Elecciones
Highlights Catalonia is a red herring - stay focused on U.S. tax cuts; Tax cuts are on track and will swell the budget deficit; The dollar is poised for a comeback; Believe the Phillips Curve, not the "Amazon effect"; Shinzo Abe's gamble is bullish; go long USD/JPY. Feature Global investors woke up on Monday to shocking news of a mass shooting in Las Vegas and police brutality in Catalonia, where Spain's federal law enforcement attempted to break up the October 1 independence referendum. According to final figures, nearly 92% of those who voted chose to separate from Spain, setting the stage for a unilateral declaration of independence. Our views on the Catalan independence "struggle" are well known to our clients.1 We will only briefly recap them here. Instead, we focus this Weekly Report on the prospects for the U.S. dollar and on Japan's snap election. Catalan Independence: Indignation Is Not A Strategy Why are we so dismissive of the imbroglio in Catalonia? Five reasons: Police "brutality" is overstated: Catalan officials reported that 844 people had been hurt in clashes, but the BBC noted that the "majority had minor injuries or had suffered from anxiety attacks."2 Not the first referendum: The turnout was only 42.34%, as many voters refused to participate. Given that the latest polls show that only 34.7% of Catalans actually want independence, the result was unsurprising (Chart 1).3 Those who oppose independence from Spain stayed home, as they did in 2014. In fact, Table 1 shows that there were about 100,000 less "yes" voters in 2017 than three years ago. Catalonia is not Catalan: According to the latest data from the Institut d'Estadística de Catalunya, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish. This is a product of decades of migration from within Spain which has diluted Catalonia's homogeneity. For the most part, the non-Catalans belong to the working class and do not get involved in independence protests or in breathlessly tweeting about the return of dictatorship to Madrid. But if they sense that independence is being imposed on them by an elitist minority, they could let their voice be heard. A declaration of independence means nothing: A unilateral declaration without international support, or the ability to enforce it with arms, is vacuous. U.S. President Donald Trump lent his support to Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy ahead of the vote, while French President Emmanuel Macron reiterated his support for Madrid following the referendum violence. The EU has made it clear that an independent Catalonia would have to go through the accession process in order to enter the EU, which means it would not have access to the Common Market post-independence. Catalans will not resort to force en masse: Our expectation is that Catalans will not resort to force in order to breakaway from Spain. German sociologist Max Weber famously defined sovereignty as a "monopoly over the use of legitimate force" in a defined geographical territory. If a Catalan minority is unwilling to wrestle control of borders from Spain, its declarations will be irrelevant. Chart 1Catalonia: A Revolt By The Minority Table 1What Has Changed Since 2014? There is more to the referendum than the government in Catalonia is letting on. The Junts pel Sí (Together for Yes) coalition of four parties is unified only by its stance on independence. But the main two nationalist parties that make up the government are on the opposite sides of the ideological spectrum. Without the independence push, the regional government would lose its raison d'être and fall. From the market perspective, the situation in Catalonia would become relevant if the Catalan government, or militant groups in the region, decided to step up tensions by employing force. This could derail Spain's economic recovery, especially since so much of it was centered on manufacturing in the region. We do not see this as likely. First, there are no "militant groups" in Catalonia. Second, throughout the half-century long Basque conflict - which saw over thousand people killed between 1959 and 2011 - Catalonia never experienced violent unrest. Catalan extremists never got inspired by the militant Basque group ETA on any significant scale. Why? Because the independence movement in Catalonia is mainly a bourgeois, middle and upper class, "struggle" for independence that is unlikely to descend into violence. Yes, there are some farmers and blue-collar supporters of independence. But the majority of Catalonia's working class are actually not Catalan. They are either recent migrants from the rest of Europe or migrants from poorer regions of Spain. Not only are they opposed to independence, but they are openly hostile to a bourgeois minority lording their Catalan ethnic superiority over the recently arrived migrants. With Catalan tensions, the ongoing North Korean saga, and the recent tragedy in Las Vegas, there is plenty to distract investors from the most investment-relevant political issue: U.S. tax policy. Bottom Line: As we noted in February, European assets will continue to "climb the wall of worry," which includes Catalan tensions.4 Investors should fade any market reaction to the crisis in Catalonia, which is sure to dominate the news flow for at least the entirety of Q4 2017. Do Republican Voters Want Tax Cuts? The market was shocked at the end of September by President Donald Trump's tax reform plan. After months of doubting whether Republican policymakers can accomplish anything, the market reacted positively to the announcement (Chart 2). And yet a lot of skepticism remains. Primarily, the fear is that fiscally conservative Republicans in the House and Senate will stand in opposition to the plan. After all, Republicans have just failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Why should tax policy be any different? Chart 2Sign Of Life For 'Trump Reflation' We have argued since November that Republicans in Congress are actually not fiscally responsible.5 Not now and not ever. As if on cue, this spring, the leader of the Tea Party-linked Freedom Caucus, Mark Meadows (R, NC) said that the upcoming tax reform effort did not have to be "revenue-neutral," a claim he repeated on NBC's Meet The Press this weekend. If the leader of the single-most fiscally conservative grouping in Congress is okay with profligacy, who is left to oppose it?!6 Republican voters might have something to say about deficit-busting tax legislation. But GOP legislators are not the only ones willing to compromise on their austerity rhetoric. Republican voters are just as comfortable with profligacy. Chart 3 speaks volumes. It shows that Americans become a lot more comfortable with a bigger government providing more services when Republican presidents are in power. Given Democrats' stable preference for more spending, the movement in the poll is mainly due to Republican and independent voters. There are two ways to interpret the data: Republican voters do not mind a profligate government, as long as the spending is aligned with their priorities. Republican voters do not actually disagree with Democrats on spending priorities, but merely doubt that Democratic policymakers can deliver on those priorities in a fiscally sustainable manner. Whatever the explanation, Chart 3 is clear evidence that the American public grows more comfortable with profligacy when Republicans are in charge. But do voters want tax cuts? The latest polls show that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 4). Republican and Republican-leaning voters do not have a problem with how much they pay in taxes, but they do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 5). Chart 4American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Chart 5...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex The charge that the Trump tax legislation will be a massive tax cut for the wealthy and corporations could stick with some voters, we think primarily with Democrats. Pew research polling consistently shows that Democrats, across the income brackets, agree by 70%-80% that corporations and wealthy people pay too little tax. Republican voters could be susceptible to the same argument, given that around 35%-45% of them agree with Democrats on this issue. To preempt the debate, the Trump administration is focusing heavily on tax complexity. In addition, Trump left the proposed surcharge on the wealthy - a fourth income bracket in the new plan - as yet undefined. This is on purpose. It allows the White House and Congressional GOP legislators to respond to the criticism as it develops. What could be the stumbling blocks going forward? A "Breitbart clique" revolt: A populist revolt against tax cuts for the rich could turn skittish Republicans in Congress against the legislation. The recent electoral defeat for the political establishment in the Alabama Senate primary has shown off the power of the "Breitbart clique" in itself, independent of Trump. However, a quick survey of Breitbart.com shows that the former White House Chief Strategist and Rabble-Rouser-in-Chief Steve Bannon has not unleashed his media machine against the tax plan. In fact, the only prominent Breitbart piece on the tax plan thus far has excoriated the mainstream media for misinterpreting the comments of Gary Cohn, the White House's chief economic adviser, on middle class tax cuts.7 It may be the first time that the website has ever written anything positive about Cohn. Blue State Republicans: There are 29 Republican representatives facing tough reelection campaigns next year who are based in states that voted for Secretary Hillary Clinton in 2016. These Republican representatives will staunchly oppose any proposal to end the state and local tax deduction, given that their voters will be subjected to higher rates of state and local taxes.8 These "Blue State Republicans" could scuttle the current tax blueprint in the House. Anticipating the problem, Gary Cohn has said that the removal of the deduction is not a "red line" for the administration. Senators: Republicans have only a slim margin for error in the Senate. Senators Bob Corker (R, TN) and John McCain (R, AZ) could be the two staunchest opponents to the tax reform effort. The former is a deficit hawk and critic of the president, the latter is a maverick and firmly opposed to the president. On the other hand, the usual thorn in the side of the GOP establishment, Rand Paul (R, KY), could be brought around to support the proposal. Moderates like Susan Collins (R, ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) should be watched carefully. Investors should expect more Republicans to come out in opposition to certain provisions of the proposed tax legislation. However, the path of least resistance is not for the entire effort to fail, but rather for it to become more profligate. For example, the White House has already gestured towards a compromise with Blue State Republicans on the state and local tax deduction that would increase the deficit. Furthermore, we continue to stress that the failure of the Obamacare repeal and replace bill is not a good guide for what will happen with tax legislation. Taking away an entitlement program is politically challenging. Tax cuts, on the other hand, are generally not. Bottom Line: President Donald Trump is an economic populist. Our research into international comparisons shows that populists tend to get what they want, which is primarily higher nominal GDP growth (Chart 6). We therefore continue to expect the roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut effort - which may or may not deserve the title of tax reform - to pass. Is King Dollar Primed For A Rally? Investors should consider the proposed tax legislation a form of modest stimulus. If we assume that the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts will be offset with a combination of revenue-raising policies to the tune of 50%, it still leaves roughly $750 billion in new deficit spending (stimulus) over the next ten years. A more reasonable figure for total revenue offsets is around $400 billion, which would put the cost of stimulus at roughly $1.1 billion.9 This is not extraordinary large, but even a modest effort this far into the economic cycle could have a significant effect. BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, believes that inflation is around the corner.10 So why the delay in the data? Peter points out that while the Phillips Curve has gotten a lot flatter over the past four decades (Chart 7), it remains a curve. Once the economy reaches full employment - as it has done in the U.S. (Chart 8) - the curve steepens much faster. As Peter puts it: Chart 6Populists Deliver (Nominal) GDP Growth Chart 7The Phillips Curve Has Gotten Flatter Chart 8U.S. Economy At Full Employment The idea that the Phillips curve steepens at low levels of unemployment is very intuitive: If excess capacity is high to begin with, a modest decline in slack will still leave many workers idle. In such a setting, inflation is unlikely to rise. However, once the output gap is fully closed, any further decline in slack will cause bottlenecks to emerge, pushing wages and prices higher. The empirical evidence supports this conclusion. Chart 9 shows that U.S. wage growth has tended to accelerate once the unemployment rate falls into the range of 4%-5%. Chart 9Watch Out For The 'Kink' In The Phillips Curve When we present Peter's argument to clients, many retort that "this time is different," namely because of phenomena like the "Amazon effect." To put that argument to rest, our colleague Mark McClellan has penned a Special Report titled, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?"11 Mark shows that while e-commerce is undoubtedly increasing its share of retail sales (Chart 10), its contribution to annual headline CPI is modest. For example, Chart 11 shows that online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s. However, e-commerce only contributed about -0.15 percentage points to annual CPI in June 2017, and has never contributed more than -0.3 percentage points. Chart 10E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 11Online Price Index To further test the impact of e-commerce on inflation, Mark focused on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to it. If online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. He therefore combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure (Chart 12). Again, the contribution of e-commerce-heavy sectors to annual CPI is minimal. Chart 12Electronic Shopping Price Index Chart 13BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart 14BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Mark finally recalculated the e-commerce proxy using only the sectors displaying the most relative price declines - clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel, and other goods - and assumed that all other sectors actually deflated at the average pace of the entire index. The adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI by about 0.1-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart 13 & Chart 14). We find Mark's work intuitive. The "Amazon effect" is a great example of fitting a broad theory to a particular set of data, a common error in the investment community. The weak inflation print - which is a "Summer of 2017" phenomenon - is being extrapolated into a decade-long theme. But the data is clear: the deceleration of inflation since the Great Financial Crisis has been in areas unaffected by online sales, chiefly energy, food, and shelter costs. High corporate profit margins in the retail sector also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. In fact, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to "big box" stores in the 1990s. Putting it all together, the three above views provide a fairly clear signal in terms of asset implications: Geopolitical Strategy Tax Policy View: Tax legislation is a form of modest stimulus enacted by a populist White House in search of higher nominal GDP growth, and it will pass; Global Investment Strategy Phillips Curve View: The Phillips Curve is not dead, just dormant, and will steepen as the U.S. unemployment rate declines further below the equilibrium level; The Bank Credit Analyst "Amazon Effect" View: There is no "Amazon Effect." Pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus in the U.S. should be bullish for the U.S. dollar, bullish for U.S. small caps relative to large caps, and bearish for U.S. 10-year Treasuries. We are already long USD against EUR by recommending that our clients go long Euro Area equities relative to the S&P 500 with a currency hedge.12 We think there may be more upside for the USD against the yen, especially given our view of the upcoming general election in Japan below. What are the risks to a bullish USD view? Continued strong global growth is the main risk (Chart 15). Global data is improving to the point that even moribund Italy is now on fire (Chart 16). However, the positive data may be peaking. European data, in particular, looks like it is reaching its absolute highs (Chart 17). Chart 15Can Global Growth Get Any Higher? Chart 16Italy Is On Fire... Chart 17...As Is Europe Overall Particularly concerning from the global perspective is the ongoing slowdown in the pace of expansion of Chinese money and credit, which we have been arguing for almost a year is policy induced.13 Our colleague Arthur Budaghyan, Chief Strategist of BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has flagged that the official M2, as well as BCA's own custom version of broad money M3, are slowing down to new lows (Chart 18). From the broad money M3, Arthur and his team construct the M3 impulse, which leads both the Chinese leading economic indicator and the well-known "Li Keqiang index" (a growth proxy) by six months (Chart 19).14 Most importantly from the global perspective, the slowdown in Chinese money and credit growth ought to negatively impact demand for imports from China-exposed export sectors in Asia and Europe (Chart 20). Chart 18But Credit Growth In China Is Slowing Chart 19Chinese Credit Leads The Domestic Economy... Chart 20...As Well As Exports To China The policy-induced crackdown against money and credit growth in China should be particularly pertinent in Europe. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has noted how the close trading relationship between China and Europe influences the growth delta between Europe and the U.S.15 Given the potential slowdown in China, and subsequent impact on EM economies, bullishness on Europe could be peaking. Bottom Line: Our view that a modest fiscal stimulus may be afoot is only a small part of a wider BCA bullish-USD narrative. We think it is once again time to turn bullish towards the greenback. We are opening a long USD/JPY recommendation. Our colleague Mathieu Savary, Chief Strategist of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has been long since USD/JPY hit 109 on August 11. Japan: Abenomics Will Survive Abe Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's snap election on October 22 took us by surprise. Not because of the timing, which was telegraphed by rumors in the press, but because, for Abe and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the upside risk is limited while the downside is unlimited. Since May 24 we have argued that Abe's political capital has peaked, based on the empirically grounded expectation that his pursuit of constitutional changes to legitimize Japan's defense forces would erode his popular support.16 This view received confirmation in early July, when Yuriko Koike, a former LDP politician, led an insurgency against the LDP in the Tokyo metropolitan elections and dealt them a historic blow in that region. At that time, we argued that Abe would not lose power anytime soon: he maintained his two-thirds supermajority in the lower house (and virtual supermajority in the upper house), did not face an election until December 2018, and could thus double down on reflationary economic policies in order to rebuild popular support.17 Chart 21An Upstart Party Challenges The LDP Now, Abe has made a risky decision to move the general election forward 14 months. He wants to capitalize on Japan's recent strong economic performance, the peaking of North Korean tensions (which are likely to decline by late next year), and an uptick in approval ratings. Last but not least, he wants to take the fight to the political opposition at a time when the rival Democratic Party is in total collapse and Governor Koike, his chief antagonist, is unready to wage a national campaign. The timing was shrewd but comes at a cost. Koike announced a new political party, the Party of Hope, just hours before Abe called the early election. In the first set of opinion polls it has sprung up to 15% approval, only nine points shy of the LDP. True, this is still 14 points short of the ruling coalition (Chart 21). But crucially, the collapse of the Democratic Party prompted its leader, Seiji Maehara, to declare that his party would not contest the new elections. This leaves its members free to join Koike's party; it also partly obviates the problem of the Democratic Party and Party of Hope stealing each other's votes.18 Throughout Abe's term we have compared his approval ratings to those of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, the LDP's last heavyweight leader, to test whether he retains political capital (Chart 22). According to this measure, he does. Yet, given Abe's long tenure and gradually declining support, this comparison only works as long as there is no viable alternative. That is because Abe's net approval rating, as well as his ability to bring star-power to the LDP, has been fading in recent years (Chart 23). Now he has called an election at the very moment that a possible alternative has emerged!19 Chart 22Abe Losing Favor Over Time Chart 23Abe Becoming A Liability However, we say a possible alternative for a reason: Koike herself, as yet, is refusing to run for the prime minister's slot. She is in a "dilemma of irresponsibility" in which, having just become governor of Tokyo on the pledge to put "Tokyo First," she will be criticized for flagrant ambition and flip-flopping if she abandons that post to run against Abe directly.20 As long as Koike remains on the sidelines, Abe will retain his absolute majority. It would be very difficult for a new party that is struggling to field candidates across the whole country, lacks a clear prime minister candidate, and faces competition with other opposition parties to deprive an incumbent coalition of 85 seats. (Depriving the LDP of its 50-seat party majority alone would be momentous, though conceivable.) The LDP has fallen out of power on only two previous occasions since 1955: once, briefly, in 1993, in the wake of the collapse of Japan's Heisei bubble, and once in 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis (Chart 24). And the LDP has never lost more than 22 seats in an election year, like this year, in which economic growth is faster than the preceding year. That size of loss would leave Abe wounded but still in control.21 Chart 24The LDP Seldom Loses Elections In Japan On the other hand, if Koike changes her mind and throws herself headlong into competition with Abe, it is possible, albeit still highly unlikely, that she could pull off a historic upset.22 Currently the number of undecided voters is high at about 43%. In recent years, these voters have tended to correlate negatively with LDP support (Chart 25), meaning that LDP voters grew dissatisfied and "undecided" but then came crawling back when the party wooed them. However, Koike could change this dynamic - not only because she apparently has momentum, but also because her background and platform are substantially similar to Abe's, yet with a fresh face.23 Chart 25Undecided Voters Often Return To LDP Koike must make her decision by October 10. It is unlikely that she will join or that her party will field enough competitive candidates - in this respect, Abe gambled correctly in calling the election now. Barring her entrance, what is at stake is Abe's 6-seat "supermajority" in the lower house. Abe is likely to lose this advantage simply based on the Party of Hope's strength in Greater Tokyo and the Kanto Plain, augmented as it is by collaboration with the Democratic Party. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that Koike could easily deprive Abe of this supermajority. Assuming that the Party of Hope performs in line with Koike's performance in the Tokyo/Kanto region in July, gaining 39% of the seats (34% of the popular vote), implies that the Party of Hope could steal as many as 47 seats from the ruling coalition on October 22 (Table 2). This is a generous estimate in giving Koike's party strong support, but a conservative estimate in assuming that it will not win a single seat outside the Tokyo/Kanto region.24 Losing this supermajority would be a big loss of momentum for Abe and the LDP that would carry over into the legislative process (where Abe would struggle to control the LDP factions and fend off corruption allegations) and future elections (where the LDP would be more vulnerable). It would sow the seeds for a leadership challenge against Abe in the LDP next September. But it keeps the LDP in power for the next four years. And its direct impact on passing bills is limited. A lower house majority would still be under the LDP leader's control, and the LDP would still have a near-supermajority in the upper house, removing any risk that it would delay bills. The only initiative likely to suffer would be Abe's treasured constitutional revisions, and yet even those would still have a fighting chance of passing the Diet. The important thing for investors to realize is that a setback or defeat for Abe will not be the death of Abenomics.25 Reflation will continue and Japanese risk assets will continue to outperform on a currency-hedged basis. Why? Table 2The Party Of Hope Threatens The LDP Supermajority From Its Base In The Tokyo/Kanto Region Abenomics is already bearing fruit: Inflation remains weak, but Japan's output gap is closing and unemployment gap is gone (Chart 26). It is only a matter of time before supply constraints put more upward pressure on prices, lowering real rates and easing financial conditions for the economy as a whole. Koike, who styles herself as a pro-business Thatcherite, will not stand in the way of growth. Monetary policy will remain dovish: The dovish shift in the Bank of Japan in 2013 was a regime change within the institution itself. Governor Haruhiko Kuroda was the leader of the change, but since then the entire policy board has been staffed with doves. In fact, in the board's recent minutes, the only dissenting voice argued for more stimulus.26 Kuroda can legally be reappointed for governor for another five years. If not, his replacement will likely perpetuate his legacy, as neither Abe nor Koike have given any hint at wanting more hawkish monetary policy. The market is right to expect barely any rate hikes over the next year and for the BoJ to continue suppressing yields even as other DM central banks become more hawkish (Chart 27). Chart 26Tight Labor Market, But Still No Inflation Chart 27Monetary Policy Will Remain Easy Fiscal policy will ease further: We have shown Chart 28 again and again to clients: the main failure of Abenomics so far has been Abe's own fiscal responsibility. Upon calling the election, he yet again pitched himself to voters on the basis of fiscal irresponsibility. He offered a new 2 trillion yen stimulus package and suspended his pledge to balance the budget by 2020. And while he pledged to pay for education and elderly care by raising the consumption tax from 8% to 10% as scheduled in October 2019, few doubt that he will delay a tax hike (as in 2015) if it threatens to upset his economic recovery. Meanwhile, Koike is running on a platform of easier fiscal policy: she has outright opposed the consumer tax hike, saying that to do so would be to "throw cold water on the still-intangible economic recovery." She wants more earthquake-resistant infrastructure and more social spending (e.g. childcare). She wants measures to boost the female participation rate further (Chart 29).She is hardly likely to boost consumption without continuing Abe's quest to lift wages overall (Chart 30). And in her most significant difference from Abe, she hopes to do away with nuclear power and turn Japan into a renewable energy powerhouse (inevitably requiring large-scale government subsidies and investment). Foreign policy will remain hawkish: Koike is a conservative who is in favor of constitutional revisions to normalize Japan's military. Her Party of Hope could even vote with the LDP on this issue, for a price. While it may be somewhat more China-friendly than Abe (possibly a boon for exports), it would not be willing or able to break Japan's recent trend of rising defense spending and economic diplomacy. Chart 28Fiscal Policy Will Get Easier Chart 29Abe And Koike Want Women Workers Chart 30Abe And Koike Want Higher Wages Moreover, given that Japan has a much higher ratio of public investment to private investment than other comparable countries, and that fiscal spending is limited by a massive debt load, Koike would be committed to boosting private investment just like Abe (Chart 31). Indeed, judging solely by key policy planks, the Party of Hope could almost become an LDP coalition partner. It cannot win a majority without Koike as frontrunner, and even if it did, it would lead to a fractious parliament where it would be forced to cooperate with the LDP in order to pass bills through the LDP-dominated upper house. Koike's sudden emergence does not represent a shift in national trends but rather a confirmation of the post-2011 Japanese political consensus in favor of a dovish central bank, dovish fiscal policy, and hawkish foreign policy. Chart 31Abe And Koike Want Private Investment Chart 32Not Abandoning Nuclear Power Anytime Soon Bottom Line: As things stand, Abe will probably lose his supermajority yet retain his majority in the lower house. This will cause some volatility and policy uncertainty in Japan. Nevertheless, the outlook is still highly reflationary. Koike reveals that the median voter favors pushing Abenomics even further. Should Koike make a dash for the prime minister's slot, she does have a small chance of coming to power. It is hard to put a probability on it until more polling data is available. The biggest policy consequence of a Party of Hope-led government would be her energy agenda of weaning Japan off of nuclear power, which would in the first instance shrink the current account surplus, as during the nuclear shutdown following the Tohoku earthquake in 2011 (Chart 32). However, a Koike majority is unlikely to materialize as things stand, and the LDP in the upper house would be a check on such policies. Go long USD/JPY in expectation of more reflation. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BBC, "Catalan referendum: Catalonia has 'won right to statehood,'" dated October 2, 2017, available at bbc.com. 3 We are referencing poll numbers collected by the Centre d'Estudis d'Opinió, which is run by the pro-independence government of Catalonia. In other words, if biased, the polls should be biased towards independence. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Apparently, the Democrats! Democratic leaders in Congress oppose tax reform policy that is not revenue-neutral. However, the GOP can ignore them as they plan to use the reconciliation procedure to pass tax policy. 7 Please see John Carney, "Mainstream Media Distort Every Single Thing Gary Cohn Says About GOP Tax Plan," dated September 30, 2017, available at breitbart.com. 8 The announced tax reform plan does not include such a proposal - nor does it provide any detail on how tax cuts would be paid for - but it has been floated as a possibility. This is because it could save the government nearly $370 billion by 2020, according to a report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. 9 For revenue offsets that are likely to pass, we combine the repatriation of foreign earnings ($138 billion over the next decade), the repeal of certain corporate tax breaks ($138 billion), and the repeal of certain individual tax expenditures ($385 billion). We roughly estimate that the offset would total $400 billion, as horse-trading in Congress is likely to reduce the eventual size of overall revenue-offsets. The path of least resistance in Congress is towards more deficit spending, not less. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated August 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 12 We recently closed our recommendation of being long Euro Area equities relative to the U.S. in an unhedged position for a 7.88% gain. 13 Please see "China: Xi Is A 'Core' Leader ... So What?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016; "China: How Far Will Deleveraging Go?" in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017; and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "Copper Versus Money/Credit In China - Which One Is Right?" dated September 6, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?" dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 The problem still partially exists, as the opposition remains divided by various parties, and left-wing members of the Democratic Party have formed a new Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan that will contest the election and compete with the Party of Hope as well as the ruling LDP. 19 Incidentally, she is one of Koizumi's disciples who can count on his support. 20 According to Shinjiro Koizumi, "If she runs it's irresponsible, if she doesn't run it's irresponsible ... she's in a 'dilemma of irresponsibility.'" Quoted in Robin Harding, "Yuriko Koike hits trouble in Japan election campaign," Financial Times, October 2, 2017, available at www.ft.com. 21 The 22-seat loss referred to above occurred under the leadership of Takeo Miki in 1976. 22 There have been only two occasions in which a multi-term prime minister like Abe lost power due to holding a general election - 1960 and 1972. In the latter, comparable case, Eisaku Sato, who had been in power for eight years, lost power despite the fact that economic growth had recovered from a slight slowdown in 1971. In other words, the lack of enthusiasm for Abe amid a recovering economy is an important warning sign, which we discussed in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Insights From The Road - Asia," dated August 30, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 It will also be important to see if leading politicians continue to defect from other parties and flock to her ranks. Especially politicians from the LDP, and especially those who are not worried, like Mineyuki Fukuda, about losing their seats anyway. 24 It also neglects recent reforms to the electoral system that will eliminate ten seats, only one of which is likely to go to the Party of Hope. 25 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see Bank of Japan, "Summary Of Opinions At The Monetary Policy Meeting," September 20-21, 2017, p. 5, available at www.boj.or.jp/en.
Highlights French labor reforms stack up well against German and Spanish predecessors; We remain bullish on French industrials versus German industrials; Populism is overrated in Germany - European integration may not accelerate, but it will continue; The U.K.'s position remains weak in Brexit talks ... don't expect much from sterling. Feature On recent travels across Asia Pacific, the U.K., and the U.S., Europe has rarely featured in our conversations with clients. We proclaimed European politics a "trophy red herring" in our annual Strategic Outlook.1 Following the defeat of populists in Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, and particularly France, the market now agrees with us (Chart 1). Chart 1European Political Risk Was Overstated In this report, we ask whether there is anything left to say about Europe. First, we provide an update on French structural reforms, which we predicted with enthusiasm in February.2 Second, we give a post-mortem of the German election. Third, we dissect U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May's speech in Florence. We remain positive on near-term and mid-term prospects for European assets. We have recently closed our unhedged long Euro Area equities trade for a 7.88% gain (open from January 25 to September 6). We have reopened the position on September 6 with a currency hedge given our view that there is some downside risk for the euro in the near term. We also remain long French industrials / short German industrials, with gains of 9.30% since February 3. The French Revolution Continues President Emmanuel Macron has ignored tepid union protests and signed five decrees overhauling French labor rules on September 22. While there is more to be done, Macron's swift action just five months after assuming office justifies our optimism about France earlier this year. As we posited in February, investors are surprised every decade by a developed market that defies all stereotypes and catches the markets off guard with ambitious, pro-market and pro-business structural reforms. Margaret Thatcher's laissez-faire reforms pulled Britain out of the ghastly 1970s. Sweden surprised the world in the 1990s. At the turn of the century, Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) defied its own "socialist" label and moved the country to the right of the economic spectrum. Finally, the past decade's reform surprise came from Spain, which undertook painful labor and pension reforms that have underpinned its impressive recovery. How do French labor reforms stack up against the German and Spanish efforts? Table 1 surveys the measures and classifies them into three categories. On unemployment benefits, Macron's effort falls short of the considerable cuts implemented as part of the Hartz reforms in Germany. However, while benefits will still be generous, France's unemployed will now be cut off if they refuse job offers that pay within 25% of the salary they previously held. On increasing labor market flexibility, we give France high marks. Reforms will simplify the termination process for economic reasons and cap damages that can be awarded to employees, in line with the Spanish experience. Macron has also managed to neuter the power of national unions by allowing firm-level collective bargaining to take precedence. France's labor bargaining reform is also a carbon copy of the Spanish effort and both are attempts to create a more German-like management-employee context. Table 1Measuring French Reforms Against German And Spanish Reforms What should investors expect as a result? Spain is instructive. While its unemployment rate remains 5.8% above the Italian rate and 7.3% above the French rate, it still fell from a high of 26.3% in 2013 to 17.1% today. Meanwhile, Italian and French unemployment rates remain stubbornly high (Chart 2). In addition, Spain's export competitiveness has had one of the sharpest recoveries in Europe since 2008, whereas Italy and France continue to languish (Chart 3). Spain accomplished this feat via a considerable reduction in labor costs relative to peers (Chart 4). Chart 2Italy, France: Unemployment Still High Chart 3Spain Regained Competitiveness Chart 4Spain Cut Labor Costs The key pillar of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's reforms was to create a more flexible labor market so as to restore competitiveness to the economy by aligning labor costs with productivity. Reforms, passed in February 2012, removed stringent collective bargaining agreements and replaced them with firm-level agreements. This has made it easier for firms to negotiate their own labor conditions, including reducing wages as an alternative to termination of employment. France is now on the path to do the same. True, it is difficult to establish a clear causal connection between Rajoy's structural reforms and Spain's economic performance since 2008. Nevertheless, reforms also work as a signaling mechanism, encouraging investment and unleashing animal spirits by affirming the government's commitment to a pro-business agenda. Under Rajoy's leadership, Spain has moved from 62nd in the World Bank "Ease of Doing Business" survey in 2009 to 32nd in 2017, 18 spots above Italy. Given the speed and commitment of the Macron administration, we would expect an even stronger signaling effect in France. German Hartz reforms are easier to assess because more time has passed since 2005 (when the final stage, Hartz IV, was implemented). Prior to the reforms, Germany's GDP growth rate was falling and unemployment was rising (Chart 5). At least on these two broad measures, it appears that reforms were positive. Chart 5Hartz Reforms Marked Turning Point In Germany Chart 6German Long-Term Unemployment Benefits Were Cut Down To OECD Average Germany's problem prior to the Hartz reforms was that generous unemployment benefits discouraged unemployed workers from finding employment. Long-term benefits could be as high as 53% of the terminated salary and eligible for indefinite renewal! The Hartz IV reforms specifically targeted these benefits, with the intention of forcing the unemployed to get back to work. Germany brought these benefits into line with the OECD average (Chart 6). The long-term impact of the Hartz reforms was a dramatic decline in the unemployment rate from a bottom of 9.2% in 2001 to the still falling 3.7% of today! Reforms have also seen a steady increase in wage growth, despite the conventional view saying the opposite. Wages have been steadily rising since implementation in 2005, only slowing down during the global financial crisis and the subsequent European debt crisis (Chart 7). This does not mean that labor reforms failed. The intention of the Hartz reforms was to push people back into the labor force, not necessarily suppress their wages. Chart 8 shows the effect on the hours worked in the economy, with a clear uptrend after the reform was enacted. Chart 7German Wages Recovered... Chart 8...While Working Hours Increased In line with the previous labor reform efforts in Europe, we think that investors should expect three broad developments from French labor reforms: Competitiveness: As Chart 3 suggests, Spain and Germany have had the best export performance in Europe. By allowing companies some flexibility in setting costs, these economies were able to regain export competitiveness. As a play on this theme, we are long French industrials relative to German peers. Unemployment: Forcing the unemployed back to the labor market by ending their unemployment benefits if they refuse a job offer within 25% of the previous income level should encourage workers to get back to the labor force. Confidence: Macron's labor reforms are only the beginning of a packed agenda that also includes reducing the size of the public sector, reducing the wealth tax on productive assets, and cutting corporate taxes significantly. What of the opposition to the reform effort? What if the French leadership backs down in the face of protest? First, we must ask, what protest? The labor union response has been underwhelming. In part, this is because Macron's reforms are packed with pro-union clauses. The intention is to empower union activity at the firm level in order to neuter its activity at the national level. Second, Macron's electoral victory was overwhelming, both the presidential and legislative. Yes, turnout was low. And yes, many voted for Macron just so that Marine Le Pen would not become president. But the fact remains that 85% of the seats in the National Assembly are held by pro-reform parties, including the pro-business, right-wing Les Républicains, who want even stricter reforms. Bottom Line: Our clients, colleagues, friends, and family all tell us that France will not reform. But we have seen this film before, with Germany in the 2000s and Spain in the 2010s. One day, investors will wake up and France will be more competitive. Fin. A German Election Post-Mortem The media narrative before and after the German election tells of the rise of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a far-right party that campaigned on an anti-EU and anti-immigration platform. Indeed, the performance of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and center-left Social-Democratic Party (SPD), which have dominated German politics since the Second World War, was historically poor (Chart 9). Chart 9Germany's Dominant Parties Underperformed... Despite the media hysterics, there were no surprises this year. The AfD performed in line with its polls, only outperforming their long-term polling average by around 2%. Meanwhile, the historic underperformance of the CDU and SPD was also due to the solid performance of the other two establishment parties, the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the center-left Greens (Chart 10). The FDP stormed back into the Bundestag by more than doubling their performance from 2013, while the Greens maintained their roughly 9% performance. Die Linke, a left-wing party whose Euroskeptic tendencies have dissipated, also gained around 9% of the vote. From a historical perspective, the combined CDU and SPD performance was bad, but roughly in line with their 2009 election result. Chart 10... While Minor Parties Outperformed That said, there was no once-in-a-lifetime global recession this time around to excuse the poor performance of the two establishment parties. German GDP growth is set to be 2.1% in 2017 and the unemployment rate is at a historic 3.7%. Meanwhile, support for the euro is at 81% (Chart 11), which begs the question of why 12.6% voters decided to entrust AfD with their votes. Chart 11Germans Love The Euro The simple answer is immigration and the 2015 asylum crisis. The more complex answer is that AfD's performance was particularly strong in East Germany, where the party is now the second largest after the CDU. The same forces that fueled the Brexit referendum and the election of President Donald Trump are at work in Germany. Voters who feel left behind by the transition to a globalized, service-oriented economy have rebelled against a system that favors the educated and mobile voters. In Germany, the angst is particularly notable in the East, where economic progress has lagged that of the rest of the country. On the other hand, it is ludicrous to compare AfD to Brexit and Trump. After all, AfD received only 12% of the vote. This is in line with, or slightly trails, the performance of other right-wing parties in Europe (Chart 12). Yes, it is disturbing to see a far-right party back in the Bundestag, but it was also naïve to believe that Germany could remain a European outlier forever. In fact, like other right-wing parties in Europe, the party is beset with internal rivalries. Party chairwoman Frauke Petry, who represents the moderate wing of the party, decided to quit one day after the election.3 We would suspect that the party will struggle going forward, particularly now that the influx of asylum seekers has trickled down to insignificance (Chart 13). Chart 12German Far Right Performed In Line With Other European Anti-Establishment Parties Chart 13Refugee Crisis Is Over In Germany And Europe Going forward, Chancellor Angela Merkel will retain her hold on power. However, she will likely have to do so via a "Jamaica coalition" with the FDP and the Greens.4 Forming such a challenging coalition could take until the New Year. Particularly problematic are the positions of the FDP and the Greens on Europe. The former are mildly Euroskeptic, the latter are rabidly Europhile. Merkel's 2009-13 coalition with the FDP was similarly challenging. The FDP moved towards soft Euroskepticism after the Great Financial Crisis. It combined with CDU's Bavarian sister party - the Christian Social Union (CSU)5 - to vote against a number of European rescue efforts and institutional changes (Chart 14). Merkel had to rely on the opposition SPD, which is staunchly Europhile, to push several European reforms through the Bundestag. More broadly, both the FDP and the CSU were a brake on Merkel during this period, leading to Berlin's halting response to the Euro Area crisis. Chart 14The FDP Hampered German Rescue Efforts Amid Euro Crisis Going forward, a Jamaica coalition is investment-relevant for three reasons: First, it would likely pour cold water on recent enthusiasm about accelerated European integration spurred by the election of President Emmanuel Macron in France. But investors should not read too much into it. As Chart 11 clearly illustrates, Germans are not Euroskeptic. The Euro Area works for Germany. If there is a future crisis, Germany will react to it in an integrationist fashion, shoving aside any coalition agreements to the contrary. And if Merkel has to rely on opposition SPD votes to push through the evolving European agenda, she will do so, regardless of what is said between now and December. Second, Merkel will have to respond to the poor performance of her party. She has to give in to the right wing on illegal immigration. Investors should expect to see tighter border enforcement on Europe's external borders. More relevant to the markets, we expect mildly Euroskeptics critics in her own party, as well as in the FDP and CSU, to be satisfied by officially pushing for Jens Weidmann's presidency at the ECB. Weidmann has recently toned down his criticism of ECB policies - publically defending low interest rates - which is likely a strategy to make himself palatable as the next president. Third, it is widely being discussed that the FDP will demand the finance ministry from Merkel, replacing Wolfgang Schäuble. This would definitely complicate any future efforts to deal with Euro Area sovereign debt crises, were they to emerge. However, the FDP is making a mistake. If they take the finance portfolio, they will be signing off on bailouts in the future. That is a guarantee. Europe is full of moderately Euroskepic finance ministers who have done the same (see: Austria, Finland, and the Netherlands in particular). Finally, the election was a clear failure by Merkel to defend her brand. While she has not signaled a willingness to resign, it is highly likely that she will try to groom her successor over the next four years. The 63 year-old has been in power since 2005. At the moment, the list of potential names for CDU leadership is long, but devoid of star power (Box 1). The one quality of all the potential candidates, however, is that they are pro-Europe. Bottom Line: In the short term, markets have read German elections overly negatively. The euro reacted on the news as if the currency bloc breakup risk premium had risen. It hasn't. In fact, the election could prove to be a long-term bullish euro outcome, given that Merkel will likely have to acquiesce to Jens Weidmann's candidacy for the ECB presidency. The German Bundestag remains overwhelmingly pro-Europe. The now-in-opposition SPD is pro-integration, as are the likely new coalition members, the Greens. Die Linke has evolved from anti-capitalist, soft Euroskeptics to left-of-SPD Europhiles. While FDP remains committed to a mildly Euroskeptic line (pro-Europe, but opposed to further integration), its members will likely have to sacrifice this position in order to be in government in the long term. They won't say that they are doing that, but trust us, they are. The performance of Germany's populist right wing is largely in line with that of other European countries. As such, it signals that Germany is a "normal country," not that there is something particularly disturbing going on. Box 1 Likely Successors To German Chancellor Angela Merkel If Merkel decides to retire, who are her potential successors? Ursula von der Leyen (CDU): Leyen, who has served most recently as defense minister, is often cited as a likely replacement for Merkel. However, she is not seen favorably by most of the population: she has not won first place in her district in any of the past three general elections. She is a strong advocate of further European integration and has supported the creation of a "United States of Europe." Leyen has argued that the European refugee crisis and debt crisis are similar in that they will ultimately force Europe to integrate further. As a defense minister, she has promoted the creation of a robust EU army. She has also been a hardliner on Brexit, saying that the U.K. will not re-enter the EU in her lifetime. The markets and pro-EU elites in Europe would love Leyen, who handled U.S. President Trump's statements on Germany, Europe, Russia and NATO with notable tact. Thomas De Maizière (CDU): Maizière, who has served as minister of interior and minister of defense, is a close confidant of Chancellor Merkel. He was her chief of staff from 2005 to 2009. Like Schäuble, he is somewhat of a hawk on euro area issues (he drove a hard bargain during negotiations to set up a fiscal backstop, the European Financial Stability Fund, in 2010) and as such could become a compromise candidate between the Europhiles and Eurohawks within CDU ranks. Though he has been implicated in scandals as defense minister, he has remained popular by drawing a relatively hard line on immigration policy and internal security. Julia Klöckner (CDU): A CDU deputy chairwoman from Rhineland-Palatinate, Klöckner is a socially conservative protégé of Merkel and a hence a likely candidate to replace her. While remaining loyal to Merkel, she has taken a more right-wing stance on the immigration crisis. She is a staunch Europhile who has portrayed the Euroskeptic AfD as "dangerous, sometimes racist," though she has insisted that AfD voters are not all "Nazis" but are mostly in the middle of the political spectrum and need to be won back by the CDU. We think that she would be a very pro-market choice as she combines a popular, market-irrelevant wariness about immigration with a market-relevant centrism that favors further European integration. Hermann Gröhe (CDU): Gröhe last served as minister of health and is a former CDU secretary general. He is very close to Merkel. He is a staunch supporter of the euro and European integration. Markets would have no problem with Gröhe, although they may take some time to get to know who he is! Volker Bouffier (CDU): As Minister President of Hesse, home of Germany's financial center Frankfurt, Bouffier is in a position to capitalize on Brexit. He is a heavyweight within the CDU's leadership and a staunch Europhile. He has already declared he will run for the top state office again in 2018, though he will be 67 years old by then. The U.K.: Fall In Florence Prime Minister Theresa May tried to reset Brexit negotiations with the EU recently by giving a speech in Florence. We were told by clients and colleagues that it would be an important event, so we tuned in and listened. The speech was largely a dud. It confirmed to us the constraints on London's negotiating position as well as the challenges that Brexit poses to the British economy. May's team is struggling to navigate both. There are three things that investors should take from the speech - most which we have been emphasizing for over a year: The EU exit bill: The U.K. will pay. The one concrete point that Prime Minister May agreed with, for the first time ever, is that London will continue to pay into the current EU seven-year budget period (2014-2020). This should never have been in doubt. Britain's refusing to pay would be the equivalent of a tenant giving notice that he is ending his lease in 24 months, then refusing to pay in the interim. What May did not say is whether the U.K. would pay anything beyond its share of contribution to the EU budget. At the moment, the answer appears to be no, but we don't expect that to be the final word. Services really (really) matter: The U.K. has a competitive advantage in services. This is why May has tried to signal that she wants the broadest trade deal possible, since regular free trade agreements (FTAs) do not provide for deep integration in services. What will the U.K. give in return? May appears to want a Norway-type EU trade agreement with Canada-type liabilities. This won't fly in Brussels. The transition deal will last two years at minimum: This was never in doubt. But due to domestic political pressures, May was afraid of voicing it in public until today. Below we provide excerpts of the most relevant (or irrelevant, but comical) parts of May's speech.6 Our running commentary is in brackets. Theresa May's Florence Speech On Brexit, September 2017: A Reinterpretation By GPS It's good to be here in this great city of Florence today at a critical time in the evolution of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It was here, more than anywhere else, that the Renaissance began - a period of history that inspired centuries of creativity and critical thought across our continent and which in many ways defined what it meant to be European. [GPS: Strong opening by May. Odd location for the speech, however. Unless she was looking to ingratiate herself with Matteo Renzi, former mayor of Florence, former prime minister of Italy, and current leader of the ruling Democratic Party]. * * * The British people have decided to leave the EU; and to be a global, free-trading nation, able to chart our own way in the world. For many, this is an exciting time, full of promise; for others it is a worrying one. I look ahead with optimism, believing that if we use this moment to change not just our relationship with Europe, but also the way we do things at home, this will be a defining moment in the history of our nation. [GPS: This is a crucial argument by proponents of Brexit, that leaving the EU is not just about leaving the bloc's oversight, but also about domestic renewal. At the heart of this view is the belief that the EU has shackled the U.K.'s potential economic output with its regulatory oversight and protectionist trade policies. For this to be true, the U.K. has to replace significance labor force growth - from the EU Labor Market - with even greater productivity growth. If the U.K. fails to do this, its potential GDP growth rate will be substantively lower in the future. We do not buy the optimism. For one, the EU has not been a drag on the U.K.'s World Bank Ease Of Doing Businness rankings, where the country ranks seventh. Second, several other EU member states are in the top 20, including Sweden, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Germany, Ireland and Austria. Third, developed economies have been dealing with sub-standard productivity growth for over a decade, both EU members and non-members. As such, we are pretty certain that the U.K.'s potential GDP growth rate will be lower over the next decade, not higher.] And it is an exciting time for many in Europe too. The European Union is beginning a new chapter in the story of its development. Just last week, President Juncker set out his ambitions for the future of the European Union. [GPS: A nod to the reality that without the U.K. stalling its integration, Europe is now better able to build its "ever closer union." May is essentially conceding here to Charles de Gaulle's argument, articulated in the 1960s, that letting Britain into the club would ultimately be a mistake.]7 There is a vibrant debate going on about the shape of the EU's institutions and the direction of the Union in the years ahead. We don't want to stand in the way of that. [GPS: Reality check: it has literally been the foreign policy of the U.K. to "stand in the way of" of a united Europe for at least six hundred years ...] * * * Our decision to leave the European Union is in no way a repudiation of this longstanding commitment. We may be leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. Our resolve to draw on the full weight of our military, intelligence, diplomatic and development resources to lead international action, with our partners, on the issues that affect the security and prosperity of our peoples is unchanged. Our commitment to the defence - and indeed the advance - of our shared values is undimmed. Our determination to defend the stability, security and prosperity of our European neighbours and friends remains steadfast. [GPS: As we have argued repeatedly, the U.K. and EU share crucial geopolitical and economic links. As such, it is difficult to see negotiations devolving into the sort of acrimony that many have expected. May understands this and is reminding Europe of how important the U.K. role is, and will continue to be, geopolitically for Europe.] * * * The strength of feeling that the British people have about this need for control and the direct accountability of their politicians is one reason why, throughout its membership, the United Kingdom has never totally felt at home being in the European Union. [GPS: A not-so-slight dig at Europe. Basically, May is saying that U.K. voters live in a democracy. EU voters live in something else.] And perhaps because of our history and geography, the European Union never felt to us like an integral part of our national story in the way it does to so many elsewhere in Europe. [GPS: This is true and can be empirically measured (Chart 15).] Chart 15Brits Have A Strong Sense Of National Identity * * * For while the UK's departure from the EU is inevitably a difficult process, it is in all of our interests for our negotiations to succeed. If we were to fail, or be divided, the only beneficiaries would be those who reject our values and oppose our interests. [GPS: This is all true and very well put. But it also appears to be a line of argument designed to tug at Europe's emotional strings. Like a husband asking his wife to take it easy on him in a divorce "for the sake of the children."] So I believe we share a profound sense of responsibility to make this change work smoothly and sensibly, not just for people today but for the next generation who will inherit the world we leave them. [GPS: Literally the line about the kids followed immediately!] * * * But I know there are concerns that over time the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens overseas will diverge. I want to incorporate our agreement fully into UK law and make sure the UK courts can refer directly to it. Where there is uncertainty around underlying EU law, I want the UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation. On this basis, I hope our teams can reach firm agreement quickly. [GPS: An important concession - the first in the speech so far, and we are more than halfway through: London will apparently take into account ECJ rulings when dealing with EU citizens living in the U.K. That is a huge concession to Europe and an arrangement unlike anywhere else in the world.] * * * The United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. We will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. For we understand that the single market's four freedoms are indivisible for our European friends. We recognise that the single market is built on a balance of rights and obligations. And we do not pretend that you can have all the benefits of membership of the single market without its obligations. [GPS: As we have said in the past, May's decision to concede this point in January was a major concession to the EU and is the reason that the negotiations are not and will not be acrimonious. If the U.K. demanded access to the Common Market without accepting the "four freedoms," it would have received an acrimonious response, given that its request would have been construed as "special treatment."] So our task is to find a new framework that allows for a close economic partnership but holds those rights and obligations in a new and different balance. But as we work out together how to do so, we do not start with a blank sheet of paper, like other external partners negotiating a free trade deal from scratch have done. In fact, we start from an unprecedented position. For we have the same rules and regulations as the EU - and our EU Withdrawal Bill will ensure they are carried over into our domestic law at the moment we leave the EU. [GPS: May is correct. The EU-U.K. trade negotiations should be relatively smooth given that the U.K. is not starting from scratch in negotiating the relationship. The Canada-EU FTA took seven years because they were starting from scratch.] So the question for us now in building a new economic partnership is not how we bring our rules and regulations closer together, but what we do when one of us wants to make changes. One way of approaching this question is to put forward a stark and unimaginative choice between two models: either something based on European Economic Area membership; or a traditional Free Trade Agreement, such as that the EU has recently negotiated with Canada. I don't believe either of these options would be best for the UK or best for the European Union. European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home - automatically and in their entirety - new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote. [GPS: We pointed out why such an arrangement would be illogical in March 2016. Essentially, the U.K. would leave the EU due to its onerous regulation and infringement on sovereignty only to accept the onerous regulation as a fait accompli with no room for British sovereignty (Diagram 1)!] Diagram 1The Central Paradox Of Brexit Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people. I fear it would inevitably lead to friction and then a damaging re-opening of the nature of our relationship in the near future: the very last thing that anyone on either side of the Channel wants. As for a Canadian style free trade agreement, we should recognise that this is the most advanced free trade agreement the EU has yet concluded and a breakthrough in trade between Canada and the EU. But compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today, it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies. [GPS: This is, by far, the most critical part of May's speech. She is essentially saying that a Canadian FTA deal would benefit the EU more than it benefits the U.K., a point we have made for nearly two years now. This is true. The U.K. needs access to the EU services market, where British exporters have a comparative advantage. Were they to secure an FTA deal with the EU instead, they would be giving Europe a massive advantage, given the bloc's comparative advantage in tradable goods (Chart 16). However, this takes us back to Diagram 1. What kind of a relationship does May expect to get from the EU when she is unwilling to accept any of the liabilities inherent in such a deep trade deal? That is precisely what the Common Market is for.] Chart 16Brexit Hinders U.K.'s Comparative Advantage Bottom Line: Prime Minister May's Florence speech has shown the limits of the U.K.'s negotiating position. May set a friendly tone with Europe, but she has nothing to bargain with. Much of the speech reiterated British commitment to Europe's security and its capacity to defend the continent from external threats. In exchange, May argues, the U.K. ought to receive the deepest and most expansive access to the EU Common Market without any of the liabilities that go with it. In particular, she wants access to the EU's services market, where U.K. exporters have a comparative advantage. The problem with the tradeoff between U.K. geopolitical benefits and EU economic benefits is that it suggests that London has an alternative to being a geopolitical ally to Europe! As if it could suddenly shift its geopolitical, military, and diplomatic focus elsewhere. Berlin, Brussels, and Paris will call London's bluff. The U.K. is not in North America, it is in Europe. As such, Europe's problems are the U.K.'s problems, and the U.K. must defend against them even if it receives little in return. We expect the U.K. to succumb to the reality that the EU holds most of the cards in the negotiations. The U.K. will have a lower potential GDP growth rate after Brexit. But before Brexit is solidified, we expect considerable domestic political upheaval. In the short term, there is some upside for the pound. In the long term, it is a sell. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Although she has herself played a role in kicking out the original, even more moderate, founders of the party. 4 The CDU, FDP, and Greens coalition is dubbed the "Jamaica coalition" because of their traditional colors - black, yellow, and green - which combine to make the colors of the Jamaican flag. 5 The CSU does not directly compete against the CDU on the federal level. It only fields candidates in Bavaria, where the CDU does not compete. 6 For the full transcript, please see "Theresa May's Florence speech on Brexit, full text," The Spectator, September 22, 2017, available at blogs.spectator.co.uk. 7 In turn, this will allow the EU to build up its power, develop a navy, and finally conquer the British Isles with a new armada somewhere around 2066! Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights A major investment theme for the coming years will be the resynchronization of developed economy monetary policies. Expect substantial further convergence between U.S. T-bond yields and both German bund yields and Swedish bond yields. This yield convergence necessarily supports the currency crosses EUR/USD and SEK/USD. Underweight U.K. consumer services versus the FTSE100. Overweight German consumer services versus the DAX. The September 24 German election and October 1 proposed referendum on Catalan independence are not major catalysts for the financial markets. Feature A major investment theme for the coming years will be the resynchronization of developed economy monetary policies. As monetary policy resynchronizes, it will become clear that the extreme desynchronization of monetary policies over the past few years was the great anomaly (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). This anomaly reached its peak in 2014 when policies at the ECB and the Federal Reserve moved in diametrically opposite directions. The ECB signalled the start of its quantitative easing just as the Fed began to end its own. Chart of the WeekThe Desynchronization Of Monetary##br## Policy Was An Anomaly Chart I-2The Desynchronization Of Monetary##br## Policy Was An Anomaly Why Did Monetary Policy Desynchronize? The extreme desynchronization of monetary policy would not have happened if it was just about economics. On the basis of the hard economic data, the ECB could have emulated the unconventional policies of the Fed, BoJ and BoE years before it eventually did in 2015. If it had, ECB policy would have been much more synchronized with the other major central banks. However, unconventional monetary policy wasn't, and isn't, just about economics. The ECB faced, and still faces, much tougher political and technical hurdles than other central banks. The euro area does not have one government, it has 19. The ECB had to convince sceptical core euro area governments that zero and negative interest rate policy and bond buying were not just a bailout for the periphery, especially with the euro debt crisis so fresh in the mind. Likewise, the euro area does not have one sovereign bond, it has 19. To design and implement an asset purchase program in the euro area is much more complicated than in the U.S., Japan or the U.K. But by mid-2014 it had become clear that each wave of unconventional monetary easing - through its impact on exchange rates - had allowed other major economies to 'steal' some inflation from the euro area (Chart I-3). With the ECB still undershooting its inflation mandate, it was becoming a dereliction of duty for the ECB not to do what the Fed, BoJ and BoE had already done several years earlier. As the saying goes, it is better for a reputation to fail conventionally, than to succeed unconventionally. Chart I-3Currency Depreciations "Steal" Inflation From Other Economies Why Will Monetary Policy Resynchronize? Three years and several trillion euros later, the ECB can feel it has had a fair crack at unconventional easing (Chart I-4). At the same time, the central bank must contend with fresh political and technical hurdles. How many more German bunds can it realistically buy without irking Germany's policymakers? Chart I-4The ECB Has Had A Fair Crack At QE The ECB is also aware that ultra-loose monetary policy - by compressing banks' net interest margins - endangers banks' fragile profitability. This impairs the bank credit channel which is the mainstay of private sector credit intermediation in the euro area.1 Meanwhile, the euro area's configuration of solid economic growth, solid job growth and subdued inflation is common to most large developed economies (the exception is the U.K. which we explain below). Putting all of this together, the theme for the coming years has to be monetary policy resynchronization, one way or the other. One way is that the more hawkish central banks will become less hawkish, as subdued inflation limits the scope for monetary policy tightening. The other way is that the more dovish central banks will become less dovish as the benefits of ultra-accommodation diminish and the costs rise. Or, both ways will happen together. Nowhere are negative bond yields more absurd and more inappropriate than in Sweden (Chart I-5). In just three years the economy has grown 12% and house prices have surged 50%. Furthermore, unlike in other parts of Europe, the housing market in Sweden did not suffer a meaningful setback in either 2008 or 2011. Yet Sweden's negative interest rate policy means that it stills pays people to borrow and further bid up house prices. If anywhere is at risk of a bubble from ultra-accommodative monetary policy, Sweden must be it. For bond yield spreads and currencies - which are relative trades - it doesn't really matter how the resynchronization of monetary policies occurs. We expect substantial further convergence between U.S. T-bond yields and both German bund yields and Swedish bond yields. And this yield convergence necessarily supports the currency crosses EUR/USD and SEK/USD (Chart I-6). Chart 5A Negative Bond Yield ##br##In Sweden Is Absurd Chart I-6If The Swedish Bond Yield Shortfall ##br##Compresses, The Krona Will Rally The Myth Of The Beneficial Currency Devaluation Sharp depreciations in a currency result in an economy 'stealing' inflation from its major trading partners. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 suggest that absent the post Brexit vote slump in the pound, the gap between U.K. and euro area inflation would be almost 1% less than it is. Chart I-7The Weaker Pound Lifted ##br##U.K. Headline Inflation... Chart I-8...And U.K. ##br##Core Inflation So the Brexit vote explains why the U.K. is one of the few major economies where inflation is running well north of 2%. Unfortunately for U.K. households, nominal wage inflation has not followed price inflation higher. Which means that the pound's weakness has choked households' real incomes. Against this, textbook economic theory says that a currency devaluation should make a country's exports more competitive and thereby boost the net export contribution to economic growth. But in the textbook the only thing that is supposed to change is the exchange rate. The textbook assumes that the country's trading framework with its partners remains unchanged. In the case of the U.K. leaving the EU, this assumption clearly does not apply, mitigating the concept of the 'beneficial currency devaluation'. A lot of the benefits of the textbook devaluation come because firms can trade in markets that were previously unprofitable to them. This process requires investment - for example, in marketing and distribution. If Brexit means that many of those markets are no longer available, or come with tariffs, then firms will hold off making the necessary investments - unless the currency devaluation is massive. But in this case, the corresponding surge in inflation and choke on households' real incomes would also be massive. We also hear the myth of the beneficial currency devaluation applied to the weaker members of the euro area. As in, why don't these countries just break free from the euro, and devalue their way to prosperity? The simple answer is that if they left the euro, they would also risk losing access to the largest single market in the world - defeating the whole purpose of the beneficial currency devaluation! A Tale Of Two Consumers Chart I-9A Good Pair Trade: Long German Consumer ##br##Services, Short U.K. Consumer Services For the time being, hawkish comments from the BoE have given the pound a boost. But U.K. consumer spending now faces one of two headwinds. If the BoE follows through with a rate hike, household borrowing is likely to fade as a driver of spending. Alternatively, if the BoE backs off from its threat, the pound will once again weaken, push up inflation and weigh on real incomes. So for the time being, stay underweight U.K. consumer services versus the FTSE100. In Germany, the opposite logic applies. Stay overweight German consumer services versus the DAX. Euro strength helps German consumers in as much as it reduces the prices of imported food and energy. But for German exporters, the strong euro hurts the translation of their multi-currency international profits back into local currency terms. A good pair trade is to be long German consumer services, short U.K. consumer services (Chart I-9). Finally, regarding two upcoming political events - the September 24 German election and the October 1 proposed referendum on Catalan independence, we do not see either as a major catalyst for the financial markets. In the case of the German election, it is because no likely outcome is especially malign (or benign). In the case of the Catalan referendum, it is because it will be hard to draw any meaningful conclusion from the result, given that Madrid has ruled the referendum illegal - and many 'unionists' are unlikely to participate. Please note that there is no Weekly Report scheduled for next week as I will be at our New York Conference. I hope to see some of you there. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In the euro area, small and medium sized companies tend to access credit through banks rather than through the bond market. Fractal Trading Model This week, we note an excessive underperformance of U.K. personal and household goods (dominated by BAT, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser) versus U.K. food and beverages (dominated by Diageo and Associated British Foods). Go long U.K. personal and household goods versus U.K. food and beverages with a profit target / stop loss of 4.5%. In other trades, short nickel / long silver hit its 8% profit target, while short MSCI China / long MSCI EM hit its 2.5% stop loss. This leaves three open trades. 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-10 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. * 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 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Even isolated North Korean attacks are unlikely to lead to a full-scale war; The USD sell-off will start to reverse once Trump makes Gary Cohn his official pick for Fed chairman; Europe is not a risk for investors ... even Italy is only a longer-term risk; France is reforming; stay long French industrials versus German. Feature Last week, in London, we were scheduled to give a talk on Sino-American tensions, East Asian geopolitical risks, and North Korea specifically. We submitted our topic of choice about a month ahead of the event, when tensions between Pyongyang and Washington were at their height. As tensions temporarily subsided following Supreme Leader Kim Jong-Un's decision to delay the planned missile launch towards Guam, several colleagues wondered if the topic was still a pertinent one. We stressed in our research that tensions would not dissipate and would continue to be market-relevant, if not critical for S&P 500.1 Unfortunately, we have been proven right. Forecasting geopolitics requires insight, multi-disciplinary methodology, and a treasure trove of empirical knowledge. But sometimes it also just comes down to using Google and looking at a calendar. For example, given the present context of heightened tensions, the annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises - Key Resolve, which occurs normally in the spring, and Ulchi-Freedom Guardian, which occurs in August - are obvious dates to monitor. They are provocations that North Korea has to respond to for both foreign and domestic audiences. Pyongyang has chosen to do so by firing an ICBM across Japan and testing a sixth nuclear device, allegedly a miniaturized hydrogen bomb. While both these actions qualitatively expand on previous acts (missile and nuclear tests), neither cross a threshold. We are still in the realm of "territorial threat display." President Trump and Supreme Leader Kim are angling their "swords," but have not dared to cross them yet. Nonetheless, our clients have pointed out that our "arch of diplomacy" approach leaves a lot to imagination. Therefore, the first insight from the road of this week is that we need to put our thinking cap on and imagine a scenario where tensions do blow over into open conflict. How do we imagine such a scenario occurring and why would it not devolve into full out war that forces the U.S. to attack the North Korean mainland? Is North Korea About To Become A Praying Mantis? We can imagine a scenario where North Korea commits an act that takes us beyond the nuanced thresholds set by recent history (Chart 1). For example, we have cited to clients that an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.2 We could see the U.S. following the script from 1988 Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War - when the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines.3 Chart 1North Korean Provocations Rarely Affect Markets For Long Such an increase in tensions is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than to an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula (which we still see as highly unlikely). How would the markets react to the sinking of North Korean submarines? How would Pyongyang react? The answer to the former (market's reaction) depends on the answer to the latter (what does Pyongyang do?). Our best guess is that Pyongyang would do nothing. In fact, we may never know that North Korean submarines were sunk. We would suspect that North Korean military strategists would chalk the subs as a loss and quietly move on to more missile tests. Leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. This part requires a bit of "order-of-battle" analysis, so bear with us for a few paragraphs. North Korea has around 6 million military personnel, about 25% of the total North Korean population, ready to fight. Which would be great if it were preparing to charge Verdun in WWI. Unfortunately for Pyongyang, it is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man. To burst through the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), its mammoth ground forces would have at their disposal about 2000 T-55s (designed in the 1950s) and an unknown number of T-72s (designed in the 1970s). The former are obsolete, but the latter are solid main battle tanks that could do damage ... that is, in a world where war was not airborne. The problem is that North Korea would lose air superiority within hours of any serious engagement leaving its tanks and ground troops vulnerable to death-from-above. Since North Korean troops would have to enter about 20 miles into South Korea to threaten Seoul with occupation, they would have to exit the range of most of their air defenses. Choosing to turn on the most powerful of their systems - such as the KN-06 with a 150km range - would leave them vulnerable to the U.S. AGM-88 HARM missiles that sniff out active radar antenna or transmitters. To protect its invading forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15 and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity and whether U.S. forces in Japan were deployed to counter the attack. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would likely quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Once the North Korean fighter jets were destroyed, the South Korean air force would turn the invasion into a massacre. The reality is that North Korea's ground forces are just for show. Its tanks and fighter jets will never see battle. North Korea really only has two gears: P & N. The first is for "Provocation" and the second is for "Nuclear Armageddon." This is why we highly doubt that we will see our Praying Mantis scenario play out, or lead to full-scale war if it does. North Korea is constrained by its technological inferiority. It does not have the ability to conduct war across a full spectrum of engagement. Neither did Iran in 1988, which is why it never retaliated for the loss of its navy, put all its revolutionary zeal and chest-thumping aside, and sued the U.S. at the International Court of Justice instead.4 The U.S. has a range of limited military engagements, particularly at sea, that could hurt Pyongyang's ability to project what little power it has. Given our constraint-based methodology, which requires one to have some understanding of military affairs, we have a fairly high conviction view that North Korea will continue to toe-the-line of the expected and thus accepted provocations along the lines of the history surveyed in Chart 1. Going beyond that list would threaten to expose the paucity of North Korea's military capabilities. Bottom Line: We are still in for a wild ride with North Korea. As we expected, regional safe haven assets continue to perform well. We will hold on to our safe haven basket of Swiss bonds and gold, up 2.6% since August 16. Nonetheless, we expect North Korea to steer clear of provoking a war. Gary Cohn Will Collapse The USD! (But What If He Already Did?) Several fast-money clients - both in the U.S. and Asia - have a theory for why the greenback continues to suffer: Gary Cohn. The theory goes that Cohn is an ultra-dove whose job as the next Fed Chair will be to stay "behind the curve" and drive down the USD. This would accomplish President Trump's lofty nominal GDP growth goals despite legislative hurdles to his fiscal policy. It would also keep risk assets well bid and help begin rebalancing the U.S. trade deficit. What do we know of Mr. Cohn's views on monetary policy? Not much: He defended the Trump administration goal of a 3% GDP growth target, suggesting that he has a far more optimistic view of U.S. growth than the current Fed projection;5 He believes that monetary policy is "globalized," intoning at a conference in Florida quickly after the election that the Fed policy of raising rates before the rest of the world is ready to do the same would be a mistake;6 In a January 2016 Bloomberg TV interview, he said that both the U.S. and Chinese currencies were overvalued and would both have to devalue.7 People who know and have worked with Gary Cohn (including one colleague at BCA!) speak highly of his pragmatism, work ethic, and focus. Most agree that he would likely be dove-ish, but there is not a single person we have spoken to who thinks that he will be Trump's puppet. As such, his disconnected statements largely say nothing about his potential style of leadership. His most ultra-dovish, USD-slaying comment comes from January 2016, with DXY 6.9% down since then (Chart 2). Mission Accomplished Mr. Cohn? The real reason for the USD slide, aside from a persistently disappointing inflation print, has been a realization by the market that President Trump's bark has no bite. On a slew of measures, President Trump's initial bravado has dissipated into flabby rhetoric. Chart 3 shows the initial surge in optimism regarding growth, tax reform, infrastructure spending, Mexico's comeuppance, and bi-partisanship (measured as support among independents). Each data point has not only fallen back to pre-election levels, but appears to have now been desensitized to any news that would have excited it in the past. For example, NAFTA negotiations are off to a poor start, President Trump continues to bash the trade deal, and yet the peso has rallied since Trump's inauguration! Chart 2Mission Accomplished, Mr. Cohn? Chart 3Trump's Bark Has No Bite? The Fed itself has lost faith in the president. The number of FOMC members who see upside risks to inflation and GDP growth, not unrelated to fiscal policy, has fallen after a brief surge after the election (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Also Doubts Trump What chances are there for the White House and Congress to re-write the fiscal narrative over the final quarter of 2017? As we wrote last week, Hurricane Harvey will ensure that a debt ceiling breach and government shutdown are avoided. However, Congress is likely to spend September making one last attempt at Obamacare repeal and replace, thus largely wasting the month before returning to tax reform in earnest in the new fiscal year. We expect some form of tax legislation to take shape by the end of December. Will it be comprehensive tax reform? Unlikely. It will now almost certainly be merely a tax-cutting exercise, with some revenue offsets attached to it. With the Republicans in Congress now leading the tax reform effort, it is unlikely that the budget deficit hole will be as wide as President Trump would have wanted. The problem is that both Trump's July tax reform proposal and the House GOP August plan come short of revenue-neutrality by around $3-3.5 trillion (over the decade-long period) (Table 1). Given that such a massive increase in the deficit would be unacceptable to fiscal hawks (or Democrats) in the House, we would expect tax rates to be cut by a much more modest degree. Table 1By How Much Will Republican Tax Cuts Widen The Deficit? Table 1 gives a detailed survey of the preferences (Tax Cuts) and constraints (Revenue Offsets). It is difficult to see how all the constraints are overcome through the legislative process. This will force Republicans to modify their preferences on the scale of tax cuts. We would expect that a corporate tax cut from 35% to around 27-28% could be possible, along with a minimal middle-class tax cut. Anything beyond that would be overly complicated. Therein lies the paradox for Chair Cohn. The only way that he can be "behind the curve" is if the curve gets "in front of him." But why would it if any coming tax legislation has very little stimulative effect on the economy? Currently, the expected change in the Fed Funds Rate over the next two years stands at a measly 40 bps (Chart 5). That is just barely two rate hikes until September 2019. How can Mr. Cohn get the expectations any lower at this point? Bottom Line: The appointment of Gary Cohn will be a classic "sell the (USD on the) rumor, buy (the USD) on the news." We expect his appointment in late November or early December, if President Trump goes by the lead time from the past two nominations (Chart 6). That may be the time to pare back USD shorts for those investors who have been bearish on the greenback. Chart 5Hard To Drive Expectations##BR##Lower For Rate Hikes Chart 6How Long Does It Take To##BR##Confirm The Fed Chair? Europe Is Not A Risk Chart 7Europe's Economy Zooming Along One clear insight from our five weeks on the road this summer is that Europe is no longer on anyone's radar. We had hardly any questions regarding the upcoming German or Italian elections. And while most investors were somewhat pessimistic regarding French structural reforms, none expressed any interest in betting against them either. The obvious reason is that Europe's economy has genuinely recovered (Chart 7). Consumer and business confidence are holding up while the manufacturing PMI and industrial production remain strong. That said, uniformity of view among clients across several geographies makes us nervous. On the future of the Euro Area, investors have swung wildly from morose to resigned that it is here to stay. Nonetheless, we generally agree with the consensus. Unlike at the beginning of this year, when we boldly claimed that European risks would turn out to be a "trophy red herring," we have no alpha to generate by disagreeing with the market.8 Here is why: German Election: We have a policy of not wasting our client's time by covering major geopolitical events that have no market-relevance. Germany is the world's fourth-largest economy and it will hold an election on September 24. However, we see no investment relevance in the election and therefore no reason to spend time covering it. Polls show that the center-left opposition Social Democratic Party (SPD) has arrested its decline and may force another Grand Coalition (Chart 8). The only moderately interesting question is whether Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) will be able to get its favored coalition ally, the Free Democratic Party (FDP), into government instead. The FDP has turned towards soft Euroskepticism since 2009. Its parliamentarians voted against several bills dealing with the Euro Area crisis during their 2009-2013 coalition with the CDU. That said, Chancellor Merkel has turned much more forcefully pro-Europe since the dark days of Greek bailouts and bond market rioting. The Chancellor can read the polls: Germans support the common currency at 81%, compared to 66% average between 2009-2013 (Chart 9). We expect the FDP to play along with the Europhile conversion by the CDU. Chart 8Another Grand Coalition? Chart 9Merkel Knows Germans Support The Euro If there is any significance to the calm ahead of the German election, it is that the country is at "peak normal." Its policymakers have dealt with a massive migration crisis, geopolitical crises to the East, terrorist attacks, and severe political and economic stresses in its sphere of influence, all with a near-complete absence of internal drama. This looks like either "as good as it gets," or the start of a new Golden Age in Europe, with Berlin in the lead. It is probably neither, but given European asset prices, and gearing to the growing global economy, we would remain overweight Euro Area equities going forward. Italian Election: Polls remain too-close-to-call in the upcoming Italian election, with Euroskeptic parties continuing to poll well (Chart 10). However, we are not sure one can truly call these parties Euroskeptic anymore. Despite a high level of Euroskeptic sentiment in the country (Chart 11), its Euroskeptic parties have been scared off by the failures of peers in Austria, the Netherlands, and France. Chart 10Italy: Euroskeptic Parties Poll Well... Chart 11...Reflecting Broader Euroskepticism Luigi Di Maio, leader of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, and Matteo Salvini, head of the right-wing, populist Lega Nord, both reversed positions on the euro this month. Di Maio will be 5SM candidate for prime minister in the upcoming elections - which must be held by May and will likely take place in February or March. He reiterated a position, which 5SM hinted at in the past, that leaving the Euro Area would only be the "last resort" if Brussels refused to relax strict budget rules. Meanwhile, the firebrand, populist, Salvini hid behind Italy's constitution, claiming that a referendum on the euro would be illegal. In the short term, this means that the election in 2018 is no longer a risk. In the long term, it does not change the fact that Italy is ripe for a bout of Euroskeptic crisis at some later stage. Migration Crisis: Bad news for right-wing populists everywhere: the migration crisis is over and in quite a dramatic fashion. This is an empirical fact (Chart 12). Europe's enforcement efforts and collaboration with Libyan authorities (such as they are) have now forced even the humanitarian agencies to abandon the Mediterranean route. One of the largest such agencies - the Migrant Offshore Aid Station (MOAS) - recently announced that it was packing its mothership, the Phoenix, for Myanmar. The group is the fourth to stop patrols for migrants. Medecins sans Frontieres, Save the Children, and Germany's Sea Eye all cited hostile actions taken by Libyan authorities towards their vessels as the main reason to stop rescuing migrants in Libyan waters. Chart 12The 'Migration Crisis' Is Definitively Over To be clear, what is happening in the Mediterranean is a result of European enforcement efforts, not any sudden awakening of Libyan capacity or sovereignty. The European Union and Italy are training and funding the Libyan Coast Guard, which has started to intercept humanitarian vessels, threaten them with force (often right in front of the Italian Navy!), and force them to return migrants to Libya, where they are subjected to extremely cruel internment. Prior to this development, human smugglers would launch barely seaworthy "crafts" towards humanitarian ships waiting literally yards away in Libyan waters to "rescue" the "migrants" to Europe. As such, humanitarian agencies were aiding and abetting human smuggling, by making it a lucrative enterprise with no downside risk for the smugglers. We expect the step-up in enforcement in Libyan waters to severely impair the cost-benefit calculus of attempting a Mediterranean crossing for a would-be migrant. Instead of a welcoming NGO vessel many will find themselves in Libyan Internment camps. Word will spread fast and the migration crisis will abate further. We have now come full circle on the migration crisis, which we predicted back in September 2015 would end precisely in such an illiberal fashion.9 Europe has a vicious streak ... who knew? Structural Reforms In France: In February, we penned a bullish report on France, arguing with high conviction that Marine Le Pen would lose and that structural reforms would follow.10 What is the status of the latter forecast? Despite a decline in President Emmanuel Macron's popularity (Chart 13), he is expending his political capital early in his term. He understands our "J-curve of Structural Reform" (Diagram 1). Policymakers who understand how the reform J-curve works know that they have to spend their political capital while they have it, at the beginning of their term, in order to reap the benefits, if there are any, while they are still in power. Chart 13Macron's Popularity Slips Diagram 1The J-Curve Of Structural Reform How do Macron's reforms compare with previous efforts? Generally speaking, Macron's reforms (Table 2) compare favorably with both the 2012 Mariano Rajoy reforms in Spain and the 2003 Hartz reforms in Germany. The Hartz reforms were instrumental in expanding temporary work contracts and restructured generous unemployment benefits. Similarly, the Rajoy reforms in Spain clarified economic grounds for dismissal and created more flexible "entrepreneur contracts." Macron's reforms fit these efforts, especially the proposals to put in place "project contracts" - an open-ended contract lasting for the duration of a project - and to establish a floor and a ceiling for allowances in cases of unfair terminations, and make termination for economic reasons easier. Table 2French Labor Reforms: The Key Bits The two criticisms of the reform efforts we most often hear are that France has not had a crisis to spur reforms and that unions will launch vicious protests. The first criticism is dubious, given that France is itself emerging from the low-growth doldrums of the post-Great Financial Crisis. It is simply false to say that France has had no crisis. The French public is acutely aware that its real per-capita GDP growth has been closer to Greek levels than German ones over the last two decades (Chart 14) and that it has lost competitiveness in the global marketplace (Chart 15). One cannot have a conversation with a French friend, colleague, or client without wanting to order a strong drink!11 Chart 14France's Lost Millennium Chart 15France's Lost Competitiveness Besides, what monumental crisis was it that propelled Germany into reforms in the early 2000s? A vicious recession? A massive bank crisis? It was neither. Germany was simply weighed down for a decade by fiscal transfers to East Germany and sensing that its export-oriented industry was facing a massive challenge from the Asian move up the value chain. It was this acute sense of competitive pressure, of falling behind, that spurred Germany to reform. With France, the acute sense of falling behind Germany (Chart 16) is at the heart of today's effort. Chart 16German Competition Puts A Fire Under France The second criticism, that the unions will hold protests, misjudges the political capital arrayed behind Macron. Despite his sagging popularity, 85.9% of the seats in the National Assembly are of pro-reform orientation (Diagram 2). The second-largest party in the parliament is Les Republicains, an even more zealously pro-reform group. This is a unique situation in French history and will allow the government to ignore protests on the street. Diagram 2The Balance Of Power In France's National Assembly In fact, two of the largest unions in France - Force Ouvrière and CFDT - have both said they would not protest the labor reforms. This leaves only the more militant CGT to protest, along with the left-wing presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The reason investors will still fret about protests this month is because CGT retains a strong representation in heavy industry and infrastructure sectors like energy and railways. As such, their industrial action could grind the country to a halt. We suspect that a repeat of the 1995 general strike or the 2010 French pension reform unrest - both of which CGT spearheaded - will be the final nail in the coffin of "Old France." Unlike those previous reform efforts, President Macron's effort has been clearly signaled ahead of the election and thus retains considerable democratic legitimacy. As such, any repeat of the 1995 or especially 2010 unrest would delegitimize the unions and give President Macron even more political capital. Bottom Line: We agree with the now conventional view that all is well in Europe. Stability ahead of the German election reminds investors of what a healthy country is supposed to look like. Italian election risks have dissipated. And our French structural reforms call remains on track. This gives us an opportunity to do some house-cleaning regarding our calls. First, we are closing our long French 10-year bond / short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of only 1 bps. Second, we are closing our overweight Euro Area equities relative to U.S. equities call for a gain of 7.88%. Given our euro-bullishness, we never recommended that this call be currency hedged. We are now reinstating it with a currency hedge. We are also closing our long German 10-Year CPI Swap for a gain of 45.5 bps. We will stick with our long French industrial equities / short German industrials, which is currently up 9.25%. This is a way we have chosen to articulate our bullish view on the reforms, although clients with greater sophistication in European sectors could come up with a more direct way to articulate the view. Separately, we are also booking profits on our long China volatility trade (CBOE China ETF Volatility Index) for a gain of 16.82%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, but that was still within the norm of behavior for the two countries that are still effectively at war and have contested maritime borders. 3 Romeo-class submarines are nearly 70 years old. As much as we harken back to Yugoslav engineering with pride at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy, Belgrade was never much of a naval power. Nonetheless, diesel-powered submarines are quite proficient in staying undetected and could present a problem for the U.S. Navy. At least until they had to resurface or get back to base, where nuclear-powered U.S. Virginia-class attack-subs would lie in wait for them. 4 Tehran won the court case in 2003! And the ICJ forced the U.S. to compensate Iran for its lost ships or else face invasion by the United Nations army. (We are just kidding obviously. Iran did win, but it got nothing.) Please see Pieter H.F. Bekker, "The World Court Finds that U.S. Attacks on Iranian Oil Platforms in 1987-1988 Were Not Justifiable as Self-Defense, but the United States Did Not Violate the Applicable Treaty with Iran," American Society of International Law Volume 8, Issue 25, dated November 11, 2003, available at: asil.org. 5 Please see CNBC, "Tax reform is coming in September, Trump economic advisor Gary Cohn says," dated June 29, 2017, available at cnbc.com. 6 Please see Wall Street Journal, "How Donald Trump's New Top Economic Adviser Views the World," dated December 14, 2016, available at wjs.com. 7 Please see Business Insider, "Trump and his top economic adviser have had completely different views on China," dated January 3, 2017, available at businessinsider.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Thankfully for France, the choice would still be French wine!
Highlights The Mueller investigation is part of the "Trump Put;" General White House disarray and congressional incompetence combine to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities; Mexico's frontrunner in the upcoming elections, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is no Chavez; Malaysian political risks are overstated, the ruling Barisan Nasional has pushed through painful reforms; With economic growth stabilizing, cheap valuations, and overstated political risks, Malaysia could be an intriguing investment opportunity. Feature This week, we turn to two emerging markets: Mexico and Malaysia. Our approach to EMs is to look for opportunities where politics may emerge as the alpha amidst appealing valuations. We rely on our sister strategy, BCA's Emerging Market Strategy, for fundamental analysis, to which we then add our political research. We find it striking that these two EMs are the very two that stood to suffer the most should U.S. Congress have passed a border adjustment tax (Chart 1). Not only have the Republicans forsworn the border tax, but these countries will benefit from other trends, as we explain below. Before we dive into Malaysia and Mexico, however, a short note on the latest developments in the White House is in order. Clients from St. Louis, Missouri to Auckland, New Zealand are asking us the same question this summer: when does the Mueller investigation become a headwind for the SPX? Chart 1Vulnerability To U.S. Import Tariffs And Border Adjustment Taxes The "Trump Put" Continues Our answer is that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation may already be a tailwind to the U.S. equity market. The investigation, along with general White House disarray and congressional incompetence, makes up the ongoing "Trump Put."1 The American political imbroglio has combined with decent earnings and steady global growth to produce Goldilocks conditions for U.S. equities, while simultaneously weakening the USD and supporting Treasuries. The political fulcrum upon which all these assets turn is the failure of the Trump administration to deliver its promised fiscal stimulus (Chart 2). Tax reform, which was supposed to be the main vehicle of such stimulus, is increasingly looking like it will fail to live up to its hype. We still think it will pass, for three broad reasons: Chart 2Handcuffed Trump The Most Likely Scenario Trump's low popularity remains an albatross around the neck of GOP candidates in the November 2018 elections, with potentially ominous results. Our simple "line-of-best-fit" model between a Republican president's approval rating and the GOP's midterm performance produces a 38-seat loss in the upcoming election (Chart 3). Republicans need a legislative win and need it fast. The House has laid the groundwork for tax reform, passing the FY2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions focused on tax legislation. This means that the Obamacare replace and repeal effort has until October 1 to be resolved.2 Investors are conflating replacing and repealing Obamacare with tax reform. The former is an entitlement program, the latter a more popular measure that Republicans have always tried to move through Congress. It is very rare for U.S. policymakers to successfully reduce or remove an entitlement program. Cutting, even reforming, taxes is easier to justify politically. Chart 3The Clock Is Ticking For The GOP On Tax Reform Although we still maintain that tax reform, or mere tax cuts, will happen, they are unlikely to be as stimulative as originally advertised. Corporate and household tax rates are unlikely to be lowered by as much as originally touted. That is because Republicans in the House will demand "revenue offsets" to accomplish rate reduction, yet they have already lost key offsets like Obamacare repeal and the border adjustment tax.3#fn_3 The White House could change all that by using its considerable political capital among conservative grassroots voters and the bully pulpit to get fiscally conservative Republicans in the House to move a stimulative tax reform through Congress. But, as we noted two weeks ago, factional fighting in the White House and an ineffective chief of staff are considerable hurdles.4 A few days after we published that report, President Trump replaced Reince Priebus with retired General and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly. While Kelly is likely to introduce some discipline into the White House, we doubt he will make the executive more effective in cajoling House Representatives to toe the administration's line on tax reform. This is because Kelly adds no legislative experience to a White House that is already quite low on it by recent historical standards (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Additionally, the Trump Administration continues to drag its feet on presidential appointments, hurting the effectiveness of the executive. Only 220 appointments had been sent to the Senate by July 19, compared to the average 309 during the same time period by the previous four presidents (Chart 5). The Senate is very slow in confirming the candidates, perhaps because of their unorthodox backgrounds and resumes. The average time to confirm a Trump nominee is 45 days, which is astonishing given that the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Chart 5The Trump Administration Is Dragging Its Feet On Appointments In addition to the ineffectiveness of the White House, investors fret that the ongoing Mueller investigation, which has just impaneled a grand jury, could undercut the rally in risk assets. By summoning a grand jury Mueller can subpoena documents and obtain testimony of witnesses under oath. Doing so will accelerate the investigation and perhaps take it down new avenues. For example, the Kenneth Starr investigation initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Impeachment proceedings ensued. That said, we are sticking with our conclusion from May that investors should look through any risk of impeachment or indictment for President Trump, at least as long as Republicans hold the House of Representatives (i.e., at least until the midterms in 2018).5 In particular, there are three main reasons to fade any near-term equity market volatility: President Mike Pence - Under both impeachment rules and the 25th amendment, the U.S. president would be replaced by the vice president. Vice President Pence's approval rating largely tracks that of President Trump and is in the 40% area, but investors should note that he once stood at nearly 60% during the campaign (Chart 6). As such, the worst-case scenario for investors in the event of a post-midterm impeachment is that Trump is replaced by Pence, an orthodox Republican, and that Pence has to deal with a split Congress. And that is not bad! It would grind reforms to a halt, but at least tax reform would be out of the way by then. Midterm Election - If the Trump White House becomes engulfed in scandal, Republicans in the House will fear losing their majority. Yes, the partisan drawing of electoral districts - "gerrymandering" - has reduced the number of competitive U.S. House districts from 164 in 1998 to 72 in 2016 (Chart 7). But the Democrats managed to win the House in 2006 and the Republicans managed to take it back in 2010, so there is no reason the roles cannot be reversed yet again. However, this is not a risk, it is an opportunity. It will motivate the GOP in Congress to lock in tax and health care reform well ahead of the midterm elections. Counter-Revolution - With Trump embattled and facing impeachment, the market may let out a sigh of relief because it would mark a clear defeat of populist politics in the U.S. Much as with electoral outcomes in Europe, investors may want to cheer the defeat of an unorthodox, anti-establishment movement in the U.S. As such, we would push against any "Russia scandal"-induced volatility in the U.S. markets, at least until the midterm election. We think the market would digest the volatility and realize that Trump's impeachment, were it to occur after midterm elections, would not arrest the Republican agenda before the midterms. After all, the GOP has waited over 15 years to make Bush-era tax cuts permanent and the opportunity to do so may evaporate within the next 12 months. In addition, given the performance of high tax-rate S&P 500 equities (Chart 8), investors appear to have already discounted the failure of meaningful tax reform in the market. This means that the "Trump Put" is in full effect: investors are bidding up risk assets not because they expect something to happen (tax reform, fiscal stimulus, financial deregulation, etc.), but because they expect nothing to happen (no fiscal stimulus, no fast Fed rate hikes, no onerous regulation for businesses, etc.). Chart 6Could Be Worse ##br##Than Pence Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces##br## Competitive House Seats Chart 8Investors No Longer##br## Expect Tax Reform What about the long term? A scandal-ridden White House, escalating leaks against the administration, and a mounting bureaucratic revolt against the executive cannot be good for the U.S., can they? The news flow out of Washington increasingly looks like news from Ankara, Brasilia, or Pretoria. There are two diametrically opposed directions the U.S. can take. The first is deepening polarization and policy gridlock that leads to President Trump being replaced by an even greater bout of populism in 2020 or 2024. We described this scenario recently in a pessimistic note about the coming social unrest in America.6 The alternative is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress (particularly the Senate), representing the country's elites, decide to work together on legislation. Both parties recently united to pass veto-proof sanctions on Russia with a 98-2 vote that has bound the executive to future review by Congress. And some green shoots of bipartisanship appeared over the past two weeks on tax reform and even on health care. It is too soon to say which path American policymakers will take. Investors may have to wait until after the midterm election for genuine cooperation. But it would be very positive for the U.S. economy and prospects of reform if genuine bipartisanship emerged as a reaction to the incompetence, scandal, nationalism, and populism of the White House. Bottom Line: The intensifying Mueller investigation and ongoing White House incompetence will only further fuel the "Trump Put." This is positive for U.S. equities, neutral for bonds, and bad for the dollar, ceteris paribus. A significant pickup in inflation could overwhelm the "Trump Put" and cause the dollar to rally. As such, investors should focus on inflation prospects more than politics in the White House. What If Mexico Builds A Wall First? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The election of President Donald Trump, an unabashed nationalist who campaigned on an anti-immigrant platform, is spurring the campaign of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, also known as AMLO, in the upcoming July 1, 2018 elections in Mexico. Obrador has been a left-wing firebrand of Mexican politics for years. He was the Head of Government of Mexico City (essentially the city's mayor) from 2000 to 2005 and contested a close election against Felipe Calderon in 2006, which he narrowly lost. He lost the 2012 election by a much wider margin, but still came second to current president Enrique Pena Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Obrador's election campaign calls for a confrontational attitude towards President Trump, the renegotiation of NAFTA, an increase to farm subsidies, and limitations on foreign investment in Mexico. He has said that he would reverse the opening of the energy sector to foreign investment through a referendum, but that he is in favor of public-private partnerships in the sector. That said, his left-wing firebrand persona is more PR than substance. In 2012, for example, he also campaigned on cutting government expenditure and ending monopolies - not exactly Chavista credentials. Nonetheless, he quit the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) to form a more left-wing movement. Obrador's new party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), did well in the 2015 midterms and is currently leading in the polls ahead of the 2018 election (Chart 9). MORENA also did well in the State of Mexico, a PRI stronghold and Nieto's home state, in the June 4 election. The ruling PRI held the state for 90 years and is accused of election-rigging in order to, only narrowly, defeat an unknown MORENA candidate this year. Chart 9MORENA Has Lead In The Polls Given that the election is a year away, it is too soon to make a forecast. Nonetheless, it is clear that Obrador is the frontrunner for the presidency. There are three reasons why his election may be an over-hyped risk: The Congress: For much of Mexico's twentieth century history, the president was essentially a dictator due to the one-party rule of PRI. In the twenty-first century, however, Congress has become plural, forcing the president to cooperate with the body or see his reforms stalled. Given recent elections (Chart 10), it is highly unlikely that Obrador would have a congressional majority behind him, thus forcing him to temper his policies. Chart 10Mexico's Rising Political Plurality The PAN-PRD Alliance: An unlikely alliance of the conservative National Action Party (PAN) and the center-left PRD has emerged as a reaction to the rise of MORENA in the polls. (These two parties have a history of cooperating against PRI presidents.) The two parties come from completely opposite ideological spectrums, but successfully joined forces in several state elections in 2016. It is unlikely that the two parties will unify sufficiently to field a single candidate - they failed to do so in the June 4 State of Mexico elections - but they may get enough votes to form a plurality in Congress. Mexicans do not lean left: Unlike most of Latin America, Mexico is a conservative country. Most Mexicans either think of themselves as centrist or lean right (Chart 11). While our data stops in 2015, the historical trend is clear: Mexico is a right-leaning country. As such, it is highly unlikely that AMLO will be able to manipulate the country's democratic institutions - which have been strengthened over the past twenty years - to turn Mexico into Venezuela. Chart 11Mexicans Lean Right We would therefore fade any politically induced volatility in Mexican assets. Next year, investors should prepare to "sell the rumor and buy the news" (you read that right), as Mexican election fever grips the markets. Given current macroeconomic fundamentals, an entry point in Mexican assets may develop if they sell off ahead of the election - but they are not a buy at the moment. BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has pointed out in a recent report that:7 Inflation is well above the central bank's target and is broad based (Chart 12). Notably, wage growth is elevated (Chart 13). Given meager productivity growth, unit labor costs - calculated as wage-per-hour divided by productivity (output-per-hour) - are rising. This will depress companies' profit margins and make them eager to hike selling prices. This will, in turn, prevent inflation from falling and, consequently, hamper Banxico's ability to cut rates for now. Chart 12Inflation is Above Target Chart 13Wage Inflation Is High Meanwhile, the impact of higher interest rates will continue filtering through the economy. High interest rates entail a further slowdown in money and credit growth and, hence, in domestic demand. Both consumer spending and capital expenditure by companies are set to weaken a lot (Chart 14). This will weigh on corporate profits and share prices. Even though non-oil exports and manufacturing output are accelerating (Chart 15), non-oil exports - which make about 30% of GDP - are not large enough to offset the deceleration in domestic demand from monetary tightening. That said, the positive for Mexico is that the Mexican peso remains cheap (Chart 16) and may rally against other EM currencies. Our EM strategists suggest that investors should overweight MXN versus ZAR and BRL. Chart 14Domestic Demand to Buckle Chart 15Exports are Robust Chart 16Peso is Cheap If EM currencies depreciate or oil prices drop, it would be difficult to see MXN rally against the USD. However, MXN should outperform other currencies, especially given that political risks in Mexico are far lower than they are in Brazil and South Africa. Bottom Line: The Mexican markets may get AMLO-fever in 2018. Obrador is a clear frontrunner in the election to be held a year from now. However, AMLO will face off against constitutional, political, and societal constraints. As such, we would fade any politically induced risks in Mexican markets. Go strategically long MXN versus BRL and ZAR and look for an entry point into Mexican risk assets over the next 12 months. Malaysia: Hold Your Nose And Buy We have been broadly bearish on Malaysia since August 2015, but the upcoming elections - due by August 2018, but we expect to occur sooner rather than later - are likely to cause the markets to re-price Malaysian assets (Chart 17). The country's fundamentals are not rosy, and it remains vulnerable to a slowdown in China, a drop in commodities prices, and bad loans. Nevertheless, its underperformance is late, and this fact, combined with the political outlook, suggests that it will outperform for a while. Malaysia is in the midst of a long saga of party polarization that began amid the Asian Financial Crisis, when Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad ousted his ambitious deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. Both men hailed from the dominant party of the country's ethnic Malay majority: the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), which is the center of Barisan Nasional (BN). The BN is a multi-ethnic coalition that has held power in one form or another since independence in 1957. Anwar went on to lead the reformasi (reform) movement, creating an opposition coalition of strange bedfellows: his own urban Malay People's Justice Party (PKR), the ethnic Chinese DAP, and the Islamist PAS. In the 2008 general elections, the opposition shocked the BN, depriving it of a two-thirds super-majority for the first time since 1969. In the 2013 general elections, the opposition won the popular vote, though BN retained control of parliament due to inherent advantages in the electoral system (Chart 18). Hence the past two elections, particularly the last one in 2013, have shaken the political system to the core. Since the 2013 shock, the opposition has had its sights set on the 2018 election, and a series of blows to the Najib government have given cause for hope. First, exports and commodity prices plunged from 2014 to 2016, damaging the economy and giving the opposition a grand opportunity to attack the administration (Chart 19). Second, Najib was personally implicated in a massive scandal involving 1MDB, a sovereign wealth fund that Najib helped create and from which he allegedly embezzled $700 million (!). Street protests emerged in 2015 and suddenly Najib faced a revolt from the old guard within his own party (including Mahathir himself). Chart 17Malaysian Underperformance Is Late Chart 18Opposition Threatens UMNO's Dominance Chart 19Commodities Should Help Malaysian Exports The problem for the opposition, however, is timing. The 2008 election occurred before the worst of the global financial crisis had been felt; the 2013 election occurred before the full impact of the commodity bust; and now the ruling coalition's fortunes are recovering in time for the upcoming election - which, of course, the prime minister schedules to his advantage. Thus, the opposition once again faces an uphill battle in this election cycle: The Malaysian economy has beaten expectations, growing by 5.6% in the first quarter of 2017, the fastest rate in two years. This was driven mainly by exports and the manufacturing sector (Chart 20). Money supply growth is strong while the credit impulse has bottomed and is approaching positive territory (Chart 21). The 1MDB scandal has mostly dissipated. Najib publicly confessed that the $700 million found in his personal account was a donation from a foreign government, and Saudi Arabian authorities confirmed this, prompting Najib to return the money. Malaysia's attorney general, anti-corruption commission, and central bank have all cleared Najib of wrongdoing, and his popular support has recovered from the fever pitch of the scandal in 2015-16, as demonstrated by the net-gain for BN in by-elections since 2013, and the fact that the BN saw its share of seats rise from 27% to 37% in the 2016 Sarawak State Assembly elections. This state's local elections have tended to foreshadow national elections, and it has the largest representation of any state in the national parliament (31/222). The opposition is split. Najib has courted the Islamist opposition party, PAS, peeling it away from the opposition coalition. Without PAS, the opposition falls from 89 seats in parliament to 71 seats, which is 41 shy of a majority. Even in the best case scenario for the opposition in the upcoming election, in which the opposition holds all seats from 2013 and Bersatu gains all of UMNO's seats in Kedah and Johor, the opposition would still fall 16 seats shy of a majority. Chart 20Growth Is Strong Chart 21Credit Cycle Is Picking Up Bottom Line: Our baseline case holds that Najib and BN will retain control of the government in the upcoming election on the back of the fading scandal, economic recovery, and a shrewd practice of dividing political enemies. What Does A Najib Win Mean? Is a Najib/BN victory positive for Malaysian risk assets? We think so, at least relative to other EMs. While Malaysia would benefit in the long run from breaking the BN's monopoly over parliament, the immediate consequence of an opposition victory would be confusion as the various opposition parties have widely divergent interests ... and zero governing experience. On the other hand, Najib's government has undertaken some significant reforms, expanded infrastructure, and improved government finances, making his corrupt and pseudo-authoritarian government not as market unfriendly as one might expect: As a result of weak commodities, cuts in subsidies, and the introduction of a goods and services tax (GST) and a tourism tax, Malaysia's fiscal deficit has improved from 5.5% in 2013, when Najib took office, to 3.1% today (Chart 22). The government is on a path to close the deficit by the end of the decade. The GST has allowed the government to reduce its dependency on oil revenues. Non-tax revenues, which include oil royalties, have decreased from 35% in 2010 to only 20% of total revenue, while indirect taxes (which include GST) have increased from 17% to 28% of revenue (Chart 23, top three panels). There are plans to increase the goods covered by the GST in the near future. The government has cut subsidies in fuel and cooking gas, taking advantage of low oil prices. The government had also eliminated subsidies in cooking oil and sugar. Subsidies as a percent of total expenditures have declined from almost 20% in 2014 to only 9% today (Chart 23, bottom panel). The government has expanded infrastructure, completing a mass rail transit extension in Kuala Lumpur, connecting the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak via a 2,000 km highway, and attracting Chinese investment from the One Belt One Road program. The latter entails China building an East Coast Rail Link to connect the west and east coasts. Upon completion, this link will enable shippers to circumvent the port of Singapore and reach the South China Sea in a shorter time period. Chart 22Austerity Works Chart 23Tax Reforms Paid Off One perceived drawback of Najib's government is that in order to stay in power, he has had to court the Islamist PAS party, as mentioned above, specifically by allowing it to promote aspects of shariah law in the country's parliament. However, Malaysia is not at risk of being swept away by an imaginary rising tide of Islamic extremism. The country is very diverse, and Malay Muslims make up only a little more than half of the population. Malaysians are highly religious, but they are also highly tolerant, as they have lived among other races and religions since independence (Chart 24). Moreover, Islam is regulated and bureaucratized in Malaysia, which discourages the emergence of charismatic, anti-establishment religious leaders and the development of extremist movements. Finally, the government has an absolute need to win votes both in the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak, which have sizable Christian and non-Malay populations (adding up to more than half), and in the population centers of Kuala Lumpur and Penang. This means that it is not likely to allow PAS (or other Islamist movements) to go too far. Chart 24Malaysians Are Tolerant Bottom Line: Najib's government is corrupt and has authoritarian leanings, but has improved its management of the economy and public finances, and is not getting out of control with Islamism or populism. We would not expect a sustained market sell off in the face of a BN victory in upcoming polls. By contrast, if the opposition coalition wins a majority, it offers the long-term promise of a more inclusive and competitive political system that would be good for Malaysia, but would bring greater policy uncertainty in the short term. The opposition would likely have a low probability of achieving major reforms, as the BN party-state conglomerate would fight tooth and nail against it. A positive knee-jerk market response to an opposition win - on the expectation that "regime change" raises the probability of pro-market reforms - would likely be ephemeral. Investment Conclusion A key internal risk to the Malaysian economy stems from the country's fairly sizable debt, which may eventually become unsustainable. Yet at the moment, household and government debt are both rolling over even as growth is improving (Chart 25). A key external risk stems from China. Chinese politics are likely to shift from a tailwind for Chinese growth - fiscal stimulus and the need for stability ahead of the National Party Congress - to a headwind, as stimulus subsides and reforms are rebooted in 2018.8 We do not expect China's investment in Malaysia to fall sharply, since it is tied to a broad, long-term, strategic plan; nor do we see Malaysia as overexposed to Chinese imports or tourism. Nevertheless, Malaysia would suffer to some extent, and it is indirectly vulnerable as Malaysian exports to ASEAN and tourists from ASEAN are significant, and ASEAN would suffer from a Chinese slowdown. In short, China is a risk, albeit not as direct or major as one might think. The Malaysian ringgit has already become the best-performing currency this year. Yet this recent appreciation has not come near to reversing the currency's roughly 20% depreciation since 2014. A cheap currency, combined with robust external demand, should be a tailwind for Malaysian exports and the broader economy (Chart 26). Moreover, the rising price of key Malaysian exports like energy and palm oil should be positive for Malaysian equities (Chart 27). Chart 25Debt Is High, But Is Rolling Over Chart 26Cheap Currency Is A Tailwind For Exports Chart 27Commodities Support Equity Prices At the same time, valuations are attractive. Malaysian equities have underperformed the EM universe and its ASEAN peers since 2013 (see Chart 17 above). Malaysian equities have lost considerable value relative to their EM peers, and are trading at a discount relative to ASEAN peers. Compared to historical valuations, Malaysian equities are also trading at a discount (Chart 28 A and B). Chart 28aMalaysia Is Cheap Compared To Peers... Chart 28b...And Its Historical Valuation Bottom Line: The likely start of a new credit cycle, improving government finances, a persistently cheap currency, and the likelihood of an acceptable policy status quo should put a tailwind behind Malaysian risk assets. We recommend going long Malaysian equities relative to their EM peers. Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst Emerging Markets Strategy stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For A Major Top In EM," dated July 12, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Trump's failures have helped fuel the bull market; Yet inflation and Trump legislative wins will embolden the Fed; The U.K. will have yet another election by 2019; Dodd-Frank repeal is a no go ... but small banks may get relief; The Tea Party just found its hard constraint ... in Kansas. Feature Investors in South Africa surprised us last week. The first question on everyone's mind was "Will Trump be impeached?" Our answer that impeachment is highly unlikely at least until the midterm elections was received with suspicion.1 The perspective of our South African clients is understandable. Their domestic assets have been underpinned since Trump's election by a phenomenon we like to call "the Trump put." The thesis posits that U.S. politics will remain a mess for much of the year, delaying any progress on populist economic policies that would have buoyed U.S. nominal GDP growth and given the Fed a reason to hike interest rates more aggressively. The result is a weak dollar, lower 10-year Treasury yields, and a rally in global risk assets (Chart 1). Of course, stubbornly weak inflation and disappointing Q1 GDP numbers bear responsibility as well as Trump (Chart 2). Chart 1The 'Trump Put' Chart 2Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market For our South African clients, the fate of President Trump is irrelevant. What matters is that the American political imbroglio continues, reducing the likelihood of a hawkish mistake from the Fed, and thus keeping EM risk assets well bid. The market has generally agreed. Several assets associated with Trump's populist agenda have reversed their gains since the election. The yield curve, small caps, and high tax rate equities have all shown signs of disappointment with the Trump agenda (Chart 3). If the Trump put were to continue, we would expect U.S. bonds and stocks to rally, DXY to continue to face headwinds, and international stocks to outperform U.S. stocks. That said, the proxies for Trump's agenda in Chart 3 are starting to perk up. They may be sniffing out some positive political signs, such as the movement in the Senate on the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The budget reconciliation procedure - a process by which Republicans in Congress intend to avoid the Democrat filibuster in the Senate - requires Obamacare to be resolved before the House and the Senate can take up tax reform.2 If Obamacare clears Congress's calendar by the August recess, the odds of tax reform (or merely tax cuts) being passed by the end of 2017 will rise considerably. Second, former Director of the FBI James Comey's testimony was a non-event. We refused to cover it in these pages as we expected it to be theatre. The market had already digested everything that Comey was going to say, given that he had leaked the juiciest components of his testimony weeks ahead of the event. Chart 3Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Third, President Trump's approval rating with Republican voters remains resilient (Chart 4). If the worst has passed with the Russian collusion investigation - which we expect to be the case now that Comey's testimony has come and gone with little relevance - we could see GOP voters rally around the president. Several clients have pointed out that our measure is less relevant given the decline in voters who identify as Republicans (Chart 5). We disagree. As long as Republican voters vote in Republican primaries, they can act as a constraint on GOP members in Congress who are thinking of abandoning the president's populist agenda. This brings us to the main event: the economy. Our colleague Ryan Swift, who writes BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy, could not care less about the ongoing political drama. As Ryan has argued in a cogent report that we highly recommend to clients, the Fed's median projection for two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the end of the year, and for PCE inflation to reach 1.9% (Chart 6), is not going to happen if inflation continues to disappoint over the summer.3 The market seems to be saying that a PCE of 1.9% is unlikely. Core PCE inflation is running at only 1.54% year-over-year through April, and will probably stay low in May given that year-over-year core CPI fell from 2% in March to 1.89% in April. Chart 5Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Chart 6Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Ryan's Philips Curve model, however, disagrees with the market. The model looks to approximate Chair Yellen's own philosophy for forecasting inflation, which she outlined in a September 2015 speech.4 Specifically, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy models core PCE as a function of: 12-month lag of core PCE; Long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters; Resource utilization; Non-oil import prices relative to overall core PCE. BCA's core PCE model is sending a strong signal that the market's inflation expectations are overly pessimistic (Chart 7). Even after stressing the model under several adverse scenarios, Ryan concludes that it is very likely that core PCE inflation will indeed approach the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year-end. The U.S. economy is quickly running out of slack, with unemployment at a 16-year low of 4.3%. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally attached workers and those in part-time employment purely for economic reasons, has dropped to its pre-recession print of 8.4% (Chart 8). Chart 7Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Chart 8U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack Wages are also rising, with the underlying trend in wage growth having accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 9). The acceleration has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 10). Chart 9Wages Heating Up Chart 10Wage Improvements Broad-Based BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, therefore expects the Fed to raise rates in line with its own expectations. In fact, the Fed could expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later in the year.5 It will be difficult for the Fed to ignore macroeconomic data, even if, from a political perspective, the Trump put continues. The analogy we use with clients in meetings is that of the U.S. economy as a camp fire around which the various market participants - bond and equity investors, foreign and domestic, etc. - are huddled. According to our sister publications that conduct macroeconomic research, that campfire is well lit. And according to our political research, "Uncle Donny" had a few too many drinks and is about to pour some bourbon on the fire to show the kids a good time. Chart 11Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures For the Trump put to continue, we would have to see a combination of the following: GOP voters begin to abandon President Trump; Congress remains embroiled in Obamacare debates through FY2017, only seriously picking up on tax reform and other agenda items in FY2018. Greater doubts would undermine the recent uptick in assets tied to Trump's policy agenda (Chart 11). Impeachment concerns heat up again due to new revelations that implicate President Trump directly. So far impeachment talk has not correlated with the rally in Treasuries but it could do so if new evidence comes to light. Perhaps Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and special counsel investigating Russia's role in the election, will drop another bombshell later this year. In addition, for the Trump put to continue our colleagues Ryan and Peter would have to be wrong about the economy and inflation. For investors interested in playing the Trump put, and allocating funds to EM assets in particular, we would caution against it. However, given that BCA's bond and FX views have been challenged over the past several months by the Trump put, we understand why many of our clients are itching to chase the global asset rally. The summer months will be critical. Does Brexit Still Mean Brexit? We posited last week that the extraordinary election in the U.K. was about austerity and, more importantly, about repudiating the Conservative Party's fiscal policies.6 This remains our view. The most investment-relevant message to take from the election is that U.K. fiscal policy will become easier over the life of the coalition government, while monetary policy remains stuck in D - for dovish. This should weigh on the pound over the course of the year. That said, investors will begin to wonder about the longevity of the coalition between the U.K. Conservative Party and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In practice the coalition will have only a five-seat majority, which would be tied for the second-smallest margin since Harold Wilson in 1964 (Chart 12). Technically it is an even smaller one-seat majority. U.K. governments with a majority of fewer than ten seats are rare and usually only last one-to-two years (Harold Wilson's four-seat 1974-79 run is an exception). This bodes ill for May's government - that is, if she survives today's brewing leadership challenge from within her party. We have no idea if the election means a softer Brexit as we have no idea - and neither does anyone else - what that means. Generally speaking, the wafer-thin majority for the Tories means the following: "No deal is better than a bad deal" is no longer going to be acceptable to the government or the public; London will end up paying a larger "exit fee" than it probably thinks it will; There will be no favorable deal for the U.K.'s financial industry. In essence, the U.K. clearly has the weaker hand in the upcoming negotiations. Cheers went up in Brussels. Does this change anything? First, we never bought the argument that the U.K. had a strong negotiating position because continental Europeans want to export BMWs to consumers in Britain. The EU is a far bigger market for the U.K. than the U.K. is for the EU (Chart 13). On this measure alone, the U.K. was always going to be the underdog in the negotiations. Chart 13The U.K. Lacks Leverage Second, the influence of Tory Euroskeptics has been reduced. That might appear counterintuitive, given that May wanted to reduce their influence by getting a bigger majority. However, it is highly unlikely that she will get the ultimate EU deal through Westminster, with a five-seat majority, without at least some votes from the opposition. Euroskeptics will therefore either remain quiet and compliant or force May to seek a deal that Labour MPs could agree to. Which brings us to the very likely scenario that the final deal will not pass Westminster without a new election. As we argued right after the referendum, the U.K. will likely have a "Brexit election" sometime in 2019.7 There is no way around it now. At very least the ruling alliance will face a contradiction in trying to soften Brexit while maintaining a strict stance on immigration. And given the weak majority, if Labour does not play ball, the Tories will have to call a new election on the basis of the deal they conclude. The good news for the Conservative Party is that the polls continue to show that a majority of U.K. voters support Brexit (Chart 14). Furthermore, the two Brexit-lite campaign promises by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were the least preferred policies ahead of the election (Chart 15, see next page). However, the election also saw a complete collapse in support for Euroskeptic-leaning parties, in terms of share of the overall vote (Chart 16). Could Brexit ultimately be reversed? Certainly the odds have risen. Furthermore, there does appear to be some regret amongst U.K. voters, with a recent survey showing a decline in national identification: now more Britons identify as "also European" than ever (Chart 17). Nonetheless, a full reversal of Brexit will still require an exogenous shock, such as a recession or a geopolitical calamity that convinces the U.K. that they need Europe. Investors should remain vigilant of the polls. A clear trend reversal in Chart 14 would constitute a political opportunity for the opposition parties to campaign on a new referendum. Chart 16Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Bottom Line: Odds of a softer Brexit have certainly risen as the Tories face considerable domestic constraints in their negotiating strategy with the EU. We continue to believe that the negotiations will not be acrimonious and therefore the pound will not fall below its lows on January 16. However, it may re-test that 1.2 level due to a coming mix of easy fiscal and monetary policy over the course of the year. U.S.: Doing A Number On Dodd-Frank Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff, Than an ambulance down in the valley! - Joseph Malins, "The Fence or the Ambulance," 1895 The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 by a vote of 233-186 on June 8. This is the GOP's second major attempt, after the Affordable Care Act, to rewrite a signature law of President Obama's administration. This time it is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, known simply as "Dodd-Frank," that is on the docket. The bill's prospects in the Senate are dim. President Trump promised to "do a number" on Dodd-Frank shortly after coming into office, by which he meant dismantling the law. The so-called "CHOICE Act" put forward by Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) now goes to the Senate, where it faces a high hurdle because Democrats can filibuster it, forcing the GOP to summon 60 votes. So the question is what kind of a "number" can the GOP actually do to Dodd-Frank, and does it matter? First a little bit of background.8 Dodd-Frank cleared Congress in the wake of the subprime financial crisis, July 2010. It had both a quixotic and a more pragmatic aim: the first to reduce the likelihood of future financial crises, and the second to improve the ability of regulators to stem risks as they emerge. The law has never been fully implemented and is best understood as a work in progress. The law grants the Federal Reserve and other agencies greater powers of oversight, prevention, and crisis management. In particular it ensures that the Fed would regulate not only banks but also non-bank investment companies and other financial firms (such as the giant insurance company AIG that had to be bailed out at the height of the crisis). It also frees the Fed of the responsibility to rescue failing institutions or dismantle them, handing those duties over to others, while still enabling the Fed to act as lender of last resort. The key provisions are as follows: Impose tougher capital standards: In keeping with the international Basel III banking reforms,9 Dodd-Frank tried to ensure that banks were better fortified against liquidity shortages in future. The new standards would apply both to domestic banks and foreign banks with American subsidiaries. Orderly Liquidation Authority: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a major institution born amidst the Great Depression, would take over the responsibility of liquidating failing firms in the event of a crisis - assuming Treasury's go-ahead due to the systemic importance of the failing firm. Additional measures would hold the entire financial sector responsible for the bill if the FDIC made losses in the process. Each firm would have to maintain a "living will" to make the resolution process easier in the event of disaster. A new Financial Stability Oversight Council: Chaired by the Treasury Secretary and consisting of the various financial regulatory bodies, this council would identify systemically important financial companies, monitor them, and take actions to prevent crises. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the anti-Wall Street firebrand, the bureau would be funded by the Fed but otherwise entirely independent of it, and tasked with patrolling the banks on behalf of consumers. The Volcker Rule: The rule, named after former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, would force banks to curtail a number of short-term, high-risk trading activities on their own accounts, including derivatives, futures, and options, unless to hedge risks or serve bank customers. This was viewed as a partial reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall law, a Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking but was repealed by President Clinton in 1999. Republicans want to overturn Dodd-Frank to increase financial sector profits, credit growth, economic growth, and animal spirits. Lending has arguably suffered as a result of the new regulations (Chart 18). The share of bank loans to overall bank credit has remained subdued, reflecting bank behavior under QE and possibly also risk-aversion under tighter regulation (Chart 19). Chart 18Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Chart 19Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Republicans would also satisfy an ideological goal of reducing state involvement, which grew as a result of the law. In addition, the CBO estimates that the proposed rewrite would cut the budget deficit by a net $22.3 billion over a ten-year period.10 A very small amount, but again in line with GOP's political bent. The way the CHOICE Act would work is to create an "escape hatch" that would allow banks that maintain capital-to-asset ratio of over 10% to bypass Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial companies that do not meet the 10% leverage ratio could either raise funds or remain subject to Dodd-Frank oversight, including required capital ratios, stress tests, living wills, and other regulations. Critically, the 10% leverage ratio for those banks that opt out of Dodd-Frank would not be calculated using risk-weightings for different assets (whereas Dodd-Frank requires both risk-weighted and non-risk-weighted capital ratios to be maintained). Therefore, banks that opt out would be able to take on greater risk while still fulfilling minimum capital requirements. This is supposed to boost lending, earnings, and growth. About 70% of the $18 trillion in U.S. banking assets belongs to banks defined by Dodd-Frank as "systemically important." The eight U.S. banks defined as "globally systemic important banks" account for about $9 trillion in assets and are unlikely to take advantage of the Republicans' escape hatch because they would then have to raise new capital and yet would still be subject to international Basel III regulations even if exempted from Dodd-Frank. The CBO estimates that banks holding about 2% of the bank assets held by systemically important banks (i.e. $252 billion) would opt out of Dodd-Frank (Chart 20). Further, the CBO estimates that, among non-systemically important banks (30% of $18 trillion total banking assets), the banks that both meet the 10% leverage ratio and would opt out of Dodd-Frank account for about 7% of U.S. banking assets ($1.26 trillion) (see Chart 20 above). Community banks (with assets under $10 billion each) and credit unions are especially likely to do so. Therefore, if the Republican bill were to become law, banks comprising something like $1.5 trillion in U.S. banking assets would become less restricted and eligible to adopt riskier trading practices free of Dodd-Frank policing. The greatest impact will be in areas with a higher concentration of small banks and credit unions than elsewhere. These U.S. banks would also, arguably, become more likely to take excessive risks and fail at some future point. Using probabilistic models for bank failures, the CBO found that the U.S.'s Deposit Insurance Fund would only suffer an additional $600 million in losses over the next ten years as a result of this increase in risk. It is a credible estimate but the reality could be far costlier if more and more banks gain the ability to bypass regulation or if banks significantly change their behavior to take advantage of the regulatory loophole. Other aspects of the bill would: Repeal the FDIC's orderly liquidation fund: The private sector would largely take over the responsibility for managing liquidations. The CBO estimates that the federal government would save an estimated $14.5 billion in liquidation costs over ten years. Eliminate the Volcker Rule: Banks would be able to trade riskier assets on their own accounts and forge closer relationships with private equity and hedge funds. Audit the Fed: Within one year of passage, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would audit the Fed's board of governors and the Federal Reserve regional banks, including their handling of monetary policy. The Fed's open market committee (FOMC) would also have to establish a new interest rate target, based on economic parameters, which the GAO would monitor. Reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Board: The agency would have its powers neutered and funding dependent on the Congress, rather than transfers from the Fed. It would be re-branded as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency and have its power to oversee institutions with more than $10 billion in assets taken away, making it, in effect, a monitor of small banks only. Cut penalties for violating regulations: However, outright criminality would be punished more severely. Various authorities and institutions would be tweaked, mostly in accordance with the general aim of reducing regulatory burdens on the financial sector. So, what options do the Republicans have going forward?11 Republicans either need 60 votes to defeat a Senate filibuster or they need procedural work-arounds like budget reconciliation. Chart 21Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Some Republicans claim that certain elements of the rewrite can be tucked into a reconciliation bill. However, reconciliation requires a single, concentrated policy focus. The GOP is currently undertaking an unprecedented two budget reconciliation bills in a single year: first, the FY2017 reconciliation procedure to repeal Obamacare, and second, the FY2018 procedure to cut taxes. Rewriting Dodd-Frank is a far cry from either health care or tax reform. Dodd-Frank measures crammed into either of these bills would likely be revoked under the so-called "Byrd Rule" which keeps the reconciliation process focused and excludes extraneous material.12 So it is unlikely that this method will work. The FY2018 budget resolution will be a critical signpost. Second, it is hard to see how a bipartisan rewrite of Dodd-Frank is possible. Dodd-Frank was the Democrats' signature response to the subprime mortgage debacle and broader financial crisis. They will not participate in dismantling it. We cannot see eight Democrats joining Republicans in the Senate for what Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has called "collective amnesia." However, there is one general principle that could find its way into law: the idea of giving small, regional banks a reprieve from Dodd-Frank requirements. Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has tentatively supported giving these banks a break.13 These banks, with under $10 billion in assets, face the most difficulty in meeting Dodd-Frank's requirements and yet tend to meet the 10% leverage ratio. Politicians could at least attempt to make a popular argument for easing the burden on small community banks and credit unions, which are often vital to local communities. The same cannot be said for the Dodd-Frank rewrite as a whole, which smacks of granting impunity to Wall Street. Still, we think that even a bill focused exclusively on helping small banks would have trouble passing on its own. The legislative agenda is too busy in 2017; while 2018 will see midterm elections, when few candidates will want to appear soft on Wall Street. Instead, a provision helping small banks could pass if tacked onto the larger budget bill or bills for FY2018, if not later. It would have to be made palatable to Democrats, or else it would be perceived as a "poison pill" and risk adding to the numerous risks of government shutdown over the budget this fall. Other than these legislative options, the Trump administration can ease regulation, or relax enforcement, through executive action, as it has already promised to do. Assuming America's financial sector will get a reprieve, investors could capitalize on it by favoring small U.S. bank equities over large bank equities. The share price of small banks relative to large banks, which rallied in the aftermath of Trump's election only to fall back in the subsequent months, has recently perked up (Chart 21). Relative earnings have been flat over the same period. If Dodd-Frank is partially watered down, these banks should see earnings improve, which should drive up their share prices. Our colleagues at BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy are positive on global bank equities, particularly European and American ones. The latter are still relatively affordable as they undertake the long trek of recovery after a once-in-a-generation crisis (Chart 22). U.S. banks have notably better fundamentals than peers in Europe and Japan - more capital, higher net interest margins, lower or equal NPL ratios. They also stand to benefit from relatively faster rising interest rates (Chart 23).14 Chart 22The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery Chart 23U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally In addition, the FiscalNote Financial Sector Index suggests that the flow of legislative and regulatory proposals has been steadily getting less onerous on the financial sector.15 Chart 24 is an aggregation of the favorability scores - which assess whether the bill is likely to be favorable or unfavorable to the sector - for all U.S. Congressional legislation that is determined to be relevant to the financial sector since 2006. It provides a snapshot of the regulatory environment for the financial sector at any given point in time. Chart 24Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Risks to the view? Republicans could somehow squeeze a broader Dodd-Frank rewrite through the budget reconciliation process. We think the probability of this is less than 10%. Financially, this would deliver a bigger jolt to the financial sector, and financial stocks, than currently expected. But it would still benefit small banks more than large ones. Politically, a full repeal could add to Republican woes in 2018 - particularly if it is their only legislative achievement. It may well be political suicide to contest the 2018 midterm election on two pieces of legislation: one that denies millions of Americans health insurance and another that favors Wall Street. A full rewrite would also probably increase systemic financial risks. Even deregulation just for the small banks would do so. Lawmakers, focused on restraining the "too big to fail" giants, could end up clearing the way for excesses among the pygmies. That said, excessive regulation can also fuel shadow banking, a risk in itself. And the next crisis may well emanate from somewhere other than the financial sector. Bottom Line: Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits even for Republicans in an environment of populism. However, a bill focused on lightening the regulatory load on small banks has a chance of passing if tacked onto the budget process. Large banks would remain subject to closer scrutiny and stricter international standards. The Trump election rally for bank stocks has mostly fallen back. Now is an opportunity to favor small banks versus large ones on expectations of Trump getting tax cuts passed and regulatory easing of some kind. Kansas: Where Seldom Is Heard A Discouraging Word A chill went through the Tea Party's collective spine on June 6 when two-thirds of the GOP-controlled Kansas legislature overrode the veto of GOP Governor Sam Brownback to repeal a 2012 budget law that slashed taxes on income, small business, and retail sales. You heard that right: Republicans in one of America's reddest states just overrode their leader in order to increase taxes. And it was the largest tax hike in state history. We will spare our readers the nitty-gritty details of the Brownback saga. Suffice it to say that the Tea Party-friendly Kansas legislature slashed state taxes and spending under Brownback's leadership in May 2012. Brownback called it a "real live experiment" of conservative economic principles and argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster growth. Art Laffer, of "Laffer Curve" fame, allegedly consulted on these measures via the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The medicine proved more dangerous than the illness. Since 2012, the state has burned through a budget surplus and growth has slowed (Chart 25). Both Moody's and S&P downgraded Kansas debt. Employment gains have lagged those of neighboring states. Beginning in October 2013, Brownback began to slip in public opinion polls (Chart 26). Cuts to core government services, especially education, caused a tide of criticism. In an extraordinary development, a hundred establishment Republicans supported his Democratic opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial election. He won by a margin of 3.7% but soon afterwards fell out of favor with the public. A series of confrontations with the Kansas Supreme Court hastened his decline, mostly over education funding, which is guaranteed by the state constitution. Brownback, the legislature, and various activist groups attempted to strong-arm the courts, including by ousting four members of the Supreme Court in the 2016 elections. All four retained their posts. The new budget law raises $1.2 billion in income taxes over two years by revoking swathes of the 2012 law, particularly the income tax exemption for business owners and professionals. Brownback duly vetoed the legislation and was promptly overridden by two-thirds of a legislature that is 70% Republican. This is a remarkable event for a state as ideologically conservative as Kansas. What does it mean nationally? There are two reasons that the Kansas experiment will have a limited impact on Republican thinking nationally: Kansas has a balanced budget law (Section 75-3722), while D.C. does not ... and this helped increase the pressure on the administration; Brownback is the least popular governor of any governor in the United States (Chart 27). The blame for the whole fiasco may fall on him personally, distracting from the policy failure. Nevertheless, we think Kansas has set the high-water mark for an aggressive Tea Party agenda in the U.S. that focuses on fiscal conservativism to the exclusion of everything else. Republicans will take note that even as conservative of a state as Kansas has a limit when it comes to spending cuts. It was the cuts to education - which resulted in shorter schoolyears in some districts, and various other disruptions - that fatally wounded Brownback's public standing. Thus public demand for core services is a real constraint on the extent to which taxes can be slashed. Bottom Line: We expect the Trump administration to go forward with tax cuts. But we also think that Trump will get far less in spending cuts than his budget proposals pretend. As such, we expect the GOP tax reform agenda to blow out the budget deficit, a path that Kansas could not legally (or politically) take. This will be the path of least resistance for Congressional Republicans who want to slash taxes yet fear they may not survive the spending cuts necessary to pay for them.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Janet L. Yellen, "Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy," Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 24, 2015, available at www.federalreserve.gov. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit - Next Steps," dated July 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We are particularly indebted to Ben S. Bernanke's account in The Courage To Act: A Memoir Of A Crisis And Its Aftermath (New York: Norton, 2015), pp. 435-66. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Preparing For Basel III: Who Will Win, Who Will Lose?" dated September 12, 2011, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 10, Financial CHOICE Act of 2017," CBO Cost Estimate, May 18, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 11 The Republicans managed to repeal one aspect of Dodd-Frank with a simple majority via the Congressional Review Act, an option that is now closed. U.S. oil, gas, and mineral companies can now be somewhat less transparent about payments made to foreign governments to gain access to resources. Proponents claim U.S. resource companies will gain competitiveness; opponents claim corruption will increase, particularly in foreign countries. 12 Please see Bill Heniff Jr., "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's 'Byrd Rule,'" Congressional Research Service, November 22, 2016, available at fas.org. 13 Please see Yellen's February testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, e.g. "Yellen Wants To Ease Regulations For Small Banks," Associated Press, February 14, 2017, available at www.usnews.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Girding For A Breakout," dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com, and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Breakout," dated May 5, 2017, and "Wind Of Change," dated November 11, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 15 The FiscalNote Policy Index measures regulatory risk daily for sectors, industries, and individual companies from every legislative and regulatory proposal. Using proprietary machine-learning-enabled natural language processing algorithms, FiscalNote ingests and processes thousands of legislative and regulatory policy events, scoring each for relevance, favorability, and importance to affected sectors. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights The current economic and profit environment supports our stance of favoring stocks over bonds. The Fed will need to see more evidence to alter its gradual path for rates. Although valuations remain elevated, they are not a great market timing tool. Margins are expanding according to the S&P 500 data, and we expect this to continue in the second half of the year. But a peak in margins next year could be the justification to scale back on overweight positions in stocks, in anticipation of slower EPS growth. Corporate balance sheets continued to deteriorate in the first quarter, but that is not enough to warrant cutting back on corporate bond positions within fixed-income portfolios. Watch real short-term rates and bank C&I lending standards, as an exit warning. Feature Environment Remains Supportive For Stocks Over Bonds Investors are wondering whether the equity and currency/bond markets are living on different planets. The dollar and Treasurys seem to be priced for sluggish economic growth, less inflation and no fiscal stimulus. Yet, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. Many believe that the only reason that stocks got to this level in the first place is the prospect of tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending. If true, then it is only a matter of time before equity investors capitulate. We look at it another way. Yes, equities initially received a boost following the U.S. election on hopes for tax reform. But indicators such as the ratio of small-to-large-cap stocks, or high-tax companies relative to the S&P 500, suggest that the stock market has priced out all chances of any tax reform. The overall stock market has performed well despite this because of the favorable profit backdrop. The fact that Corporate America can generate such profits despite a lackluster economy is impressive. Moreover, the recent softening in inflation has led many to believe that the Fed can proceed even more slowly than the market previously believed, leading to a bond rally. This is quite a bullish backdrop for equities. One does not have to conclude that the bond and stock markets are living on different planets. The backdrop is also positive for corporate bonds versus Treasurys, despite the fact that corporate health continues to deteriorate (see below). Turning to politics, the political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The outcome of the election does not change our core views on the U.S. dollar, equity or bond markets. The dollar has rallied, Treasury yields are higher and U.S. equity prices moved up as this report was being prepared on Friday, June 9. Looking ahead, the coalition-building process in the U.K. will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds. Nonetheless, our high conviction view is that the investment implications are in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. A key takeaway for investors is that, aside from Brexit, domestic fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Moreover, the Brexit process will continue, albeit of a potentially more "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal.1 Will They Or Won't They? A 25-basis point rate hike is likely this week, but the FOMC will need more evidence on the direction of inflation and the economy before significantly changing the timing and pace of rate hikes or economic forecasts. The market is fully pricing in the anticipated 25-basis point rate bump, but beyond that, there is not much agreement between the Fed and the market on interest rates or economic projections. Nonetheless, as the Fed prepares its June forecast and dot plots, policymakers and the market are on the same page in terms of the labor market, inflation, and the economy in the next few years. The unemployment rate (4.3% in May 2017) is below the Fed's forecasts for 2017 (4.5%) and longer run (4.7%). The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate keeps it below the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 1, panel 3). Even assuming that the 120,000 pace of job growth in the past three months persists, the unemployment rate would remain below the Fed's view of NAIRU (Chart 2). Our unemployment rate projections are based on a stable labor force participation rate and a 1% gain in the working age population. Chart 1Fed, Market And Reality##BR##Not Too Far Apart Chart 2The Unemployment Rate##BR##Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios However, a closer look at what policymakers have said about prices and the trajectory of inflation in recent years suggests that the market and the Fed are not that far apart. At +1.7% in April, the PCE deflator remains near the FOMC's projection of 1.9% for this year and 2.0% in the long run. Bloomberg consensus estimates for inflation for this year and next are above the top end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 1, panel 2). The FOMC's May minutes state that "participants generally continued to expect that inflation would stabilize around the Committee's two percent objective over the medium run as the effects of transitory factors waned." The market is still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with the economy below the Fed's estimate of full employment. We will discuss the Phillips curve in a post-GFC world in an upcoming edition of The Bank Credit Analyst. As we discussed in last week's report,2 GDP growth in 2017 is on track to exceed the Fed's 2017 target (2.1%) and is already running ahead of the Fed's GDP projection (1.8%) for the long term. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is at the upper end of the Fed's range set in March (Chart 1, panel 1). Despite the general agreement between the Fed and the market on certain aspects, they diverge on the outlook for the fed funds rate in the next 18 months (Chart 3). As of June 9, the Fed sees a total of six quarter-point rate hikes by the end of 2018. The market sees just two in the same period. The Fed and market are still far apart on rates in 2019. However, the disconnect between the Fed and the market is not as large as it was in early 2015. This disagreement was a major factor in the equity market pullback in the first few months of 2016 (Chart 3). Neither the recent weakness in the economic data nor softer-than-expected inflation readings will be enough to prompt a significant shift from the Fed in terms of the 'dot plot'. The economic surprise index has been declining for 63 days since peaking in early- to mid-March, but remains consistent with slow growth, not a recession. Economic data tends to disappoint for an average of 90 days after the economic surprise index is above 40, as it was in late 2016/early 2017 in the wake of the U.S. election (Chart 4). Chart 3Disconnect Between Fed##BR##And Market On Rates Chart 4Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over##BR##Since Early To Mid March Bottom Line: It would take a significant deterioration in the economy and labor market and in the benign inflation environment to alter the Fed's gradual rate hike plan. A backdrop of gradual hikes and eventually, a smaller balance sheet, will continue to foster the conditions under which stocks have outperformed bonds since 2009. We believe that the recent Treasury rally is overdone because the market has gone too far in revising down the path of Fed rate hikes. A re-evaluation of the outlook could see bond yields jump, sparking a small equity correction. This is not enough of a risk to scale back on equities versus bonds. Valuations, Earnings And Margins: An Update U.S. equities remain overvalued and would be even more extended if not for low rates. However, they are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasurys. Valuation is not a great tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we don't foresee a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond our tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Our BCA valuation indicator has deteriorated since we last published it in March 2017 and shows that U.S. equities remain expensive.3 Individually, two of the three components of the Valuation index remain in overvalued territory. The Earnings Group remains at a record high (aside from the tech bubble). The Balance Sheet group shows the same profile. Only the Yield Group, which compares stock prices with various nominal and real interest rates, suggests that equities are undervalued. Thus, U.S. stock prices are vulnerable to a sharp jump in rates, which supports our view that U.S. equity markets will perform well in an economic and inflation backdrop that allows the Fed to raise interest rates and unwind its balance sheet gradually (Chart 5). While tax cuts and infrastructure spending might provide the equity market with a "sugar high", it probably would not last long because fiscal stimulus would bring forward Fed rate hikes. Moreover, Chart 6 shows that U.S. stocks remain favorably priced relative to competing assets such as corporate bonds, Treasurys and residential housing. That said, equity valuation measures such as price-to-book or price-to-sales make the market vulnerable to shocks. Chart 5U.S. Stocks##BR##Are Overvalued... Chart 6Stocks Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets Inflated valuations alone are not enough to trigger a bear market or even a significant correction in U.S. equities. Outside of aggressive Fed tightening, we will become more defensive when profits come under pressure. On this score, the decline in Q4 profits according to the NIPA data is concerning. We are in a period where margins based on the NIPA data are diverging from the S&P's measure. Like corporate earnings, there is more than one data source for profit margin data, and the data itself is a mix of art and science. In the long run, the S&P-based margin data and the data derived from the NIPA accounts tend to move together. Over shorter time horizons, however, these two metrics may diverge. The NIPA margins peaked in 2014 and have moved steadily lower since then, but the BEA-derived profit data are not closely watched by investors and are subject to significant revision. On the other hand, margins based on S&P data are followed closely by the markets, are not subject to revision and have been moving higher since end of 2015. In the past 55 years, the peak in NIPA margins has often led the S&P data at peaks; the caveat is that it is unclear whether the NIPA data led in real time because of the endless revision process for GDP and profit data.4 The margin series based on S&P data tends to lead heading into margin troughs, but it is not a reliable signal. During the long economic expansion in the 1960s, both indicators topped out around the same time (1966-67). The NIPA derived margins peaked in 1975 as the S&P margins troughed, and later in the decade, the zenith in NIPA margins peaked three years before the S&P version. Similar to the current decade the long expansion in the 1980s saw a mid-decade collapse in oil prices and margins. In the late 80s, NIPA and S&P measures peaked almost simultaneously, which was three years before the crest in equity prices. The 1990s saw unabated margin expansion through 1997 for NIPA margins; the expansion in S&P-based margins lasted until 1999 (Chart 7). Chart 7Margins, Like Profits Are Mix Of Art & Science History also shows that falling margins do not always mean declining EPS growth. In the past 40 years, when the U.S. economy was not in recession, corporate EPS growth was very high on average when margins rose. It was mostly a wash when margins dropped, with slightly negative EPS growth on average. There were two episodes (late-1990s and mid-2000s) when margins fell, but EPS growth was strongly positive (Chart 8). The stock market can also rise significantly even after margins peak for the cycle. Chart 8EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract According to S&P data we are in a phase of climbing margins and we expect EPS growth to further accelerate into year end, peaking at just under 20%, before moderating in 2018. If profit growth decelerates in 2018 and the S&P measure of margins begins to narrow again, it would send a strong signal to trim exposure, especially given lofty equity valuations (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Bottom Line: Rich valuations in U.S. equities will be overlooked as most investors are focused on the S&P and not the NIPA margins. EPS growth will decelerate sharply when margins resume their mean reversion, which could be the catalyst for a major correction or bear market in stock prices. We do not expect this scenario to play out until 2018 at the earliest. Meanwhile, rising margins and profits trump expensive multiples for U.S. equities. Stay long. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Last week's U.S. Flow of Funds release allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart 10). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." The deterioration in the Monitor over the past few years is largely reflected in the profit-related components of the CHM, including the return on capital, cash flow coverage and free cash flow-to-total debt. Chart 10Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and most reliable indicators in BCA's stable of indicators. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. A blowout requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to rise, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist usually occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. Even now, inflationary pressures are so muted that the Fed can proceed quite slowly. It will be some time before real short-term interest rates are in restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. As an aside, recent weakness in the growth rate of C&I loans has contributed to concerns over the health of the U.S. recovery. However, the easing in lending standards this year points to an imminent rebound in C&I loan growth (Chart 11). Our model for C&I loans, based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate, supports this view. Chart 11C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart 12 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, has eased on a 4-quarter moving average basis (although it ticked up in Q1 on a 2-quarter basis; Chart 13). As a result, ratings migration has improved (i.e. easing net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The moderating appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart 12Still Some Value In##BR##High-Yield Corporates Chart 13Net Transfers To Shareholders##BR##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle, for reasons we outlined in the April 17, 2017 Weekly Report. In a nutshell, value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Bottom Line: Corporate balance sheets are still deteriorating but risk assets, including corporate bonds, should continue to outperform Treasurys and cash in the near term. We will look to downgrade risk assets when core inflation moves closer to the Fed's 2% target, which would trigger a more aggressive FOMC tightening campaign and tighter bank lending standards. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken, published on June 9, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?" June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks", dated March 13, 2017 available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth, Inflation and the Fed", May 8, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.