production gives the warring factions more to fight over. The expected value of their increased production next year is therefore zero. Chart 5KSA's Allies Will Support It;##br## Iran, Iraq Maxed Out Chart 6Most Of OPEC Ex Gulf States ##br##Also Are Producing At Max Levels U.S. Shale Production Will Rise We expect to see evidence of the cuts contained in the KSA-Russia deal to begin showing up in the February - March period, in the form of falling commercial inventory levels. The only thing that can destabilize the six-month KSA-Russia deal is U.S. shale-oil production coming back faster and stronger than expected (Chart 7). Pre-cut, we (and the U.S. EIA) estimated U.S. shale production would bottom in late 2017Q1, and then start re-expansion as rig counts rose to sufficient levels. However, overall 2017 production would be 200 - 300 kb/d lower than 2016 production. Chart 7If U.S. Shale Ramps Too Quickly ##br##KSA-Russia Deal Could Unravel If, as we expect, the higher oil price caused by the KSA-Russia deal results in an increase of only ~ 200 kb/d above this estimate, with the production response substantially occurring in the second half of 2017, there's a good chance this deal can hold together and get global commercial oil stocks down to average levels by September 2017. As we've argued, KSA and Russia already have to have factored that in. The apparent average breakeven for the U.S. producers (including a return on capital) appears to be ~ $55/bbl, which could pop above $60 from time to time next year as the long process of restoring U.S. production plays out.7 Having the international oil market pricing at the marginal cost of U.S. shale producers is a lot better for KSA, Russia and the rest of the distressed, low-cost sovereign producers than the low-$40s that cleared the market a few weeks ago. As long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these states earn economic rent. Too fast a move to or through the $65 - $75/bbl range would no doubt produce a short-term revenue jump for cash-strapped producers - particularly those OPEC members outside the GCC. But it also would make most of the U.S. shales economic to develop, and incentivize the development of other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is brought on line (e.g., oil sands and deepwater). This ultimately would crash prices over the longer term, making it difficult for the industry to attract capital. This is not an ideal outcome for KSA's planned IPO of Aramco, or Russia's sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, or their investors. Even so, reinvestment has to be stimulated with higher oil prices in the not-too-distant future, most likely in 2018. Oil production so far has barely started to show the negative production ramifications of the $1+ trillion cuts to capex that will occur between 2015 and 2020, resulting in some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production not being available to the market. We expect the effects of this foregone production to show up over the next four years, and believe there is not much producers, particularly International Oil Companies (IOCs), can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. Chart 8Accelerating Decline Rates And##br## Steady Demand Will Stress Shale Producers With such huge cuts to future expenditures, and enormous amounts of debt incurred by the IOCs to pay for the completion of legacy mega-projects that will need to be repaid ($130B in debt added in the past two years), OPEC could see a looming shortage of oil developing later this decade if IOC-sponsored offshore production falls into steep declines, as we think is likely. With U.S. shales accounting for a larger share of global production, the global decline curve will accelerate from our estimated current level of 8 - 10% p.a. This will be happening as oil demand continues to grow 1.2 - 1.5mm b/d over the 2017 - 2020 interval (Chart 8). These massive capex cuts seen in the industry since OPEC's market-share war was launched in November 2014 will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. Any sign either or both will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand could spike prices further out the curve, as we've noted in previously. Investment Implications Of BCA's Oil View The KSA-Russia deal is short term - it expires in June, but is "extendable for another six months to take into account prevailing market conditions and prospects," according to terms of the Agreement contained in the OPEC press release of November 30. This forces investors to take relatively tactical positions in the oil markets, with some optionality for longer-dated exposure. We closed out our long Feb/16 Brent $50/$55 call spread last week - recommended November 3, 2016, expecting OPEC and Russia to agree a production cut - with a 156% indicated profit (using closing prices). We are taking profits of 80.6% on our long Aug/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI, basis Tuesday's close, and replacing it with a long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread at today's closing levels, expecting backwardation to widen next year. This is a strategic recommendation, which also will give us exposure to higher prices by the end of 2017. We will look for overshoots on the downside to get long options exposures again, and longer dated exposures as well. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC expected to deliver only half of target production cut: Kemp," published online by reuters.com on December 6, 2016. OPEC has invited Russia, Colombia, Congo, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Oman, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bolivia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Brunei to meet in Vienna Dec. 10, according to Reuters. 2 Please see the feature article in last month's OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report published November 11, 2016, "Developments in global oil inventories," beginning on p. 3. 3 Please see "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash," in the September 8, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Exclusive: How Putin, Khamenei and Saudi prince got OPEC Deal Done," published by reuters.com on December 1, 2016, and "OPEC Deal Hinged on 2 a.m. Phone Call and It Nearly Failed," published on line by bloomberg.com on December 1, 2016. See also Russia Today's online article "Putin 'directly involved' in OPEC reaching production cut deal," published December 2, 2016, on rt.com, which also details Putin's meetings months prior with KSA Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G20 meeting in China. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "The OPEC Debate", dated November 24, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Lukoil officials are talking up production cuts and possible tax hikes in Iranian and Arab media: Here is an Iranian outlet (https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/54595/lukoil-sees-60-oil-in-2017), and an Arab outlet with a longer version of the same TASS story (http://www.tradearabia.com/news/OGN_317517.html). Concerns re possible tax increases next year, which will force production lower, appear in the second-to-last paragraph. 7 Please see pp. 22 - 23 of "From Boom to Gloom: Energy States After the Oil Bust," presented by Mine Yucel, Senior Vice President and Director of Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, July 12, 2016, for a discussion of shale breakevens. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades
Highlights Global Duration: Global bond yields, pushed higher since July on the back of improving global growth and rising inflation, have now overshot to the upside on excessive expectations of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Take profits on bearish bond positions and increase portfolio duration exposure to at-benchmark on a tactical basis until the oversold conditions unwind. 2017 Global Yield Curve Expectations: The recent steepening of government bond yield curves across the developed markets should soon begin to fade, leading to a more diverse evolution of curves during the course of 2017: steeper in the U.S., core Europe and in Japan (at the long end), flatter in the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. U.K. Inflation Protection: Take profits on our recommended U.K. inflation trades (overweight inflation-linked bonds and CPI swaps), in response to the recent stability of the Pound and signs that the Bank of England is shifting in a more hawkish direction. Feature Time To Tactically Take Profits On Short Duration Positions Investors have been reminded over the past few months that boring old bonds, just like equities, can generate painful losses when prices disconnect from fundamentals. Back on July 19, we moved to a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, as we noted that government bonds across the developed markets had reached an overbought extreme despite improving trends in global growth and inflation (Chart of the Week).1 Bonds have sold off smartly since, with benchmark 10-year government yields in the U.S., U.K., Germany and Japan rising +88bps, +60bps, +36bps, +27bps respectively. The popular market narrative is that the latest leg of the bond selloff is a direct result of Donald Trump winning the White House. This raised investor awareness to the bond-bearish implications of a protectionist U.S. president looking to provide a fiscal kick to an economy already at full employment. The reality, however, is that global bond yields troughed a full four months before the U.S. elections on the back of a better global growth picture. It is quite possible that the latest bump in yields would have happened even if Trump did not win the election. Rising industrial commodity prices, happening in the face of a strengthening U.S. dollar that typically dampens prices, also suggest that bond yields have been responding more to faster realized growth and inflation and less to future expected fiscal stimulus (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekGlobal Bonds##br## Are Oversold Chart 2Stronger Growth Has ##br## Pushed Yields Higher Looking ahead, if the global economy evolves as we expect, with growth continuing to look relatively robust and inflation continuing to grind higher, then yields have even more upside in 2017. However, bonds now appear deeply oversold amid highly bearish sentiment. U.S. Treasury yields, in particular, have overshot the fair value estimates from our models (Chart 3). Also, this week's ECB meeting is unlikely to provide any bearish surprises for bond investors, as the ECB will likely extend the current QE program (at the current pace of buying) until at least next September. This should act to cap the recent widening of global bond term premia (Chart 4) and prevent a "Fifth Tantrum" from unfolding in global bond markets, as we discussed last week.2 Therefore, we are taking profits today on our bearish bond call and moving back to a tactical at-benchmark portfolio duration stance. However, we still expect yields to rise over the next year to levels beyond current forward rates.3 Thus, we would look to reinstate a below-benchmark duration posture if the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield were to fall to the 2-2.2% range. We will also look for signs of oversold momentum fading and a reduction in short positioning in U.S. Treasuries before re-establishing a below-benchmark duration tilt (Chart 5). The next leg of pressure on global bond yields should come from the U.S., given our optimistic view on U.S. growth and inflation for next year (see below). Chart 3UST Yields Are##br## A Bit Too High Chart 4A Big Adjustment In##br## Term Premia & Expectations Chart 5Taking Profits On##br## Our Bearish Bond Call Bottom Line: Global bond yields, pushed higher since July on the back of improving global growth and rising inflation, have now overshot to the upside on excessive expectations of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Take profits on bearish bond positions and increase portfolio duration exposure to at-benchmark on a tactical basis until the oversold conditions unwind. Some Initial Thoughts On Developed Market Yield Curves In 2017 With only a handful of trading days remaining in 2016, it is time to peer ahead to how markets could perform in the New Year. We will be publishing our full 2017 Outlook report on December 20th, but this week we are presenting some preliminary ideas on how government bond yield curves could evolve over the course of next year. United States - Eventual Bear Steepening In Excess Of The Forwards We see U.S. growth accelerating to a 2.8% pace next year, an above-potential pace that is stronger than current consensus forecasts.4 Combined with a steady grind higher in realized inflation (both headline and core), this will generate a nominal growth outcome over 5% in 2017. This will help push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to the 2.8-3.0% area by the end of 2017 as the Fed will likely continue to raise rates but not as fast as nominal growth will accelerate (i.e. will remain accommodative). This move will be led by rising inflation expectations, which we see rising to a level consistent with the Fed's inflation target.5 This will put steepening pressure on the U.S. Treasury curve, at a pace that will easily exceed the flattening currently priced into the forwards (Chart 6, top panel). We see the potential for curve steepening pressure to come both from growth, which will push up longer-dated real yields and steepen the "real" yield curve, and from inflation, with a tight labor market putting upward pressure on wage and price inflation even with a stronger U.S. dollar (Chart 7). Chart 6A Steeper UST Curve,##br## Led By Rising Real Yields Chart 7Will UST Yields Pause##br## After A Rate Hike Next Week? For now, however, we are keeping a "neutral" stance on U.S. yield curve exposure until we see signs that oversold conditions in the Treasury market have corrected. One final point: the Treasury market likely moved too quickly in recent weeks to discount a fiscal ease under the new Trump administration. However, any impetus to growth from the government sector, coming at a time when the U.S. economy is running near full employment, will be another structural factor putting steepening pressure on the yield curve in the next year through more Treasury issuance and stronger inflation pressures. Core Euro Area - Very Modest Steepening In Line With The Forwards As we discussed in a recent Weekly Report, the ECB will most likely continue with its current bond-buying program, with no tapering of the size of the purchases, until at least September 2017.6 European inflation remains too low relative to the ECB's target (Chart 8) and the central bank will be wary about reducing monetary stimulus anytime soon. The overriding presence of ECB buying will act to limit the upside in longer-dated European bond yields, even in an environment where U.S. Treasury yields rise over the course of 2017. The core European government bond yield curves (Germany, France) will likely still see some modest steepening pressure, led by upward pressure on real yields, as global growth continues to improve. Combined with the lagged impact of the weakening Euro and the rise in commodity prices, there should be some mild additional steepening pressure coming from inflation expectations, as well. The forward curves are currently pricing in a very modest steepening over the next year, and we do not see a case for the curve to steepen much beyond the forwards (Chart 9). We continue to favor core Europe as a recommended overweight in our global Developed Market bond allocation. Favoring the longer-end of the curve (10 years and longer) in Germany and France - the higher yielding parts of these low-yielding bond markets - makes the most sense against the backdrop of subdued Euro Area inflation. Chart 8No Threat To Global Bonds##br## From The ECB This Week Chart 9ECB QE Will Limit##br## Any Curve Moves In Europe Japan - Expect Long-End Steepening, Even With Bank Of Japan Curve Targeting The Japanese yield curve is now fairly straightforward to predict, with the Bank of Japan (BoJ) now explicitly targeting the level of JGB yields. The BoJ has committed to keep the 10yr JGB yield at 0% until Japanese inflation expectations overshoot the 2% BoJ target. With inflation expectations currently sitting just above 0%, that goal is now far from being realized. We see very little movement in the 2-10 year part of the JGB curve next year, but we expect the curve beyond 10 years to be more influenced by trends in global bond yields, with the BoJ providing no guidance on the desired level of longer-dated JGB yields. Given our views on a potential bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve in 2017, we expect that the 10/30 JGB curve will also steepen (Chart 10). Focusing Japanese bond exposure on the 10-year point makes the most sense in this environment, although at a yield of 0% the return prospects are hardly inviting. U.K. - Steepening Will Turn To Flattening The Bank of England (BoE) took out a very large insurance policy on the U.K. economy by cutting interest rates and re-starting quantitative easing (QE) after the shocking Brexit vote. This has appeared to work, as U.K. economic growth has been surprisingly strong in the months since the June referendum. But the ramifications of the BoE's aggressive easing was a massive depreciation of the Pound and a subsequent rise in U.K. inflation (Chart 11). Chart 10BoJ Is Not Worrying About##br## The Long End For JGBs Chart 11The Post-Brexit ##br## Adjustment Is Nearly Complete This has set up a situation where the Gilt market is behaving much like the U.S. Treasury market did after the Fed introduced its own QE programs between 2008 & 2012. The result was as rise in nominal bond yields led by rising inflation expectations and stronger economic growth, both of which were a function of a weaker currency. In the case of the U.K. now, the rise in inflation has been strong enough to force the BoE to back off its promise to deliver an additional rate cut before the end of 2016. The BoE will likely not extend the latest QE program beyond the March 2017 expiry, as well. There is even a chance that the BoE could be forced to hike rates sometime in the first half of 2017. Against this backdrop where the BoE has to play a bit of monetary catchup to rising nominal growth, the Gilt curve is likely to see some flattening pressure after the recent steepening. With the forwards pricing in no change in the slope of the curve next year (Chart 12), curve flattening positions that limit exposure to the front-end of the Gilt curve could offer opportunities in 2017 after global bond yields consolidate the recent rise in yields. While we believe it is too early to reposition our Gilt curve allocation this week, we are taking profits on our recommended U.K. inflation protection trades given the recent stability of the Pound and growing evidence that the Bank of England is turning more hawkish (Chart 13). Specifically, we are closing our Overlay Trade favoring index-linked Gilts versus nominals at a profit of +59bps. We also advise closing our "Brexit hedge" trade suggested in June before the referendum, which was a long position in U.K. CPI swaps versus U.S. equivalents. Chart 12Nearing The End Of ##br## Gilt Curve Steepening? Chart 13Take Profit On U.K.##br## Inflation Protection Trades Canada - The Steepening Is Over A modest steepening of the Canadian government bond yield curve in 2017 is currently priced into the forwards. We think even this small move is unlikely to be realized. The short-end of the yield curve should stay well-anchored around current levels. Probabilities extracted from the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve currently show a 4% market-implied chance of a rate cut, and 40% odds of a rate hike, by December 6th 2017. Of the two, the probability of a rate hike looks too high. The Bank of Canada (BoC) has rarely increased policy rates when our BCA Canadian Central Bank Monitor was in "easy money required" territory (Chart 14). More likely, the Bank of Canada will stay on hold throughout 2017 due to a lack of inflationary pressures. The Canadian unemployment rate remains far higher than the full employment level, while a wide gap has developed between the growth rates of core CPI and weekly earnings; low wage inflation usually drags core CPI inflation lower. Already, the Canadian CPI less the most volatile components - one of the core inflation measures monitored by the BoC - has rolled over. In the longer part of the curve, the weakening economic cycle will keep yields well contained. While the rebound in energy prices seen this year is a positive for the beaten-up Alberta economy, even higher prices will be needed for Canadian energy producers to rekindle investments in that sector given the high cost of oil extraction in Western Canada. Without a meaningful recovery in Alberta, the Canadian economy will be unable to expand at an above-trend pace; growth will be slower than the general consensus forecast of 2.0% in 2017.7 To profit from that view, we are opening a new butterfly spread trade on the Canadian curve: going long the 2-year/10-year barbell versus a short position in the 5-year bullet. This trade should generate positive excess returns if the 2-year/10-year slope of the Canadian curve flattens, as we expect (Chart 15). Chart 14Canadian Short Rates##br## To Remain Well-Anchored Chart 15Go Long A Canadian 2/10 ##br## Barbell Vs. The 5yr Bullet Australia - Flattening Phase Ahead A small flattening of the Australian yield curve over the next 12 months is currently priced into the forwards. This expectation seems reasonable to us, but the bulk of the flattening should come from the short end where yields will drift higher over the course of the year. Australian inflation prospects are improving, with the Melbourne Institute Inflation Gauge having stabilized of late. As the negative impact of imported goods price deflation recedes going forward, domestic inflation should rise. In addition, our model is calling for core CPI inflation to grind higher in 2017 (Chart 16). Chart 16Australian Inflation Is Bottoming... Chart 17...Even As Australian Growth Is Starting To Cool Because of this, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) will progressively become less dovish and greater odds of a rate hike will be priced into the yield curve. This is already starting to happen, on the margin; since October, the probability of a rate cut by December 5th, 2017 has decreased substantially, from 65% to 5%. As we have been pointing out over the past several months, the Australian economy has been humming along. China's policy reflation seen earlier in 2016 had a direct positive impact on Australian export demand, while a rising terms of trade fueled by higher base metals prices has provided a boost to domestic income. However, the upward pressure on yields from accelerating domestic growth has become milder of late. Employment growth, motor vehicle sales and aggregate private sector credit growth are now all trending to the downside (Chart 17). This might be an indication that the boom from the first half of this year is starting to dissipate. This tames, to some extent, our optimism over the Australian economy. If economic activity continues to slow modestly, corporate bond supply, i.e. demand for credit and liquidity, should ease. In turn, this should also alleviate the recent upside pressure on the longer part of the Australian government bond yield curve. Chart 18The NZ Curve Will Follow##br## The Forwards In 2017 In sum, on a 3-6 month horizon, the short end of the Aussie curve could edge higher as the market prices in a less dovish RBA that will need to begin worrying about rising inflation once again. While at the same time, longer-term bond yields might have seen their highs given some cooling of economic growth. We already have a recommended position on the Australian curve to benefit from these trends, as we are short the 4-year government bond bullet versus a long position in the 2-year/6-year barbell. This trade was initiated earlier this year, has generated +13bps of profits so far, and remains valid.8 As an exit strategy, we will re-evaluate this trade if high-frequency cyclical Australian data disappoint further or the current expansion of Australia's terms of trade starts to reverse. New Zealand - Following The Forwards The New Zealand forward yield curve is currently pricing a 12bps flattening over the next 12 months, with the 2-year/10-year slope expected to move from 107bps to 95bps (Chart 18). This move seems reasonable to us. As we discussed in a recent report, inflation will re-surface in New Zealand in 2017.9 The upside surprise will be due to those factors: Narrowing global output gaps that will bring about a more inflationary global backdrop. A boost from China, most notably through higher producer prices. A weakening of the Kiwi dollar in response to a more hawkish Fed. A stronger dairy sector, which should help New Zealand's exports and reflate domestic wages. A potential reversal of migration inflows, which should shrink the supply of workers and tighten the labor market, boosting wage growth and pressuring price inflation higher. If this view materializes, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) will become more hawkish. This should push short term yields higher and flatten the New Zealand government bond yield curve. Like everywhere else, the New Zealand yield curve has steepened over the last month as global bond markets have priced in faster growth and the potential impact of Trump-ian fiscal stimulus in the U.S. As this external impact dissipates in the next few months, the main factor driving the shape of the New Zealand curve will swing back to expectations of future RBNZ policy. Bottom Line: The recent consistent steepening of government bond yield curves across the developed markets should soon begin to fade, leading to a more diverse evolution of curves during the course of 2017: steeper in the U.S., core Europe and in the long end in Japan; flatter in the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. 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/U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Six Reasons To Tactically Reduce Duration Exposure Now", dated July 19, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com & usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fourth Tantrum", dated November 29, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com & usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The current 1-year forward rate for the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury is 2.67% 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen", dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The Fed targets headline PCE inflation, while inflation compensation in U.S. TIPS is priced off headline CPI inflation. The historical gap between the two measures is about 40bps, thus a level of breakeven inflation in TIPS that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target is 2.4% (2% PCE inflation + 0.4%). 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 7 Both the Bank of Canada and the median economist surveyed by Bloomberg forecast 2.0% real GDP growth in 2017. For further details, please http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2016/10/mpr-2016-10-19/ 8 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Yield Curve Trades For The Rest Of The Year", dated May 24, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Post-Trump Update Of Our Overlay Trades", dated November 22, 2017, available at gfis.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