Sectors

Feature Dear Client, Instead of our usual weekly report, we are sending you a report written by my colleague Matt Gertken, Associate Editor of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. In this piece, Matt argues that there is more than a 50% chance that the Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) will pass and Donald Trump's support will be the decisive factor. There are also high chances that trade retaliation would unfold likely detracting from the trade benefits of the proposed tax. In addition, given the likelihood of the BAT implementation, we are highlighting U.S. equity sector investment implications and ranking industries on three variables: taxes, margins and foreign sales exposure. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best Regards, Anastasios Avgeriou There are good chances that the border adjustment tax (BAT) will pass as the House GOP has a governing trifecta. Trump has not yet endorsed the BAT, which will be critical, and carve-outs will likely be made to reduce the impact on low- and middle-income households. Still, we can draw some sectoral implications from the known GOP proposal. While a lot of ink has been spilled on potential direct winners and losers from the BAT and what is priced in by the markets, we focus our sector analysis on the sweet spot of tax rates, profit margins and international sales exposure. Chart 1 shows a Venn diagram of these three factors, with the overlap representing the optimally positioned sector. We deem that industries with a combination of high tax rates, high profit margins and low or no foreign sales exposure will be prime beneficiaries of the BAT. Chart 1Sweet Spot At first glance this backdrop may appear counterintuitive, especially the international revenue exposure angle, given the preferential treatment that exporters would receive with the BAT implementation. Almost immediately upon Trump's election and news of BAT the market bought companies/industries with negative net import share and discarded sectors with high net import content (Chart 2A & Chart 2B). Chart 2AInvestors Have Been... Chart 2B... Preferring Exporters To Importers Watch The U.S. Dollar And Emerging Markets Nevertheless, what is worrisome is the market's neglect of a U.S. dollar knee jerk appreciation as our sister Global Investment Strategy service outlined in the January 20th Special Report titled: "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017." Chart 3U.S. Dollar And EM Risks It is difficult to fathom why a greenback surge will not be disruptive especially for the emerging markets (EM) and U.S. cyclical sector proxies trading in tandem with EM. According to the Bank for International Settlements, U.S. "Dollar credit to non-banks outside the United States reached $9.8 trillion at end-Q2 2015. Borrowers resident in EM accounted for $3.3 trillion of this amount, or over a third."1 The EM still have a large stock of U.S. dollar denominated debt to service, both interest payment and principal repayments/refinancing (Chart 3). While the FX straight jacket is not in place as in the 1990s, at least a mini EM crisis seems inevitable if the trade-weighted U.S. dollar moved up 10% from current levels as is likely owing to a BAT. Keep in mind that recent U.S. dollar moves of a similar magnitude (as in 2015), (Chart 3) have been rather unsettling, causing tremors in the EM that reverberated across the globe. Tack on uncertainty surrounding the Chinese renminbi that would only aggravate the U.S. dollar's rise and factors are falling into place for another troublesome EM episode. As a result, global final demand may come under pressure and U.S. exporters may initially suffer more than they benefit from the export subsidy they would enjoy. Another U.S. dollar induced global manufacturing recession would bode ill for U.S. cyclicals exposed to the EM. A Few Words On Manufacturing While the intent of bringing back manufacturing jobs to U.S. shores is appealing, practically it will prove very difficult. Developed economies are services oriented economies with manufacturing dwindling toward 10-15% of GDP (Chart 4). Moreover, the U.S. is a closed economy dominated by PCE comprising 70% of the overall economy. Thus, shifting the U.S. more toward a net export driven economy is also likely to prove challenging. Chart 4Tough To Shift The U.S. Economy's Profile Chart 5Will Capex Revive? Finally, manufacturing is tightly linked to capital expenditures and a recent post by the Atlanta Fed2 tried to shed some light as to why investment in the U.S. has lagged especially versus previous recoveries when the economy was near full employment (Chart 5 & Table 1). Interestingly, the biggest hindrance against boosting capex has been lack of skilled labor, and not the lack of financing or poor sales outlook or low return on investment for example. In fact the larger the firm (in terms of sales) the more pronounced the inaccessibility to qualified staff as a factor constraining investment. While tax reform aims to boost capex by accelerated depreciation schedule in the first year, it does not address the small business complaint of inability to find skilled labor. Table 1Impact Of "High Pressure" Labor Conditions On Capital Spending BAT Winners Therefore, we would want to bulletproof the portfolio by identifying industries that would do well owing to the BAT and resulting U.S. dollar appreciation. U.S. domestic services oriented firms fit the bill, and there is room for sizable outperformance if our thesis proves accurate. Chart 6 highlights 47 sub-industries from 9 GICS1 sectors (energy & materials are excluded) that we singled out that satisfy the domestic and services oriented prerequisite (See Appendix on page 8 for more details). U.S. manufacturers with little or no foreign sales exposure would also stand to get an earnings boost, especially relative to the broad market and to their internationally geared peers. Homebuilders, select construction materials and building products companies would be included in this category. Energy is a special case (please refer to Box 1 on page 6). Meanwhile, high profit margin businesses with sticky pricing power and high effective tax rates also come out on top of our analysis as these outfits would benefit more from overall tax reform. Table 2 shows the top 11 sectors in the S&P 500 on the three metrics. Chart 6Buy Domestic Services Table 2 Health care, utilities, and telecom services score well on all three counts. Real estate and financials also get high marks. In contrast, technology, materials, energy and industrials get poor grades on most of our metrics, with the balance of sectors falling somewhere in between. Box 1 Energy Is A Special Case Chart 7U.S. Remains A Net Importer Of Oil The energy sector is a special case. The U.S. still imports north of 7 MMb/d of oil and represents about 10% of the trade deficit (Chart 7). Were energy to be included in the BAT legislation, WTI crude oil prices would likely shoot higher by ~$10/b as U.S. oil consumers (refiners) would seek to avoid the $10+ BAT on imported light sweet crude by buying domestic oil, and U.S. oil producers would try to benefit from the export subsidy. U.S. exploration & production companies and energy servicers would be clear winners, while refiners would be losers. Nevertheless, the dollar jump would be an offsetting factor. Given the outsized impact on the consumer (gasoline price inflation sapping discretionary spending power) and the close political and energy-security relationship with Canada (60% of net U.S. petroleum imports), there is a high likelihood that energy would be exempt from the BAT. In fact, small and medium businesses (SME) would disproportionately benefit from lower corporate taxes especially compared with S&P 500 constituents that are privileged with a lower effective tax rate. Large capitalization multinationals with sizable foreign sourced sales/profits already use the "double Irish" or "Dutch sandwich" to bring down their tax bills. Keep in mind that SMEs also tend to have low or no foreign sales exposure insulating them from the looming U.S. dollar appreciation. Thus, small caps have a considerable advantage versus their large cap brethren upon implementation of the BAT and general tax reform, and we continue to recommend a small cap tilt in our size bias. For reference purposes Table 3 highlights small cap GICS1 sectors on an operating profit margin and effective tax rate basis. What follows in the appendix is a list of sub-industries per GICS1 sector we have identified that would likely stand to benefit from the BAT implementation assuming a U.S. dollar appreciation. Table 3 Bottom Line: We are comfortable maintaining a defensive versus cyclically exposed portfolio, that would shield us from the BAT implementation, especially if a greenback induced correction materialized in the coming months. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President Global Alpha Sector Strategy & U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 "Dollar credit to emerging market economies" by Robert Neil McCauley, Patrick McGuire and Vladyslav Sushko, 6 December 2015, Bank for International Settlements, Quarterly Review, December 2015, available at: http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1512e.htm 2 http://macroblog.typepad.com/macroblog/2017/02/can-tight-labor-markets-inhibit-investment-growth.html Appendix Consumer Discretionary Advertising Broadcasting Cable & Satellite Casinos & Gaming Movies & Entertainment Publishing & Printing Restaurants Specialized Consumer Services Consumer Staples Food Distributors Financials Asset Management & Custody Banks Consumer Finance Diversified Banks Insurance Brokers Investment Banking & Brokerage Life & Health Insurance Multi-line Insurance Multi-Sector Holdings Property & Casualty Insurance Regional Banks Health Care Health Care Distributors & Services Health Care Facilities Life Sciences Tools & Services Managed Health Care Industrials Diversified Support Services Environmental & Facilities Services Human Resource & Employment Services Railroads Research & Consulting Services Trading Companies & Distributors Trucking Information Technology Data Processing & Outsourced Services Electronic Manufacturing Services Internet Software & Services IT Consulting & Other Services Real Estate Health Care REITs Hotel & Resort REITs Industrial REITs Office REITs Real Estate Services Residential REITs Retail REITs Specialized REITs Telecommunication Services Alternative Carriers Integrated Telecommunication Services Utilities Electric Utilities Independent Power Producers & Energy Traders Multi-Utilities Highlights The U.S. Border Adjustment Tax is likely to pass; Yet the political pieces are not in place; Trump himself will be the decisive factor; Trade retaliation would detract from trade benefits of the tax; Stay long volatility; small caps versus large caps; and long USD versus EM currencies. Remain short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks, and German exporters versus consumer services. Feature Donald Trump is a trend-setter. After winning the U.S. election on a protectionist platform that played well to voters in the Midwest, Trump has established an anti-globalization brand of politics. His success has revealed the preferences of the American "median voter."3 Other U.S. politicians are taking notice. The "Border Adjustment Tax" (BAT) is part of this new political trend, though it did not originate with Trump. The House GOP leadership has presented it as a response to economic dislocation in the American heartland, which propelled Trump to the White House. Is it protectionism? Yes, and in this analysis we explain why. The rest of the world is highly unlikely to treat the BAT as a standard Value Added Tax (VAT). It will therefore spark trade retaliation unless Congress addresses outstanding issues. So far President Trump is on the fence, and his support is necessary for passage. We think he will ultimately go with the proposal. The prospect of turning the tables on the U.S.'s trade partners, while spurring domestic investment and capital spending, speaks to his core promises to his voters. Trump's support for the plan should be read as a headwind for markets in the short term due to the uncertainties of implementation and trade disputes. If he should oppose the plan, it would be bullish for U.S. stocks in the short term, since it would mean cutting the corporate tax without radically altering the global status quo. It would signal that he is more interested in economic growth and corporate profits than changing the world or balancing the U.S. budget. Why Reform The Corporate Tax System? American policymakers have long struggled with the country's corporate income tax system. Leaving aside party politics, there are three main complaints:4 Corporate tax revenues are weak: Revenues have disappointed as companies have shifted profits to tax havens and used deductions and loopholes to avoid paying the 35% statutory rate. This erosion of the tax base has contributed to budget deficits as well as public dissatisfaction with governing institutions (Chart 1). U.S. companies have lost competitiveness: American businesses are overtaxed relative to their developed-market peers, taking a toll on competitiveness both at home and abroad (Chart 2). The middle class is losing out: U.S. workers are not as well compensated as their developed-market peers and have lost their share of American wealth in recent decades (Chart 3). The corporate tax contributes to this because companies foist the tax onto workers. The Republican Party examined fundamental tax reform in 2005 but could not make progress on it - instead it settled for the Bush tax cuts, which focused primarily on cutting household tax rates.5 Now that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government again, its leaders are attempting broad tax reform anew. The GOP is primarily concerned with corporate competitiveness, but they also need to appease the middle class - the source of the populist angst that supported both Obama and Trump (the former being the Republicans' arch-nemesis, the latter a strange bedfellow). The GOP also wants to raise some revenue to make their desired tax rate cuts "revenue neutral," i.e. somewhat fiscally defensible, at least enough to pass the bill. Enter Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and their "Better Way" tax plan, which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system.6 The core idea is to pay for tax cuts by transforming the current corporate income tax system into a "destination-based cash-flow tax" (DBCFT) with border adjustability ("border adjustment tax" or BAT for short).7 We will get to the definition of that, but first, what is the ultimate point? The plan would purportedly drive corporate investment and economic growth by allowing companies to write off the expense of new investments immediately, the first year, rather than gradually through depreciation. (Depreciation schedules often mean that the tax write-off barely covers the cost of investment, thereby causing companies to err on the side of risk-aversion.) The plan would also remove the preferential treatment of corporate debt over equity, which is built into the current tax code through the deduction of interest - this change would discourage corporate indebtedness and encourage equity financing. Finally the plan would not allow U.S. companies to write off the expense of imported goods, as currently, and as such is essentially a tax on the U.S. trade deficit. Roughly, it could yield about $108 billion in revenue (assuming a 20% rate on the $538 billion deficit). The BAT is the chief tax uncertainty today for investors. That is because there are few constraints on the GOP passing some kind of corporate tax cut this year. Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. There is every reason to think it will happen fast. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In other words, Trump and his party would need to have a train wreck to fail to pass something this year. That is not beyond belief! But the overriding question is whether the tax reform will be focused on cutting rates, or transforming the system. Currently, the market seems to think the BAT will go through. A basket of stocks based on potential winners and losers suggests that investors believe it will pass (Chart 4). Meanwhile, however, the share prices of high-tax companies (who should benefit the most if taxes are cut) have fallen back from the pop after Trump's election. This could signal the opposite expectation, or that that investors recognize that many high-tax sectors stand to lose from a tax on imports (Chart 5). There is considerable uncertainty in this measure. We think the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's BAT proposal. But the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show. We expect dollar volatility, which is relatively restrained at present, to rise as the BAT debate intensifies, given that the proposal is bullish for the greenback (Chart 6). Bottom Line: The Trump administration and GOP would have to be unusually incompetent to fail to achieve tax reform this year. The question is whether it will be mere rate cuts or a radical reform to the tax system as a whole. This is critical to the U.S. and global economy - especially given that the passage of a BAT will intensify trade disputes with the U.S. Why Is A Border Adjustment Tax "Protectionist"? Diagram 1 provides a simple illustration of how the current U.S. corporate tax works compared to the proposed BAT. The current system is a "worldwide" corporate income tax. The U.S. government taxes American companies based on their global profits (global revenues minus global costs). No matter where they incur costs, they can write them off, and no matter where they make profits, they must pay tax on them, at least in principle. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The new system, by contrast, would be a "destination-based" tax in which the government taxes companies only on domestic profits (domestic revenues minus domestic costs). This means that revenues earned abroad from exports or sales in foreign jurisdictions would be free from tax. However - and here is the tricky part - it also means that costs incurred abroad, imports or purchases in foreign jurisdictions, would be ignored by the tax authority, i.e. they could not be written off like domestic costs. As the "rebate" in the Diagram shows, the BAT is effectively a tax on imports and subsidy to exports. This is not as egregiously protectionist as it sounds at first, because it is very similar to a Value-Added Tax (VAT), which is the dominant tax system across the world. The U.S. is a massive outlier for not having a VAT. But notice that the amount of the rebate to the exporting company in the diagram is higher (at $40) than the amount of tax that would be due if it paid a tax on its foreign profits, since ($200 - $100) x 20% = $20. The WTO may rule against the law if it believes major U.S. exporters will pay net negative taxes as a result of the rebate. Moreover, the BAT has certain differences from a VAT that ensure that the world will see it as a protectionist affront. The BAT is a combination of a VAT, which is a tax on consumption, and an income tax, which is the current system. However, the BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current system. Under VAT systems, this is not possible because wages are not consumption and therefore not deductible.8 If the GOP proposal becomes law without addressing this difference - that is, without denying corporates the wage deduction, or taxing them in some other way to compensate - it will likely prompt global trade retaliation. While the World Trade Organization may deem the BAT legal by interpreting it as a VAT, it will not do so if U.S. companies cannot show that they are not getting a leg up on their international rivals by retaining the wage deduction from the former corporate income tax code. Wages are obviously a very large part of a company's expenses. They make up about 68-72% of U.S. companies' costs (Chart 7), and have grown at about 2-4% each year for the export-oriented sector (Chart 8). If U.S. companies can write off the wage expense in their exported goods, then foreign countries will have to adjust, possibly by imposing duties to counteract the share of taxes avoided by that write-off. Bottom Line: The BAT is a hybrid of tax systems. It is likely that the WTO and U.S. trading partners will object to it as an import tax and export subsidy, particularly because of the wage deduction. The House GOP could adjust the proposal ahead of time or afterwards to avoid this conflict, but that has not happened yet. In addition, corporate lobbying against removing wage deductions would be severe. Will A BAT Get Passed Into Law? Currently, the House GOP leaders face a rising wave of criticism about the BAT proposal and have begun to signal greater flexibility in drafting the law so as to win over various stakeholders. A salient point to remember about U.S. tax legislation is that it is very rare in recent decades for a ruling party to bungle it. Only eight pieces of tax legislation have been vetoed by presidents since 1975, only two of which were serious bills, and in both cases the president vetoed the legislation pushed by an opposition-controlled Congress (Table 2). By the time a serious tax bill makes it to the president's desk, a veto is unlikely, especially if the president and Congress belong to the same party. Table 2Major Tax Legislation Is Set Up For Success Even more salient, only 23 pieces of tax legislation since 1975 have been struck down in either of the two houses. Of these, seven were attempts to amend the constitution (not likely to pass), nine were attempts to amend the internal revenue code for highly specific things (spirits, cigars, the holding of conventions on cruise ships). Only seven were major bills, and in only one of these cases did the Senate strike down the bill, which was a case of a Republican Senate defending a Republican president from an opposition Congress. In only one case did the ruling party in the House kill a serious tax bill proposed by one of its own members, but it is not comparable to the tax reform in question today.9 What this means is that the BAT is highly likely to be passed into law if the House remains loyal to its leader Paul Ryan, and to the Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, the two authors of the BAT proposal. However, Trump could derail Ryan's best laid plans. Trump seemed to throw a wrench in the gears when he cast doubt on border adjustment tax, saying that it was too complicated. However, the Trump administration has recently made comments favorable to the BAT. Peter Navarro, chief of the new National Trade Council, highlighted it as a way to bring manufacturing supply chains back into the U.S. (note the protectionist angle of the comment). Meanwhile Sean Spicer, Trump's spokesman, said it would be a good way to make Mexico pay for the infamous wall to be constructed on the border (again, note that the angle is protectionist and populist, not about balancing the budget).10 In each case, the Trump team has gone to pains to emphasize that the BAT is only one option among many. Yet the fact that they have repeatedly brought it up as a solution to their own populist promises is suggestive. We think Trump will ultimately hew to the Republican Party leadership on tax reform.11 Why? Time's a'wastin': Party control of all three branches is a fleeting boon and 2018 mid-term campaigning would make the BAT harder to pass because it could hike the prices of consumer goods. Republicans have a plan ready to go, the House ultimately controls the purse, and Trump wants to move fast on tax cuts and boosting the economy. Furthermore, Republicans remember how short-lived the Democrats' control of Congress was after 2008. Trump wants to be transformative, not merely transactional:12 Trump was elected in a populist revolution and has vowed to improve American manufacturing and trade. His protectionist and mercantilist vision is fundamentally aligned with the chief aims of the BAT: remove the "tax" on corporate investment to improve U.S. capital stock and productivity, and remove incentives to locate, operate, and stash profits offshore. There is at least some positive correlation between higher VAT rates and positive trade balances, and the law is simultaneously supposed to boost productivity (Charts 9 and 10). Trump needs domestic and international "legitimacy": His protectionist platform will stand on firmer ground if he adopts policy that is at least debatable at the WTO, as opposed to imposing tariffs willy-nilly through bare executive power, which is eventually vulnerable to congressional and judicial oversight. Domestic courts have already shown an inclination to halt Trump's controversial executive orders.13 By contrast, they would almost certainly defer to Congress even on the most radical tax reforms. Trump needs a tradeoff for infrastructure spending: Unpopular presidents cannot set the legislative agenda.14 But Trump may be able to trade GOP-style corporate tax reform - which offsets tax cuts with new revenue provisions, such as the BAT - in return for infrastructure spending, which the GOP is reluctant to embrace. Trump is willing to lead a crusade against the WTO: This may be a necessary prerequisite for the passage of this bill, and Trump is heaven-sent to play the role. He would be to the WTO what George W. Bush was to the United Nations. It would be disastrous for the U.S.-built international liberal order, but it would give Trump the ability to pursue protectionism while rallying the public around the flag against America's "globalist" enemies. (Sovereignty over taxation is a cause that is hard to beat in the U.S.)15 BAT allows Trump to save face on the "Wall" with Mexico: As the White House spokesman hinted, Trump may use creative accounting to satisfy his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Moreover, if Trump comes out in support of the BAT, it will likely get passed: Precedent: President John F. Kennedy's and Jimmy Carter's efforts at tax reform failed because Congress was not supportive, which is not a problem today; whereas Ronald Reagan's personal support for the 1986 tax reform - despite his reservations about the attempt to transform the system and broaden the base - proved critical in helping the bill move through Congress.16 Political science: The political context is a better determinant of presidential success than individual talents, and rising political polarization in the U.S. has created an environment in which "majority presidents," those whose party has a majority in Congress, are even more likely to be successful, while "minority presidents" are more likely to fail on key initiatives. The relevant factors of political context are the party's grip on Congress, the extent of polarization, and, somewhat less significantly, whether the president is in his "honeymoon period" and enjoys public support.17 Of these factors, Trump is only weak on public support, though not among conservatives (Chart 11), who could vote their representatives out of office if they defy Trump on tax reform. The Senate could still cause a serious hang-up. But if Trump and the House GOP stand behind the legislation then Senate Republicans would have to be suicidal to oppose it.18 What about the corporate lobbies that oppose the BAT? Certainly it is highly controversial at home. The tax could hurt import-heavy U.S. businesses and punish citizens with a high propensity to consume - i.e. the poor and elderly, both constituents that make up an important part of Trump's base. But that suggests that there will be carve-outs or phased implementation for key imports like food, fuel, and clothing. Such compromises will be messy, and will mitigate any dollar appreciation and reduce the tax revenues to be gained, but would probably enable the bill to get passed. The opposition of retailers like Wal-Mart and Target is overrated in terms of their power as a lobby. Importers form a slightly larger lobby than exporters, which makes sense given that the U.S. is a net importing economy, but neither of them comprises a large share of total lobbying (Chart 12). The sectors that suffer the most from the import tax also tend to pay higher effective tax rates and thus stand to benefit from the rate cuts (Chart 13). The opposition of the Koch brothers is also overrated, given their unhelpful attitude toward Trump's candidacy for president! Bottom Line: The BAT is a radical plan to spur corporate investment and production in the United States, and that goal matches Trump's vision. Trump will be hard pressed to find a more effective, structural way of achieving his goals. And the two-year window with assured GOP control of government will close faster than one might think. Risks To The View A major risk to the BAT is that Trump will fear the repercussions on his political base of higher consumer prices, as hinted above. Consumer pain is a necessary consequence of his mercantilist vision of rebalancing the U.S. from consumption to investment and bringing down the U.S. trade deficit, so Trump will have to decide whether he means what he says. Moreover, if the dollar rises sharply as a result of the BAT, as expected, it would cause pain for the economy and S&P 500 companies, which source 44% of earnings outside the U.S. According to BCA's Global Investment Strategy, the impact of a much stronger dollar on U.S. assets denominated in foreign currencies could amount to a loss worth of 13% of U.S. GDP! (Not to mention Trump's personal wealth from overseas.) Given the huge uncertainties of a totally new tax system, and potential disruption to the economy, it would be perfectly understandable if Trump refused to hitch his fate as president to this wonkish grand experiment. Further, it is not as if there is no alternative to the BAT. Since Republicans will be humiliated if they fail to deliver on tax cuts, Trump's opposition to the BAT would force the House GOP to go back to good ol' fashioned tax cuts without significant revenue raising measures, and specific add-ons to deal with concerns like corporate inversions. Trump would still likely get the repatriation of overseas earnings, a political win, and the economy would experience an increase in investment from tax rate cuts without the uncertain consequences of deeper change. Ronald Reagan's administration offers a precedent for this sequencing, since he began his term with simple tax cuts in 1981 and only later attempted the dramatic tax overhaul of 1986. There is also a risk that the business lobby against the BAT proves stronger than expected and gains traction in the media and popular opinion as a result of the feared consequences on consumer prices. Tax reform is never going to be easy and will always hang in a precarious balance. These are serious risks, but we think Trump and the GOP will move now rather than make any assumptions about their ability to win subsequent elections and enact massive tax reform. The fact that the GOP controls all three branches of government, the BAT plan is well in the making, and Trump is looking to reshape the American economy in ways that align with the BAT, make the odds of passage higher than 50%. Unfortunately, this also means the world should brace for a sharp spike in trade disputes. Bottom Line: There are plenty of reasons to think the BAT plan could collapse of its own weight. The path of least resistance is certainly not the BAT. But we think the preponderance of power in GOP hands in Washington favors radical change, even if it ends up being a policy mistake. Investment Implications: Trade War The WTO is supposed to presume innocence with a country's laws, and it might also approve the BAT on the basis that proponents argue: the U.S. imposing the BAT is not much different from a VAT country increasing its VAT rate while simultaneously slashing the payroll tax (as France has done under President Hollande's administration). This view is misguided. The WTO will rule on the statute and international trade treaties, not the special pleading of the advocates. It may or may not accept that the BAT is equivalent to a VAT; it may or may not object to the wage deduction as a holdover from the "direct" tax on income. The GOP has not yet introduced a draft law, but given the express intention - in the Ryan plan, not even to mention Trump - to put "America first" with a "pro-America approach for global competitiveness," it seems likely that a clash of interests is in the making. In other words, American proponents of the tax are not even hiding its overt protectionist intentions. The WTO will probably discover a subsidy for U.S. exporters and a violation of the principle of trade neutrality with respect to imports. WTO litigation will take years. When the European Union sued the U.S. over its use of Foreign Sales Corporations, a comparable dispute, the proceedings began in 1999 and the WTO ruled against the U.S. in 2002. Ultimately, the U.S. Congress amended the law to avoid retaliation in 2004.19 Trump and the GOP would be less likely to amend their pet project in the current environment, especially if the litigant is the EU at the WTO! Trump, as mentioned, would be inclined to take the fight to the WTO - he has even threatened to withdraw the United States from it. His support group feeds on conflict with supra-national bodies and he may see foreign retaliation as a convenient reason to impose tariffs of his own. The trade environment would deteriorate in the meantime. In 2002, it was assumed that the U.S. and EU could work out an agreement without punitive measures, but that assumption does not hold today. And it would not only be the EU leveling complaints. In short, the U.S. would face foreign retaliation, during the proceedings and likely as a consequence of the WTO ruling. The Trump administration would attempt to mitigate the blowback through a series of bilateral deals, and perhaps the U.S. law would ultimately be modified, but the entire saga would have a negative impact on global trade. Financial markets had many factors to contend with during this period (like the dot-com bubble), and they will similarly respond to large currents in the coming years aside from any BAT. Nevertheless, the tax would reinforce our themes of global multipolarity, mercantilism, and protectionism - and thus reinforce several of our existing trades: We continue to favor small caps over large caps. Small caps are insulated from global trade, will benefit most from the cut in tax rates, and will suffer least from any appreciation of the dollar. Long volatility - Long VIX 20-25 call spread for expiration in March; Long USD versus short EM currencies; Short China-exposed S&P stocks; Short German exporters versus long consumer services. If Trump comes out in opposition to the BAT, he would send a bullish signal for markets in the short term. It would mean, first, that the U.S. will have corporate tax cuts without the broader uncertainties of the BAT; and second, that Trump is actually a pragmatist who eschews radical change if he thinks it will cause too much trouble for U.S. consumers or economic growth. However, it would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would avoid a trade conflict, given Trump's executive powers.20 Of course, the BAT's failure - which is not our baseline - would also be worse for the deficit and debt, as the GOP tax cuts would have no offsetting revenue increases but would rely purely on creative accounting, "dynamic scoring," to appear fiscally acceptable. This legislation would also likely fail to simplify the tax code as much as the BAT would. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Alan J. Auerbach, "A Modern Corporate Tax," Center for American Progress, dated December 2010, available at www.americanprogress.org. 5 Please see President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, "Final Report," dated November 1, 2005, available at govinfo.library.unt.edu. 6 Please see "A Better Way: Our Vision For A Confident America: Tax," dated June 24, 2016, available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 7 Our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy have recently provided a very helpful Q&A on the border adjustment tax (BAT), and we would refer readers to that report for a detailed discussion. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, "Back To 1913?: The Ryan Blueprint And Its Problems," Tax Notes 153: 11 (2016), 1367-47, reprinted by University of Michigan, available at www.repository.law.umich.edu. 9 Amo Houghton, a liberal-leaning Republican from New York, proposed the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002, a bill to streamline IRS administration. It failed in the Republican Congress under President Bush. 10 Please see Shawn Donnan, "Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation," Financial Times, January 31, 2017, available at www.ft.com, and Bob Bryan, "Trump press secretary says the administration is considering a 20% border tax on Mexican imports to help pay for the wall," Business Insider, January 26, 2017, available at www.businessinsider.com. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn has also indicated that the BAT is an option but not yet decided upon, see CNBC, "Squawk on the Street," February 3, 2017, available at www.cnbc.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already issued a temporary injunction against President Trump's executive orders on immigration. Please see "State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump," available at www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 14 Please see John Lovett, Shaun Bevan, and Frank R. Baumgartner, "Popular Presidents Can Affect Congressional Attention, For A Little While," Policy Studies Journal 43: 1 (2015), 22-44, available at www.unc.edu. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, and "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 17 Jeffrey E. Cohen, Jon R. Bond, and Richard Fleisher, "Placing Presidential-Congressional Relations In Context: A Comparison Of Barack Obama And His Predecessors," Polity 45:1 (2013), 105-126. 18 The Senate Financial Services Committee's support will be critical. Chairman Orrin Hatch has criticized but not yet declared against the BAT. Even if he does, it would not necessarily kill the deal. One of his predecessors, Senator Bob Packwood, initially opposed the Tax Reform Act in 1986 but was ultimately persuaded to support it. If Hatch and the Finance Committee support the initiative, it will pass the Senate. First, the tax overhaul can be accomplished by "reconciliation," a congressional trick that will enable the GOP to avoid a Senate filibuster and pass the tax reform with a simple majority. Second, the Republicans today have almost exactly the proportion of seats in the Senate as the average in previous examples of successful tax reform (see Table 1). So there would have to be a higher share of Republican defectors than in the past to overturn the bill. This is possible but unlikely if Trump and the House GOP are behind the bill. 19 Please see Congressional Research Service, "A History of the Extraterritorial Income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Export Tax-Benefit Controversy," dated September 22, 2006, available at digital.library.unt.edu. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 boils down to a simple choice: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google? Right now, we would rather own the three tech stocks than the three banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Right now, we expect euro/pound to strengthen - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. Stay overweight Spanish Bonos versus French OATs as a structural position. Feature Which would you rather own: Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING; or Apple, Microsoft and Google?1 Surprising as it may seem, the all-important allocation decision between the Eurostoxx50 and the S&P500 boils down to this simple choice. The Chart of the Week should leave no doubt that everything else is largely irrelevant. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 = Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Right now, we would rather own the top three U.S. tech stocks rather than the top three euro area banks - which necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the S&P500. The Fallacy Of Division For Equities The fallacy of division is a logical fallacy. It occurs when somebody falsely infers that what is true for the whole is also true for the parts that make up the whole. As a simple example, somebody might infer that because their computer screen appears purple, the pixels that make up the screen are also purple. In fact, the pixels are not purple. They are either red or blue. The fallacy of division is that the property of the whole - purpleness - does not translate to the property of the constituent parts - redness or blueness. As investment strategists, we hear a common fallacy of division. Since global equities are a play on the global economy, it might seem that national equity markets - like Ireland's ISEQ or Denmark's OMX - are plays on their national economies. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The property of the equity market as a global aggregate does not translate to the property of equity markets as national parts. The equity markets in Ireland and Denmark are each dominated by one stock which accounts for almost a quarter of national market capitalization - in Ireland, Ryanair, the pan-European budget airline, and in Denmark, Novo Nordisk, the global pharmaceutical company. Therefore, the relative performance of Ireland's ISEQ has almost no connection with Ireland's economy; rather, it is a just a play on airlines. And given budget airlines' sensitivity to fuel costs, Ireland's ISEQ is counterintuitively an inverse play on the oil price (Chart I-2). Likewise, the relative performance of Denmark's OMX has no connection with Denmark's economy; it is just a strong play on global pharma (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Ireland = Short Oil Chart I-3Denmark = Long Pharma In a similar vein, the relative performance of Switzerland's SME is also a play on global pharma - via Novartis and Roche (Chart I-4); Norway's OBX is a play on global energy - via Statoil (Chart I-5); and Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX are plays on banks (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). We could continue, but you get our drift... Chart I-4Switzerland = Long Pharma / Short Oil Chart I-5Norway = Long Oil Chart I-6Italy = Long Banks Chart I-7Spain = Long Banks But what about a regional index like the Eurostoxx50 or Eurostoxx600: surely, with the broader exposure, there must be a strong connection with the euro area economy? Unfortunately not - at least, not when it comes to relative performance. Consider that for the past few years, the euro area economy has actually outperformed the U.S. economy2 (Chart I-8). Yet the Eurostoxx50 has substantially underperformed the S&P500 (Chart I-9). What's going on? The answer is that the Eurostoxx50 has a major 15% weighting to banks and a minor 7% weighting to tech. The S&P500 is the mirror image; a minor 7% weighting to banks and a major 22% weighting to tech. Chart I-8The Euro Area Economy ##br##Has Outperformed... Chart I-9...But The Eurostoxx50##br## Has Underperformed For the Eurostoxx50 the distinguishing property is 'bank'; for the S&P500 it is 'tech'. And as we saw earlier, these distinguishing properties are captured by just three large euro area banks and three large U.S tech stocks. So index relative performance simply boils down to whether the three euro area banks outperform the three U.S. tech stocks, or vice-versa. Everything else is largely irrelevant. Equities' Connection With Economies Is Often Counterintuitive When it comes to the FTSE100, it turns out that it is not more bank or tech than the Eurostoxx50. Major sector weightings across the two indexes are broadly similar. Hence, relative performance is more connected to relative economic performance. But there is a catch - the connection is not as intuitive as you might first think. You see, both major indexes are made up of dollar-earning multinational companies. Yet the index value and earnings are quoted in pounds and euros respectively. If the home currency appreciates, index earnings - translated from dollars into home currency - go down, depressing index relative performance with it. And the opposite happens if the home currency depreciates. So the counterintuitive thing is that a relatively strengthening home economy does not result in index outperformance. Quite the opposite, it normally means a relatively more hawkish central bank, and an appreciating currency (Chart I-10). Thereby it causes index underperformance. Hence, Eurostoxx50 performance relative to the FTSE100 boils down to the inverse direction of euro/pound. Once again, Chart I-11 should leave readers in no doubt. Chart I-10A Relatively More Hawkish Central Bank =##br## A Stronger Currency Chart I-11A Stronger Currency = ##br##Equity Index Underperformance Which neatly brings us to today's ECB meeting. The ECB is a tunnel-vision 2% inflation-targeting central bank. Any upgrade to its inflation forecast, as seems likely, would imply less need for its extreme and experimental monetary easing. Once digested by the market, this would support the euro. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Channel, the U.K. Government is preparing to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and start its formal divorce from the EU within a couple of weeks. Expect the EU's immediate response to cast long shadows across Theresa May's vision of a future in sunlit uplands. Once digested by the market, this would further weigh down the pound. A stronger euro/pound necessarily means underweighting the Eurostoxx50 versus the FTSE100. The Fallacy Of Division For Bonds The fallacy of division also applies to euro area sovereign bonds. The aggregate euro area sovereign yield just equals the average ECB policy rate anticipated over the lifetime of the bond (Chart I-12). This is directly analogous to the relationship between the U.K. gilt yield and the anticipated path of the BoE base rate, and the relationship between the U.S. T-bond yield and the anticipated path of the Fed funds rate (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Aggregate Euro Area Bond Yield = ##br##The Average ECB Policy Rate Expected Chart I-13The U.S. T-Bond Yield = ##br##The Average Fed Funds Rate Expected But what is true for the whole is not necessarily true for the parts that make up the whole. Individual euro area sovereign bond yields carry a second component which can override everything else. This second component is a redenomination premium as compensation for the expected loss if the bond redenominates out of euros. For example, the redenomination premium on a Spanish Bono versus a French OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. However, the ECB's own analysis shows that Spain is now as competitive as France (Chart I-14), meaning that a new peseta ultimately should not lose value versus a new franc. So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the second item of the multiplication should be zero. Meaning that the redenomination premium should also be zero, rather than today's 75 bps (on 10-year Bonos over OATs). Bear in mind that Spain's housing bust and subsequent recapitalisation of its banks has followed Ireland's template - just with a two year lag. And observe that the redenomination premium on Irish 10-year bonds over OATs, which once stood at a remarkable 1100 bps, has now completely vanished. We expect Spain to continue following in the footsteps of Ireland (Chart I-15). As a structural position, stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Chart I-14Spain Has Dramatically Improved##br## Its Competitiveness Chart I-15Spain Is Following In The##br## Footsteps Of Ireland Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Listed as Alphabet. 2 On a per capita basis. Fractal Trading Model* Long tin / short copper hit its 5% profit target, while short MSCI AC World hit its 2.5% stop-loss. This week's recommendation is to short ruble / dollar. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-16 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

We bought the S&P health care facilities index last December after a steep post-election sell-off created a valuation and technical undershoot relative to the fundamental outlook. The doomsday concern was that President Trump would tear up the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially leaving millions without insurance: treating the uninsured is the bane of any hospital's existence. The index has outperformed by 12% since then, encouraged by a jump in analyst net profit revisions following upbeat profit results and guidance from industry heavyweights such as HCA Holdings, and a realization that any ACA action is likely to be more of a rework than a total rebuild. Our conviction level has decreased a notch. Our concern is primarily revenue based, rather than fear that provisions for doubtful accounts will suddenly deteriorate as a consequence of treating uninsured patients. Instead, the main push from the surge in the insured population and increase in procedures on the back of rising consumer confidence/job security is likely to peter out. Consumer spending on hospitals has already rolled over decisively on a growth rate basis, and is contracting compared with total consumer spending. The same is true of spending on physician visits. Fewer doctor visits mean a reduction in procedures performed at hospitals. Health care is a labor-intensive industry. Health care facilities staff up when they get busy and prune when capacity utilization slips. As such, slowing growth in hospital employment reinforces that patient volume growth is likely to ebb. In fact, the contraction in hospital hours worked signals the same ahead for hospital sales. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P 1500 health care facilities index to neutral, locking in a 12% profit since inception in December 2016. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for additional details.

Highlights Chart 1Keep A Close Eye On Financial Conditions The market's rate hike expectations moved sharply higher during the past two weeks as a string of Fed speeches, including one by Chair Yellen, all but confirmed a March rate hike. The market is now priced for 75 basis points of hikes during the next 12 months, compared to 50 bps at the end of January. At least so far, broad indicators of financial conditions have not tightened in response to this re-rating of the Fed (Chart 1). However, there are some preliminary indications that the reflation trade is fraying at the edges. The trade-weighted dollar has appreciated +0.2% since the end of January, the 2/10 Treasury slope has flattened 9 bps and the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has declined 1 bp. The Fed is currently testing the markets with hawkish rhetoric but, with inflation and TIPS breakevens still below target, will ultimately support the reflation trade if it comes under threat. In this environment investors with 6-12 month investment horizons should maintain below-benchmark duration, remain overweight spread product and continue to position for a steeper curve and wider TIPS breakevens. Feature Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 48 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 6 bps on the month and, at 112 bps, it remains well below its historical average (134 bps). Our research1 shows that when core PCE inflation is between 1.5% and 2%2 investment grade corporate bonds produce an average monthly excess return of close to zero. A 90% confidence interval places monthly excess returns between -19 bps and +17 bps with inflation in this range and excess returns do not turn decisively negative until core PCE is above 2%. Given the Fed's desire to nurture a continued recovery in inflation, we are not worried about significant spread widening until inflation is sustainably above 2%. In the meantime we expect corporate bond excess returns to be low, but positive. While supportive monetary policy should ensure excess returns consistent with carry, investors should not bank on further spread compression as corporate spreads have already discounted a substantial improvement in leverage (Chart 2). Energy related sectors still appear cheap after adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration (Table 3), and our commodity strategists expect oil prices to remain firm even in the face of a stronger U.S. dollar. This week we upgrade the Wireless and Packaging sectors from underweight to neutral and downgrade the Consumer Cyclical Services sector from neutral to underweight. The former two sectors now appear cheap on our model, while the latter has become expensive. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation*Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 112 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 25 bps on the month and, at 349 bps, it is currently 170 bps below its historical average. One of our key investment themes3 for this year is that the uptrend in defaults is likely to reverse (Chart 3), mostly due to recovery in the energy sector. However, still-poor corporate health and tightening monetary policy will lead to a resumption of the uptrend in 2018 and beyond. Despite the positive outlook for defaults, we retain only a neutral allocation to High-Yield because of very tight valuations. The index option-adjusted spread is now within a hair of the average level of 340 bps that prevailed during the 2004 - 2006 Fed tightening cycle, when indicators of corporate balance sheet health were in much better shape. In fact, the index spread is now only 116 bps wider than its all-time low of 233 bps, reached in 2007. Our preferred measure of High-Yield valuation is the default-adjusted spread - the average spread of the junk index less our forecast of 12-month default losses. At present, the default-adjusted spread is 142 bps. Historically, a default-adjusted spread between 100 bps and 150 bps is consistent with positive excess returns during the subsequent 12 months 64% of the time. It is only when the default-adjusted spread falls below 100 bps that positive excess returns become unlikely. Junk has provided positive excess returns over a 12-month horizon only 13% of the time when the starting default-adjusted spread is between 50 bps and 100 bps. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 3 basis points in February. The conventional 30-year MBS yield fell 5 bps on the month, driven by a 7 bps decline in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) increased by 1 bp, as did the option-adjusted spread. MBS spreads remain extremely tight relative both to history and Aaa-rated credit, although they have begun to widen somewhat relative to credit in recent weeks (Chart 4). More distressing is that the nominal MBS spread appears too tight relative to interest rate volatility (bottom panel). As we noted in a recent report,4 the long-run trend in interest rate volatility tends to be driven by uncertainty about the macroeconomic and political environment. In fact, rate volatility can be modeled using forecaster disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates. While the Fed's policy of forward guidance and a fed funds rate pinned at zero limited the amount of forecaster disagreement in recent years, this disagreement will re-emerge the further the fed funds rate moves off its lower bound. Another medium-term risk for MBS comes from the Fed ending the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio. As we described in a recent Special Report,5 the Fed is likely to allow its MBS portfolio to shrink at some point in 2018, putting further upward pressure on MBS spreads. Government Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 30 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +51 bps. The high-beta Sovereign and Foreign Agency sectors outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 90 bps and 59 bps, respectively. Meanwhile, the low-beta Domestic Agency and Supranational sectors each outperformed by 4 bps. Local Authorities returned 24 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sovereigns have outperformed Baa-rated corporate bonds year-to-date, a trend consistent with the rise in commodity prices and a trade-weighted dollar that has weakened by 1.5% (Chart 5). However, the dollar has started to appreciate in recent weeks and probably has further upside in the medium-term, especially if the Fed maintains its hawkish posture. Historically, it has been very rare for Sovereigns to outperform U.S. corporate bonds when the dollar is appreciating. After adjusting for credit rating and duration, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to appear cheap relative to U.S. corporate credit. In contrast, Sovereigns, Supranationals and Domestic Agencies all appear expensive. We continue to recommend overweight allocations to Foreign Agencies and Local Authorities, alongside underweight allocations to the rest of the government-related index. In a television interview last month Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed that GSE reform is still a priority for the new administration but that tax reform is much higher on the agenda. This means that agency spreads will likely remain insulated from any "reform risk" until next year at the earliest. Municipal Bonds: Neutral Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in February (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio has fallen 4% since the end of January and remains firmly anchored below its post-crisis average. The decline in the average M/T yield ratio was concentrated in short maturities, while ratios at the long-end of the curve actually rose (Chart 6). Accelerating fund flows and falling issuance will continue to support yield ratios in the near term. In fact, our tactical yield ratio model - based on issuance, fund flows and ratings migration - shows that yield ratios are presently very close to fair value. Although the average M/T yield ratio still appears expensive if we include the global economic policy uncertainty index as an additional explanatory variable.6 One risk to Munis is that yield ratios have already discounted a substantial reduction in state and local government net borrowing in Q1 (panel 3). While we expect this improvement will materialize in the next few quarters, net borrowing is biased upward beyond this year based on the lagged relationship between corporate sector and state and local government health.7 Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-flattened since the end of January as the market revised its Fed rate hike expectations sharply higher. Both the 2/10 and 5/30 Treasury slopes have flattened by 9 basis points since January 31. As such, our recommended position long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/10 barbell - designed to profit from a steeper yield curve - has returned -26 bps since the end of January, although it has returned close to 0 bps since it was initiated on December 20.8 As was stated on the front page of this report, the Fed's increasingly hawkish rhetoric has already caused the uptrend in TIPS breakevens to pause and the nominal Treasury slope to flatten (Chart 7). With inflation still below target these trends are not sustainable from the point of view of Fed policymakers. If the trend of decreasing TIPS breakevens and a flattening curve persists, we would expect the Fed to back away from its hawkish rhetoric. This dynamic will support a steeper yield curve at least until core PCE inflation is back to the Fed's 2% target and long-dated TIPS breakevens are anchored in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% (a range that is typically consistent with core PCE inflation at 2%). The persistent attractiveness of the 5-year bullet relative to the rest of the curve makes a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell the most attractive way to position for a steeper yield curve (panel 3). The carry buffer in the 5-year helps mitigate some of the risk of curve flattening. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 18 basis points in February. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate declined 3 bps on the month and, at 2.04%, it remains well below its pre-crisis trading range of 2.4% to 2.5%. While the catalyst for the recent softening in TIPS outperformance seems to be the hawkish re-rating of Fed rate hike expectations, the uptrend in TIPS breakevens was probably due for a pause in any case. Breakevens had become stretched relative to our TIPS Financial Model - based on the dollar, oil prices and the stock-to-bond total return ratio (Chart 8). Diffusion indexes for both PCE and CPI inflation have also shifted into negative territory, suggesting that realized inflation readings will soften during the next couple of months. On a cyclical horizon, however, the Fed will be keen to allow breakevens to rise toward levels more consistent with its inflation target and will quickly adopt a more dovish stance if breakevens fall significantly. This "Fed put" should remain in place at least until core PCE inflation is firmly anchored around 2% and long-dated TIPS breakevens return to a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. As we detailed in a recent report,9 while accelerating wage growth will ensure that inflation remains in a long-run uptrend, the impact from wages will be mitigated by deflating import prices meaning that the uptrend will be slow. We continue to expect that year-over-year core PCE inflation will not attain the Fed's 2% target until the end of this year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities performed in-line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in February. Aaa-rated issues underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 basis points, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 12 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 3 bps on the month. At 50 bps, the spread remains well below its average pre-crisis level. Banks are now tightening lending standards on both auto loans and credit cards (Chart 9). While we do not think this will have much of an impact on consumer spending,10 it is usually an indication that there is growing concern about ABS collateral credit quality. While credit card charge-offs remain well below their pre-crisis levels, net losses on auto loans have in fact started to trend higher (bottom panel). We continue to recommend Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans, despite the spread advantage in autos. We will closely monitor the evolving credit quality situation, but for now continue to view consumer ABS as a very attractive alternative to other short-duration Aaa-rated spread product such as MBS and Agency bonds. The main reason being the sizeable spread advantage that has persisted in ABS for some time. At present, Aaa-rated consumer ABS offer an option-adjusted spread of 50 bps, compared to 31 bps for 30-year conventional Agency MBS and 18 bps for Agency bonds. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps on the month, but remains below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising CMBS delinquency rates and tightening commercial real estate lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are firmly entrenched below their pre-crisis average. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in February. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS widened 5 bps on the month, and currently sits at 53 bps. The spread offered on Agency CMBS is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (50 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (31 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (which is based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.42% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model, which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.21%. The lower fair value results from the large spike in the uncertainty index last November, which has only been partially unwound (bottom panel). Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor model as more indicative of true fair value at the moment. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.49%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Year-over-year core PCE inflation is currently 1.74%. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Road To Higher Vol Is Paved With Uncertainty", dated February 14, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "The Way Forward For The Fed's Balance Sheet", dated February 28, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on the linkage between corporate sector health and state & local government health please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation: More Fire Than Ice, But Don't Sound The Alarm", dated January 24, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Odds Of March", dated February 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon) Current Recommendation

Highlights Portfolio Strategy A relapse in the global financials sector threatens to spill into U.S. financials as credit growth sinks. Bank equities are the most vulnerable to such a phase, given their reliance on rising interest rate expectations rather than increased lending. Take profits in the S&P health care facilities index and downgrade to neutral. Recent Changes S&P Health Care Facilities - Take profits of 12% and downgrade to neutral. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Momentum continues to trump all else, with the equity market surging to new all-time highs last week. However, in the background, the Fed is becoming steadily more hawkish, and the odds of a March rate hike have risen substantially. This should be cause for some trepidation. Chart 1Multiples Are Headed##br## Lower As The Fed Hikes The market advance since November has been supported primarily by valuation expansion, along with some improvement in corporate profits. The forward P/E has climbed to 18, its highest level in well over a decade. The scope for further expansion is limited. Importantly, if a transition to an earnings-led rally is in the offing, Fed funds expectations likely need to be ratcheted higher. Chart 1 shows that valuation multiples contract during Fed tightening cycles, using cycle-on-cycle analysis. Thus, the valuation expansion is inconsistent with a significant upgrade in the economic and profit outlook, particularly with return on equity so weak (Chart 1). In other words, the economy has good momentum, but that is not translating one for one to the corporate sector. Keep in mind that even a small two P/E multiple point decline requires 11% earnings growth for the market just to hold its ground. That is a tall order given the squeeze on profit margins from labor cost inflation and a strong U.S. dollar. Ironically, high multiples would be more durable if economic data softened enough for the Fed to hold its fire. Against this background, it is not surprising that a stealthy flight to safety has developed, although it is not uniform across asset classes. For instance, gold has outperformed most major currencies (note we recently upgraded the gold shares group as a portfolio hedge); global government yields have eased back while sovereign bond spreads have widened (Chart 2). In the U.S., the economically-sensitive transport group has rolled over in line with the yield curve narrowing (Chart 2), the equity SKEW index remains historically elevated, and a defensive vs. cyclical portfolio bias has outperformed handily since early December (Chart 2, bottom panel), on broad-based non-cyclical sector participation. These shifts, on the margin, signal that some investors are bracing for a bout of volatility. On the flipside, U.S. junk bond spreads have narrowed back to 2014 lows, and emerging market corporate bond spreads are testing similarly tight levels. The global purchasing manager survey recorded yet another monthly gain (Chart 3). Chart 2Contrarian##br##Alert... Chart 3... Defensives Can Outperform##br## When Growth Is Good Ergo, a systemic economic threat is not the main obstacle to further asset price appreciation. Rather, it is that expectations in some assets and sectors have become divorced from reality. Indeed, we have noted for the last two months the disturbing downtrend in bank credit growth and the unprecedented gap between strong 'soft' and pedestrian 'hard' economic data. Mixed economic and financial market messages suggest that any equity turbulence may be marked by a mostly rotational correction rather than a savage drawdown in the broad averages. Still, the latter cannot be ruled out given the high degree of complacency and buoyant profit and economic expectations. It is notable that defensive equities embarked on a massive outperformance phase when both U.S. and EM bond spreads were just as low as they are currently, i.e. they hit 'as good as it gets' levels (Chart 3). Any widening in corporate bond spreads would tighten financial conditions, spurring a slowdown in growth down the road. In sum, the odds of an equity market sweet spot extension beyond the very near run have diminished as a consequence of ongoing strong economic data, which reflects the easing in financial conditions a year ago. In terms of positioning portfolios, there is still a mismatch between developed and developing markets, as measured by the relative ISM indexes (Chart 3, fourth panel). The upshot is that defensives will continue to generate much more cash than their cyclical counterparts (Chart 3, bottom panel), supporting the nascent relative share price recovery. The financial sector could also be due for a correction. Financials And Banks: Where To Next? The global financials sector has cheered the firming in leading economic indicators and back up in bond yields since last autumn, but that celebration is likely drawing to a close. Euro area financials have rolled over, in line with renewed weakness in German government bond yields (Chart 4). Continued slippage in global yields could cap U.S. yields, thereby flattening the yield curve (Chart 5). U.S. financials are much more expensive than their euro area counterparts (Chart 5, bottom panel), suggesting heightened vulnerability. Chart 4Are EMU Financials ##br##Sending A Warning Signal? Chart 5Watch The##br## Yield Curve In our view, the S&P bank index contains the most downside vulnerability, in relative performance terms, of all the financial sector sub-components, especially if regulatory reform disappoints and/or is slow to evolve. True, as outlined in a Special Report published on October 3, 2016, interest rate expectations have a checkered history of predicting bank stock relative performance. When they do drive bank stocks, it is typically because most other profit drivers are lacking, as is currently the case (Chart 5, top panel). This cycle, interest rate spreads have been unduly suppressed by the zero lower bound. Under normal circumstances, when short-term interest rates are well above zero lower bound, banks can target a spread between rates on assets and liabilities. But when the fed funds rate is at zero, the spread is compressed, because banks generally cannot charge customers a penalty implied by negative interest rates on deposits (at least in the U.S.). As the Fed pushes interest rates back upward, banks may be able to return their spreads to their target levels, by raising deposit rates more slowly than loan rates. However, this dynamic has been fully priced in over the last few months and the risk is that higher net interest margins will not offset the lack of credit creation and/or that Fed funds rate expectations will level off if economic data start to disappoint. After all, Chart 6 shows that net interest margins can both widen and narrow when the Fed is hiking interest rates. Moreover, the yield curve is narrowing, after peaking two months ago. If rising fed interest rate expectations are the primary factor driving bank stock performance, then it follows that market expectations must continue to price in a much more hawkish rate environment in order to extend any rally in bank share prices. However, the global credit impulse is still negative, albeit less so, reflecting capital constraints and deleveraging. The Bank of International Settlements global credit impulse indicator has been an excellent leading indicator of relative bank profitability, and it is premature to expect earnings outperformance (Chart 7). U.S. credit data are also inconsistent with a major upshift in Fed funds interest rate expectations. Total loan growth is contracting, led by commercial & industrial loans (Chart 8). Commercial real estate loan growth has also turned lower. Chart 6Net Interest Margins And The Fed Chart 7Don't Chase Without Profit Support Chart 8Shrinking Balance Sheets The most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that banks are tightening lending standards in most categories, with the exception of mortgages (Chart 9). The number of banks reporting increased loan demand has also softened. Since the credit crisis, banks have shifted their balance sheet exposure toward businesses and away from consumers and residential mortgages, underscoring that a decent housing market is unlikely to provide an offset to lackluster corporate credit demand. Only mortgages have experienced an uptick in loan demand and availability of funds (Chart 9). This credit backdrop is not conducive to a much more aggressive Fed, reinforcing that it would be dangerous to discount a sustained and meaningful uptrend in net interest margins. To further confound the bank stock reward/risk profile, bank employment continues to rise steadily (Chart 10), even though balance sheet expansion is no longer a sure thing. We have shown in past Reports that bank stocks have almost always underperformed when bank employment is rising. Chart 9Credit Standars Are Tightening Chart 10Sagging Productivity The current combination of fading credit creation and rising employment has done a number on our bank productivity proxy. The latter is now contracting on a rate of change basis, warning that the expansion in bank stock valuations is due for a squeeze (Chart 10). Bottom Line: The run in bank stocks over the past few months is on the cusp of a reversal, based on the leading message from the euro area, sinking productivity and punk credit demand. Our financial sector preference remains skewed toward areas not dependent on credit creation, such as asset managers. Book Profits In Health Care Facilities We bought the S&P health care facilities index last December after a steep post-election sell-off created a valuation and technical undershoot relative to the fundamental outlook. The doomsday concern was that President Trump would tear up the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially leaving millions without insurance: treating the uninsured is the bane of any hospital's existence. At the time of purchase, the 52-week rate of change was diverging positively from the share price ratio after hitting deeply oversold levels, often a harbinger of a playable rally (Chart 11). That was particularly true given an historically high short position. The index has outperformed by 12% since then, encouraged by a jump in analyst net profit revisions following upbeat profit results and guidance from industry heavyweights such as HCA Holdings (Chart 11), and a realization that any ACA action is likely to be more of a rework than a total rebuild. Valuations remain appealing, but a technical breakout above key resistance levels requires increased confidence in the durability of profit outperformance. Is such a phase forthcoming? Our conviction level has decreased a notch. Our concern is primarily revenue based, rather than fear that provisions for doubtful accounts will suddenly deteriorate as a consequence of treating uninsured patients. Instead, the main push from the surge in the insured population and increase in procedures on the back of rising consumer confidence/job security is likely to peter out. Consumer spending on hospitals has already rolled over decisively on a growth rate basis (Chart 12, third panel), and is contracting compared with total consumer spending. The same is true of spending on physician visits. Fewer doctor visits mean a reduction in procedures performed at hospitals. Chart 11Hitting Resistance Chart 12Top-Line Trouble Ahead? Health care is a labor-intensive industry. Health care facilities staff up when they get busy and prune when capacity utilization slips. As such, slowing growth in hospital employment reinforces that patient volume growth is likely to ebb (Chart 12). In fact, the contraction in hospital hours worked signals the same ahead for hospital sales (Chart 12, bottom panel). The good news is that labor costs remain in check, as measured by the employment cost index for hospitals (Chart 13). Other input costs, such as the cost of medical equipment and supplies, have perked up (Chart 13), which may require increased pricing power in order to sustain profit margins. However, the revenue trends noted above suggest that hospitals may not experience a sufficient rise in patient volumes to the extent that restores pricing power to a more solid footing. Chart 14 shows that the consumer price index for hospitals is losing momentum relative to overall inflation. Durable outperformance phases require accelerating relative pricing power, in addition to a cooling in overall economic growth, as proxied by the ISM manufacturing index (see shading, Chart 14). Those conditions provide a durable competitive profit advantage. Chart 13A Mixed Picture For Costs Chart 14Shaky Long-Term Support Chart 15Macro Headwinds In addition, the ideal macro conditions for hospital stocks exist when consumer spending on overall health care services is accelerating relative to total spending. That implies that the providers of health care services have an advantage over those that pay for them, such as insurers. Total medical care spending is steadily decelerating (Chart 15), underscoring that investors are better off targeting investments in other parts of the sector. In sum, the forces required to sustain the oversold rally in the S&P 1500 health care facilities index are losing clout, so we recommend booking profits. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P 1500 health care facilities index to neutral, locking in a 12% profit since inception in December 2016. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

Highlights In this week's report, we update the "Three Controversial Calls"1 we made at BCA's New York Investment Conference held on September 26-27th, 2016. Call #1: "Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies." We still see 5% more upside for the greenback. Call #2: "Japan Overcomes Deflation." Inflation expectations have moved higher over the past five months, while the yen has weakened. This trend will persist. Call #3: "Global Banks Finally Outperform." Bank shares have beaten their global benchmark by 14% since we made this prediction. European financials have finally turned the corner. Feature Call #1: "Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies" Chart 1From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic We never bought into the notion that a Trump victory would cause investors to flee the dollar. On the contrary, we argued that most of Trump's policies were bond bearish/dollar bullish. In particular, we reasoned that Trump's attempts to browbeat companies into moving production back home would help reduce the U.S. trade deficit, boosting aggregate demand in the process. Efforts to curb illegal immigration would also push up the wages of low-skilled workers. Meanwhile, fiscal stimulus would fire up the labor market at a time when it was already approaching full employment. Fiscal Deficit On Upward Path With nearly four months having passed since the election, what have we learned? First, and foremost, a big increase in the budget deficit still looks likely. As Trump's address to the joint session of Congress on Tuesday night underscored, the president has plenty of specific areas in mind where he would like to increase spending (more money for defense, infrastructure, etc.) and a long list of taxes he would like to cut (corporate and personal income taxes, estate taxes, a new childcare tax credit,2 etc.). We do not take seriously Trump's pledge to pay for increased military spending by cutting annual nondefense discretionary spending by $54 billion relative to the existing CBO baseline. Chart 1 shows that under current budgetary rules, nondefense discretionary spending is set to decline from 3.3% of GDP in 2016 - already close to a historic low - to only 2.7% of GDP in 2026. Cutting that portion of the budget above and beyond what has already been legislated is unrealistic. There simply aren't enough programs like the National Endowment for the Arts that Republicans can take to the woodshed without facing a severe political backlash (Chart 2). As long as big ticket entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare remain unscathed - which Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed would be the case earlier this week - overall government spending will rise, not fall. Chart 2Nondefense Discretionary Spending: Where The Money Goes Trump And Trade The one category where Trump would be more than happy to see taxes go up is on imports. The constraint here is political. A unilateral move to legislate large-scale import duties would be in gross violation of WTO rules and could spark a global trade war. Many of Trump's Republican colleagues, as well as a fair number of Democrats, also favor free trade and would resist such an effort. One solution that Trump vaguely alluded to in his speech is to raise duties on imports within the context of a broader tax reform bill. A border adjustment tax, for example, would bring in $1.2 trillion in revenues over ten years.3 As we argued in a Special Report earlier this year, the introduction of a BAT would be highly dollar bullish.4 Pulling Back The Welcome Mat? On immigration, Trump has sent mixed messages. On the one hand, he continues to insist that he will build "the wall" and has maintained his hardline stance on refugee policy. On the other hand, he has backed off his campaign promise to reverse Obama's executive order protecting the so-called "dreamers." This order allows immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children to remain in the country indefinitely, provided they do not commit a serious criminal offence. During his speech, Trump signaled a willingness to shift the U.S. immigration system towards one based on merit, similar to what countries such as Canada and Australia already have. This is an excellent idea, but it raises the question of what will happen to the 11 million illegal aliens currently residing in the country, the vast majority of whom are poorly educated. It is important to remember that U.S. immigration laws are already very strict. Trump has given the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) greater leeway in enforcing these laws, while also pledging to hire 5,000 more border agents and 10,000 additional ICE officers. As such, a "status quo immigration policy" under Trump could prove to be much more restrictive than the one under Obama even if no new legislation is passed. A key implication is that labor shortages in areas such as construction and hospitality services may intensify. Solid U.S. Growth Outlook Favors A Stronger Dollar Meanwhile, the U.S. growth picture remains reasonably bright (Chart 3). This may not be obvious from current Q1 tracking estimates, which are pointing to real GDP growth of below 2%. However, the weak Q1 numbers are mainly due to an unexpectedly large jump in imports and a sharp decline in inventory accumulation. According to the Atlanta Fed's model, taken together these two factors have shaved a full percentage point off growth. Real private final demand is still rising at nearly 3% (Chart 4). If U.S. growth stays solid as we expect, the Fed will raise rates three or four times this year, starting in March. This is slightly more than the market is currently pricing in, which should be enough to ensure that the trade-weighted dollar strengthens by another 5% or so over the remainder of the year (Chart 5). We see the greatest upside for the dollar versus EM currencies, and as we discuss next, against the yen. Chart 3U.S. Economic Data Are Upbeat Chart 4Trade And Inventories Detract From ##br##A Bright Q1 Growth Picture Chart 5Real Rate Differentials Are ##br##Driving UpThe Dollar Call #2: "Japan Overcomes Deflation" Many of the forces that have exacerbated deflation in Japan, such as corporate deleveraging and falling property prices, have run their course (Chart 6). The population continues to age, but the impact that this is having on inflation may have reached an inflection point. For most of the past 25 years, slow population growth depressed aggregate demand by reducing the incentive for companies to build out new capacity. This generated a surfeit of savings relative to investment, helping to fuel deflation. Now, however, as an ever-rising share of the population enters retirement, the overabundance of savings is disappearing. The household saving rate currently stands at 2.8% - down from 14% in the early 1990s - while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has soared to a 25-year high (Chart 7). Chart 6Japan: Easing Deflationary Forces Chart 7Japan: Low Household Saving Rate ##br##And A Tightening Labor Market Chart 8Investors Still Not Entirely ##br##Convinced Japan Is Eradicating Deflation Government policy is finally doing its part to slay the deflationary dragon. The Abe government shot itself in the foot by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP between 2013 and 2015. It won't make the same mistake again. The Bank of Japan's efforts to pin the 10-year yield to zero also seem to be bearing fruit. As bond yields in other economies have trended higher, this has made Japanese bonds less attractive. That, in turn, has pushed down the yen, ushering in a virtuous circle where a falling yen props up economic activity, leading to higher inflation expectations, lower real yields, and an even weaker yen. Stay Short The Yen Consistent with this narrative, market-based inflation expectations have risen over the past five months. But with inflation swaps still pricing in inflation of only 0.6% over the next 20 years, there is plenty of scope for real rates to fall further (Chart 8). This implies that investors should maintain a structurally short position in the yen. A weaker yen will help boost Japanese stocks, at least in local-currency terms. As a relative play, investors should consider overweighting Japanese exporters versus domestically-exposed sectors. Multinational manufacturers stand to gain the most, as they will benefit from increased overseas sales, while the highly automated, capital-intensive nature of their operations will limit the burden of rising real wages. Call #3: "Global Banks Finally Outperform" Global bank shares have risen by 25% since we made this call, outperforming the MSCI All Country World Index by 14% (Chart 9). The thesis that we outlined five months ago still remains intact (Charts 10 and 11): Chart 9Global Bank Shares Have Bounced Chart 10Factors Supporting Bank Stocks Chart 11Global Banks Are Still Fairly Cheap Improving business and consumer confidence should continue to support credit demand. Stronger economic growth will reduce nonperforming loans. Capital ratios have improved significantly, reducing the risk of further equity dilution. Yield curves have steepened since last summer, which should flatter net interest margins. Despite the run-up in share prices over the past five months, valuations remain attractive. Looking across regions, European banks stand out as being particularly attractive over a cyclical horizon of about 12 months. BCA's European Corporate Health Monitor continues to improve, foreshadowing further progress in mending loan books (Chart 12). The ECB's lending survey indicates that a majority of banks are seeing stronger loan demand (Chart 13). This suggests that credit growth is not about to stall anytime soon. Meanwhile, euro area banks are trading at a miserly 0.8-times book value, which gives valuations plenty of upside. Chart 12Euro Area: Improving Corporate Health Chart 13Euro Area: Banks See Rising Loan Demand Political Risks Chart 14This Will Not Get Le Pen Into The Elysee Palace The risk is that European political developments sabotage this thesis. Our view here is "near-term sanguine, long-term cautious." We continue to think that populism is in a long-term secular bull market. However, unlike in the case of Brexit or Trump, populist leaders in continental Europe will have to wait until the next economic downturn (probably in two or three years) before they seize power. To that extent, the prevailing - though admittedly rather myopic - consensus view is correct: Marine Le Pen will not become president this year. Keep in mind that the National Front underperformed during regional elections in December 2015, just weeks after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Despite a recent uptick in the polls, support for Le Pen is actually lower now than it was back then (Chart 14). As long as the French economy continues to show signs of tentative improvement, the establishment parties will succeed in keeping Le Pen out of power. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Despite the populist sounding nature of this proposal, the Tax Policy Center estimates that 70% of the childcare credits will go to households earning $100,000 and up. See Lily L. Batchelder, Elaine Maag, Chye-Ching Huang, and Emily Horton, "Who Benefits from President Trump's Child Care Proposals?" Tax Policy Center (February 27, 2017) for details. 3 James R. Nunns, Leonard E. Burman, Jeffrey Rohaly, Joseph Rosenberg, and Benjamin R. Page, "An Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center (September 16, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Energy services shares have pulled back as oil prices have marked time over the last few weeks, but in the background, the conditions to sustain a rally are falling into place. The growth in total OECD oil stocks has rolled over decisively, and a continued supply/demand rebalancing should occur given that world oil production growth has slipped to nil courtesy of OPEC output cuts. The bond market has increased confidence that oil prices will not tumble anew, as reflected in the sharp narrowing in energy corporate bond spreads. Many companies have used the recovery in oil prices to refinance and bolster balance sheets, underscoring that the financial means to boost exploration exist. With energy services pricing power trying to make an early exit from deflation on only a small boost to the global rig count, there is scope for the attractively valued S&P oil & gas field services index to surprise on the upside. We have this at high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P oil & gas field services index are: BLBG: S5ENRE - SLB, HAL, BHI, NOV, FTI, HP, RIG.

After an M&A driven outperformance phase, semiconductor stocks appear to be putting in a major top. M&A activity has plunged, warning that deal premiums are likely to be removed from valuations. The recovery in global chip sales growth also looks to be at risk. Our global chip sales model has rolled over, reflecting softening new order growth in a number of chip-intensive industries. If top-line growth begins to recede, then the tentative trough in chip inventories is likely to turn into a full blown rebound. History shows that the highly anticipatory chip index fares poorly when chip supply accelerates. The latter signals that future chip output will decelerate, revealing the downside of a cyclical business with high operating leverage. Our Chip Stock Timing Model, a combination of technical and fundamental forces, has dropped sharply in recent weeks, reinforcing that relative performance is at serious risk. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SECO - INTC, QCOM, TXN, AVGO, NVDA, ADI, MU, SWKS, LLTC, MCHP, XLNX, QRVO, FSLR.

The large gap between the BCA Defense and BCA Aerospace indexes is likely to grow much larger. The U.S. is aiming to boost defense spending as part of its stimulus efforts, and is pressuring other NATO members to boost defense spending after a long contraction. While U.S. defense spending has been through a soft patch for the past several years, new orders for defense goods have been one of the strongest components of overall durable goods orders (second panel). Even global demand has boomed, even in the face of the strong U.S. dollar, as evidenced by surge in exports of military goods (bottom panel). On the flipside, aerospace new orders are on a downward trajectory, reflecting a downturn in the commercial aerospace cycle. While long lead times and lengthy delivery schedules offer some earnings protection, dwindling order backlogs will ultimately undermine confidence in the long-term outlook. Our global airline consumer price index, a composite of airline pricing power in a number of major countries, is in negative territory. A negative CPI reflects excess capacity, and warns of grim prospects for a recovery in new airplane orders. The bottom line is that earnings support remains intact for the defense index, but is rapidly dwindling for aerospace equities. Stay overweight the former and underweight the latter. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA defense index are: LMT, GD, RTN, NOC, LLL and the BCA aerospace index are: BA, UTX, HON, TXT.

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of February 28, 2017. The model has maintained its large overweight in the U.S. Within the non-U.S. level 2 model, Spain and Italy weights have been increased at the expense of Japan and Switzerland. Japan and U.K. remain the two largest underweight countries. (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, both the level 1 and level 2 models outperformed their respective benchmarks in February, resulting in a 39 bps outperformance of the aggregate model vs. the MSCI World. Since inception, the GAA model has outperformed its benchmark by 30 bps. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of February 28, 2017. The momentum component has shifted Consumer Discretionary from overweight to underweight. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com