カナダ

ハイライト 日本経済は好調です。これにより日銀はQQE（量的・質的金融緩和）プログラムから段階的に離脱することが可能になっています。 しかし、インフレが金融環境の直接的な関数であり続けるため、YCC（イールドカーブ・コントロール）プログラムは当面維持されるでしょう。 円のポジショニングとバリュエーションがこれほど歪んでいるため、特にユーロに対して円のリレーが生じる可能性があります。EUR/JPYをショートします。 米連邦準備制度と同様に、カナダ銀行（BoC）も今年に3回利上げするでしょう。しかし、市場はすでにカナダの利上げを米国よりも多く織り込んでいます。USD/CADはニュートラルを維持します。ただし、CADはNOKに対して下落圧力を受けるでしょう。CAD/NOKをショートします。 特集 チャート I-1 JPY 対 債券：決別 JPY対債券：決別 JPY対債券：決別 ここ数か月、USD/JPYに興味深い変化が起きました。米国の国債利回りから切り離され始めたのです（チャート I-1）。大部分は、2017年にドル指数が10%下落したことに起因するドル自身の弱さが反映されています。しかし昨年のドルの弱さにもかかわらず、9月7日以降は実質的に横ばいでした。円が債券利回りから切り離されたもう一つの要因は、欧州中央銀行（ECB）が独自の資産購入プログラムの終了を発表したことで、次に購入縮小の対象になるのは日銀だと見なされたことです。 1月8日、日銀はその方向に動き始め、長期JGBの買入れを縮小し始めました。その日以降、世界の債券は売られ、円も勢いを取り戻しました。我々は円のベア相場が終わったとは考えていませんが、ユーロに対してプレイ可能なリレーが生じる可能性が高いと見ています。 太陽は昇る 日銀が一部の金融刺激を取り除きたいと考えるのは正当です。日本経済は全てのシリンダーで稼働しており、改善は幅広く見られます。 資産価格の上昇と23年ぶりの低水準の失業率に支えられた消費者信頼感は過去最高水準に達しています（チャート I-2）。これは実質家計支出を引き続き支え、2015年から2017年初めまでの持続的な縮小の後、現在はほぼ年率2%のペースで成長しています。 家計支出を支えるもう一つの要因は賃金面です。契約賃金はすでに2006年以来の最速ペースで伸びており、残業代を除く賃金は1998年以来見られなかったペースで拡大しています（チャート I-3）。さらに、求人倍率は1974年以来の高水準にあります。これにより、安倍晋三首相が企業と賃上げを巡って繰り広げている圧力が実を結び、今春の賃金交渉で加速的な上昇が生じる可能性が高まります。 チャート I-2 日本の家計は意気軒昂 消費者信頼感調査 日本の世帯は活気にあふれている 消費者信頼感調査 日本の世帯は活気にあふれている チャート I-3 賃金成長が加速 賃金の伸びが加速している 賃金の伸びが加速している 企業の信頼感も急上昇しています。日本の製造業PMIは日本基準で高い水準にあり、現在54であり、中小企業の信頼感は工業生産の加速を示唆しています（チャート I-4）。 金融市場もこの状況を裏付けています。日経平均の急騰が投資家の注目を集めていますが、さらに印象的なのは小型株の強さで、2015年以降大型株を17%アウトパフォームしています（チャート I-5）。この動きは信用成長の回復と一致しており、通常は堅調な成長見通しと関連します。 我々の系列誌であるザ・バンク・クレジット・アナリストが開発したGDPモデルは、これらの諸現象を要約しており、日本の実質GDP成長率は2018年前半に年率3%に達する可能性があると予測しています（チャート I-6）。したがって、日本経済はさらに勢いを増すと見られます。 チャート I-4 日本企業も好況感を実感##br##している 日本企業も好調を実感している 日本企業も好調を実感している チャート I-5 小型株は明るい見通しを示唆##br##している スモールキャップは明るい見通しを示す スモールキャップは明るい見通しを示す チャート I-6 日本の成長は##br##勢いを持っている 日本の成長に勢いがある 日本の成長に勢いがある では、こうした改善を支えている要因は何でしょうか。 第一に、日本の財政の流れが変わりました。2012年から2016年にかけて財政政策は日本の経済活動に年間平均0.6%分のブレーキをかけていました。しかし2017年には財政政策は緩和に転じ、GDPに0.2%の押し上げをもたらしました。 第二に、日本は新興市場（EM）成長の回復から大きな恩恵を受けています。IMFによれば、新興市場の成長が1%ショックした場合、日本の成長に与える影響は50ベーシスポイントであり、これは米国への同じショックのほぼ5倍に相当します。これは日本の輸出の43%が新興市場向けであるためです。 第三に、新興市場の活動が日本に与える影響は、円の逆循環的な性質によって増幅されます。世界および新興市場の成長がより力強くなると円は弱含み、これが日本の金融環境を緩和します。この現象は昨年顕著に表れ、過去16か月で金融環境は1標準偏差分緩和しました。 これらの動きが成長改善と日銀のトーンの変化の土台を築いたのです。 結論： 日本は非常に好調です。消費者と企業の期待は高く、支出は増加しており、GDPはさらに加速する見込みです。財政引き締めの緩和、強い新興市場、そして金融環境の緩和がこれらの改善を支えています。日銀はこれに注目しています。 日銀はどこまで踏み込めるか？ 日銀はここ数か月、政策変更に動きたがっていました。2017年11月、日銀総裁の黒田氏は「リバーサル・レート」という概念について言及していました。リバーサル・レートとは、金利をそれ以下に下げると追加の利下げが経済活動にとって収縮的になる金利水準を指します。これは、その水準を下回ると金利の低下が銀行の金利マージンを損ない、商業銀行が民間部門への貸し出しを抑制し始めるためです。 日銀がリバーサル・レートについて声を大きくしていた理由は、このレートが商業銀行のバランスシートに保有される証券の量と逆相関関係にあるからです。商業銀行が政府債を多く保有している場合、金利が非常に低い水準に下がるとこれらの証券の評価額が上昇し、低い金利マージンの悪影響を相殺します。日本の問題は、日銀が政府の発行額より多くのJGBを吸い上げたため、銀行の保有残高が急速に減少していたことです（チャート I-7）。これはリバーサル・レートの上昇を意味し、日銀の政策運営がやや制約されていることを示していました。 12月にインフレが上振れサプライズを起こしたとき、金融市場は激しく反応しました。日本の名目利回りはあまり動きませんでしたが、日本のインフレ期待が急上昇し、それが日本の実質金利の急落を促しました（チャート I-8）。これは日本の金融環境を事実上緩和させ、日銀が資産購入を調整するための絶好の口実を作りました：債券購入の微調整による負の影響は緩和され、日銀の見解ではリバーサル・レートの低下により金融環境の制御を失うことはないと考えられたのです。 このような政策行動とレトリックの変化にもかかわらず、我々はまだイールドカーブ・コントロール（YCC）プログラムの終わりを予想していません。食料とエネルギーを除くインフレはわずか0.3%にとどまり、日銀の2%目標や1%ですら大きく下回っています。1%台は緩和をより現実的に解除するレベルでしょう。 さらに、日銀はやや板挟みの状況にあります。確かに経済は大きく改善していますが、これはインフレ動向を十分に説明するものではありません。日本の設備稼働率は日本のコアインフレ変動のわずか3%しか説明しておらず、世界の稼働率は10%にとどまります。むしろ日本のインフレを説明する最良の要因は金融環境（FCIs）でした。他のどの国でも金融環境がこれほどまでにインフレ動向を説明することはありません。最近の日本のインフレの動きは、2010年以来の日本の金融環境の変化と完全に整合しています。この関係に基づくと、食料とエネルギーを除くCPIは2018年6月に0.7%でピークに達する可能性が高いです（チャート I-9）。 チャート I-7 QQEのために##br##リバーサル・レートは低下している 日本のリバーサル・レートはQQEのために低下している 日本のリバーサル・レートはQQEのために低下している チャート I-8 インフレ期待の急上昇 インフレ期待の急上昇 インフレ期待の急上昇 チャート I-9 金融環境の緩和で##br##インフレは上昇している 金融環境が緩和されたため、インフレが加速している 金融環境が緩和されたため、インフレが加速している しかし、日銀が緩和をあまりに速く取り除けば、円は上昇し金融環境は急激に引き締まります。おそらくインフレは大幅に弱まり、当初の利上げ理由が無効化されるでしょう。これらの力学は少なくとも今後12～18か月はYCCが継続されることを示唆しています。 結論：日銀は間もなくQQEプログラムを完全に廃止するでしょう。しかし、これはイールドカーブ・コントロールの解除を意味するものではありません。これは日本のインフレが日銀の目標から極めてかけ離れていることと、日本のインフレ率が金融環境に非常に敏感であることの両方によります。したがって、よりタイトな政策による市場の反応としての強い円が金融環境を引き締めれば、インフレは崩壊し、引き締めの必要性自体がなくなってしまうのです。 投資への示唆 USD/JPYは割高で、購買力平価が示す公正価値より16%高く取引されています。さらに、円はGDP比4%の好ましい経常黒字に支えられています。加えて、グローバル投資家はデュレーションをアンダーウェイトしてきました。こうした現象は円にとってネガティブになる傾向があります。投資家が現在のようにデュレーションを大幅にアンダーウェイトしている場合、円がリレーする可能性が高まります（チャート I-10）。 確かに2014年にも投資家は現在と同様に債券にネガティブでしたが、USD/JPYは下落しました。これは当時、日銀が資産購入プログラムの拡大を発表したためです。今日は日銀がQQEを放棄する方向に動いており、これはショートカバーを伴うリレーを誘発する可能性が高いです。 では、投資家は円に対してどの通貨を売るべきでしょうか。我々はユーロが米ドルに代わる興味深い選択肢であると考えます。 現在、EUR/JPYは極めて割高です。長期的には、購買力平価ベースでEUR/JPYは通常のレンジから大きく外れて取引されています（チャート I-11）。さらに、金利差やリスクアペタイトを織り込む指標ではUSD/JPYはやや割高ですが、同様の比較でEUR/USDは非常に高値圏にあります。つまり、短期的なバリュエーションの観点からEUR/JPYは非常に需要が高い水準で取引されていることになります（チャート I-12）。したがって、戦術的にはこのクロスをショートするタイミングが徐々に整いつつあります。 チャート I-10 デュレーションのポジショニングは##br##円に上昇リスクを示唆 デュレーションのポジショニングは円の上方リスクを示している デュレーションのポジショニングは円の上方リスクを示している チャート I-11 EUR/JPYは割高 EUR/JPYは割高です EUR/JPYは割高です チャート I-12 EUR/JPYに対する戦術的リスク EUR/JPY向けタクティカル・リスク EUR/JPY向けタクティカル・リスク . EUR/JPYをショートすることを支持する追加の理由として、相対的な金融環境があります。ユーロ圏の金融環境は日本に対して米国よりもはるかに引き締まっています（チャート I-13）。その結果、セクターの偏りを調整しても、欧州株は現在日本株に対して米国株よりも大きくアンダーパフォームしています。これは、日本の相対的な経済見通しが米国と比較するよりもユーロ圏と比較した場合により明るいことを示しています。つまり、円は米ドルよりもユーロに対してより大きく上昇する余地があるということです。 最後に、ユーロと円の間のポジショニングも極めて偏っています。チャート I-14 が示すように、投機筋が同時にユーロをロングし円をショートしているとき、EUR/JPYはその後に調整を経験する傾向があります。 チャート I-13 ユーロ圏の金融環境は##br##米国よりも大きく引き締まった ユーロ圏の金融環境指数は米国のそれよりも一層引き締まった ユーロ圏の金融環境指数は米国のそれよりも一層引き締まった チャート I-14 ユーロの##br##偏ったポジショニング EURにおける偏ったポジショニング EURにおける偏ったポジショニング 以上の要因は円の大きなリレーの可能性を示唆しますが、このリレーの持続力は限定的である可能性が高いです。日銀が放棄しようとしているQQEは、ここ数か月にわたって半ばしか実施されておらず、債券買入れは8兆円の目標を大きく下回っていました。 日銀は当面YCCの維持にコミットしています。このプログラムを放棄して初めて円に対する持続的なサポートが生まれます。それまでは、どのような円のリレーも金融環境を引き締めインフレを傷つけるため、円高は「レンタル」するもの（短期的に借りるベット）であり、保有するものではありません。日本の最終的な政策金利が上昇できる余地はまだ小さいのです。 結論：QQEの放棄は円高を引き起こす可能性が高いです。そのリレーは、評価、ポジショニング、金融環境が欧州通貨と比べて特に悪化しているため、ユーロに対して最も顕著になるでしょう。明確に言えば、円高は反動的な動きとなる可能性が高く、強い円は日本に深刻なデフレ圧力を与えるため、日銀のYCCプログラムは堅く維持されるでしょう。我々はEUR/JPYを133.79でショートしています。 CAD：BoCとNAFTAの狭間に チャート I-15 カナダは賃金上昇を経験する見込み Canada:##br## インフレ環境が出現 カナダの賃金は上昇する見込み カナダ：インフレ圧力が高まり始めている カナダの賃金は上昇する見込み カナダ：インフレ圧力が高まり始めている カナダ銀行（BoC）は来週会合を開き、今月政策金利を引き上げる確率が高まっています。カナダ経済も国内部門主導で非常に堅調です。実質消費支出は約10年ぶりの速さで伸び、失業率は40年ぶりの低水準にあり、設備投資は2014年から2016年の原油価格暴落で打撃を受けた後回復しています。 この背景により、カナダ経済は既に自国のキャパシティ制約に達しつつあります。BoCはカナダの産出ギャップが閉じたと見積もっています。さらに、最近のビジネス・アウトルック調査はこのメッセージを裏付けています：記録的な割合のカナダ企業がキャパシティ制約のため需要に応えられないと述べており、人手不足の数と深刻度の増加は労働市場の逼迫を示しています（チャート I-15）。逼迫したキャパシティと賃金上昇は、すでに可視化されているコアインフレの回復を支えるでしょう。現在コアインフレはすでに1.8%に達しています。 その結果、我々はBoCが今年はFRBと同程度に利上げするだろうと見ています。しかし、この展開がCADに与える影響は限定的かもしれません。投資家は今後12か月でカナダの利上げを米国より多く織り込んでおり、それぞれ82ベーシスポイント対60ベーシスポイントとなっています。さらに、投機筋は再びルーニー（カナダドル）を大幅にロングしており、強い経済指標が実際にCADをさらに押し上げるためのハードルは高いままです。 さらに、NAFTAはカナダにとって依然大きなリスクです。当社のチーフ・ジオポリティカル・ストラテジスト、マルコ・パピッチが11月のスペシャル・レポートで述べたように、トランプ大統領はNAFTAの破棄に関してほとんど制約がない権限を持っています（表 I-1）。1 もしNAFTAが崩壊すれば、カナダは最終的に依然として優遇措置のあるカナダ・米国自由貿易協定に戻る可能性が高いでしょう。したがって、カナダと米国間の貿易への影響は一時的である可能性が高いです。しかし、痛みの大部分はカナダの設備投資に及ぶはずです。NAFTA解消に伴う高い不確実性は企業にカナダでの拡張計画を放棄させ、北米の生産能力を直接米国で拡大させるよう促し、サプライチェーンにおける規制リスクを回避するでしょう。これによりカナダの将来の成長プロファイルは抑制されます。 表 I-1 トランプは貿易に関してほとんど制約を受けない 円：QQEは終わった！YCC万歳！ 円：QQEは終わった！YCC万歳！ 石油がCADの穴埋めをする可能性は低いです。ブレントがほぼ70米ドル/バレルに達した時点で、当社のコモディティ＆エネルギー戦略担当の目標に到達しました。OPEC 2.0は価格がさらに大幅に上昇することを容認しないでしょう。なぜならそれはシェール生産者に能力拡大のインセンティブを与え、2014年前の供給過剰のダイナミクスを再生してしまうからです。さらに、カナダにとって最も関連性の高い指標であるウエスト・カナダ・セレクト（WCS）はWTIやブレントに対して大きくディスカウントされたままです。これはアルバータ州外に油を輸送するパイプライン容量が不足しているためで、カナダは自国の石油に溺れている状況です。この状況はすぐには変わりません。 チャート I-16 CAD/NOKは伸び過ぎている CAD/NOKは行き過ぎている CAD/NOKは行き過ぎている これらを踏まえ、我々は12か月ベースでUSD/CADを中立と見ていますが、今後数週間で1.29への戻りは起こり得ると考えます。しかし、カナダ産原油がディスカウントで取引されている一方で、CADはG10のもう一つのペトロ通貨であるNOKよりも良好に推移しています。これは、CADのリスクを織り込むよりクリーンな方法としてCAD/NOKのショートが考えられることを示唆しています。 第一に、カナダドルは現在ノルウェークローネに対して非常に割高で、購買力平価比で11%高く取引されています（チャート I-16）。生産性やコモディティ価格のような他の要因で調整しても、CADは1994年以来の最大のNOKに対するプレミアムで取引されています。これはCAD/NOKにとってリスクを示します。ルーニーは貿易政策リスクにさらされている一方、ノッキー（NOK）はそうではありません。 第二に、国際収支の面はNOKにとって非常に有利です。ノルウェーは経常収支黒字がGDP比で5.5%であるのに対し、カナダは2.8%の赤字です。さらに、ノルウェーはGDP比210%のネット国際投資ポジション（NIIP）を有しており、G10で最大です。強いNIIPは実効実質為替レートの上昇と関連します。 第三に、カナダ経済の勢いは投資家によく知られているため、投資家がCADをこれほどロングし、BoCから多数の利上げを期待している理由となっていますが、ノルウェーの良好な側面は見過ごされています。ノルウェーの先行指標は依然上昇しており、産業生産と実質GDP成長は加速しています。 第四に、ノルゲス銀行はNOKの弱さに反応しています。12月の会合で同行はトーンを調整し、NOKはノルウェー中央銀行の目から見ると金融環境を過度に緩和していると述べました。これはノルウェーから期待される25ベーシスポイントの利上げが過小評価されている可能性を示唆します。また、カナダとノルウェーの間で期待される12か月の利上げ差が現在約60ベーシスポイントと異常に開いていることが正常化する可能性も示しています。 最後に、CAD/NOKは長期的および短期的なヒストリカルレンジの上限に向かって取引されています。CADのポジショニングはロング側にかなり偏っていますが、ノルウェークローネは投機筋によりショートされています（ノルゲス銀行のデータ）。したがって、NAFTAの不確実性、BoCの見通しが既に織り込まれていること、WCSとブレントのディスカウントが縮小する可能性が低いことを考えると、リスクはCAD/NOKの下落方向に偏っています。 結論: カナダ経済は好況です。これはBoCがFRBに歩調を合わせ、今年少なくとも3回は利上げすることを意味します。しかし、市場はすでに米国よりもカナダの利上げを多く織り込んでいます。さらに、原油価格の上方余地は限られており、WCSベンチマークは引き続きブレントに対して大幅なディスカウントで取引されるでしょう。したがって、USD/CADは上値余地が限定的である一方、下値も限定的です。しかし、CAD/NOKは現在水準から多くの下落リスクを抱えています。我々は今週このクロスをショートし、エントリーポイントを6.398に設定します。 マチュー・サヴァリー, 副社長 外国為替ストラテジー mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 BCAのグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー スペシャル・レポート「NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism」（2017年11月10日付）を参照ください。gis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能です。 通貨 米ドル チャート II-1 USD テクニカル 1 米ドルのテクニカル 1 米ドルのテクニカル 1 チャート II-2 USD テクニカル 2 米ドル テクニカル 2 米ドル テクニカル 2 米国の最近のデータは混在しています： 非農業部門雇用者数は下振れし、148千人となりました。 さらに、労働参加率は下振れし、62.7%となりました。 ISM非製造業PMIも予想を下回り、55.9となりました。 しかし、消費者信用の変化は予想を上回り、279.5億ドルとなりました。 週の始め、ドルは強含みで始まりましたが、やがて収束しました。背景には比較的タカ派的なECB議事録や日本の政策調整があります。総じて、市場がフェドのドットプロットを織り込み続けるため、ドルに上昇圧力がかかると予想しています。 レポートリンク： A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter - 2018年1月5日 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - 2017年12月15日 ユーロ チャート II-3 EUR テクニカル 1 EUR テクニカル指標 1 EUR テクニカル指標 1 チャート II-4 EUR テクニカル 2 EUR テクニカル指標 2 EUR テクニカル指標 2 ユーロ圏の最近のデータは良好でした： コアインフレは予想を上回り、1.1%となりました。 さらに、経済センチメント指標も予想を上回り、116となりました。 小売売上高の前年比成長も上振れし、2.8%となりました。 最後に、失業率は8.8%から8.7%に低下しました。 ポジティブなデータにもかかわらずユーロは今週下落しました。ユーロは週初は弱含みでしたが、その後ECBのタカ派的議事録を受けて急騰しました。これは米国での利上げ期待の高まりによるものです。総じて、日銀が超ハト派政策を後退させる余地はECBよりも大きいため、EUR/JPYは下押しされると予想します。 レポートリンク： A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter - 2018年1月5日 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 円 チャート II-5 JPY テクニカル 1 JPY テクニカル 1 JPY テクニカル 1 チャート II-6 JPY テクニカル 2 JPY テクニカル分析 2 JPY テクニカル分析 2 日本の最近のデータは混在しています： 現金給与の前年比成長は予想を上回り、0.9%となりました。10月からも増加しています。 しかし消費者信頼感は下振れし、44.7となり前月から低下しました。 今週、円は急上昇しており、USD/JPYは1.7%下落しました。これは日銀が長期債の買入れを減らす意向を示したためです。市場はこれを日銀が超ハト派の金融政策からの出口に動き始めるシグナルと解釈しました。これらの動きは、特にユーロに対して円に上昇圧力を与え続けるでしょう。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets - 2017年12月8日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 英ポンド チャート II-7 GBP テクニカル 1 GBPのテクニカルズ 1 GBPのテクニカルズ 1 チャート II-8 GBP テクニカル 2 GBP テクニカル分析 2 GBP テクニカル分析 2 英国の最近のデータは混在しています： 鉱工業生産の前年比成長は予想を上回り、2.5%となりました。 さらに、製造業生産の前年比成長も上振れし、3.5%となりました。 しかし、Halifaxの住宅価格の前年比は予想を下回り、2.7%となり、月次では0.6%の下落となりました。 今週ポンドは対ドルで横ばい、一方で対ユーロでは約1%下落しました。総じて、イングランド銀行（BoE）は大幅な利上げ余地が限られています。さらに、利上げとポンド高の結果としてインフレは緩和し始めるはずで、これがポンドに下押し圧力をかけるでしょう。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - 2017年11月3日 豪ドル チャート II-9 AUD テクニカル 1 AUDのテクニカル分析 1 AUDのテクニカル分析 1 チャート II-10 AUD テクニカル 2 AUD テクニカルズ 2 AUD テクニカルズ 2 オーストラリアの最近のデータは混在しています： 建築許可の前年比成長は予想を上回り、17.2%となりました。 しかし、11月の貿易収支は予想を下回り、-6.28億となりました。前月の-3.02億から悪化しています。 AUD/USDは今週横ばいでしたが、AUD/NZDは約1%下落しました。世界経済の成長は依然強いものの、韓国や台湾の輸出成長などの主要指標は減速に転じています。さらに、中国のマネーサプライ成長は減少を続けています。これらは中国の工業活動の一時的な減速を示唆しており、AUD/USDの弱含みにつながるでしょう。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 通貨ヘッジ：動的か静的か？ - グローバル投資家のための実践ガイド - 2017年9月29日 ニュージーランド・ドル チャート II-11 NZD テクニカル 1 NZDテクニカル 1 NZDテクニカル 1 チャート II-12 NZD テクニカル 2 NZドルのテクニカル指標 2 NZドルのテクニカル指標 2 キウイは年初来でほぼ5%上昇しており、世界成長が堅調に推移していることを反映しています。総じて、NZDは今年AUDをアウトパフォームすると予想します。ニュージーランドは金融環境の引き締まりに対してオーストラリアよりも感応度が低いためです。しかし長期的には、上昇余地は限定的です。新しいポピュリスト政権は移民抑制と、RBNZに複数目標（デュアル・マンダテ）を課すことを公約しており、これらはニュージーランドの中立金利を押し下げ、キウイに下押し圧力をかけるでしょう。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - 2017年11月3日 カナダドル チャート II-13 CAD テクニカル 1 CADのテクニカル 1 CADのテクニカル 1 チャート II-14 CAD テクニカル 2 CADのテクニカル指標 2 CADのテクニカル指標 2 カナダの最近のデータは概ね良好でした： 失業率は5.9%から5.7%へと改善し、ポジティブなサプライズとなりました。 さらに、雇用者数の純増も予想を上回り、78.6千人となりました。 住宅着工件数の年間成長も予想を上回り、217千戸となりました。 しかし、Ivey購買担当者指数は予想を下回り、60.4となりました。 USD/CADは火曜日、トランプがNAFTAから撤退するとの報道を受けて急騰しました。総じて、カナダドルの上値余地は限定的であると考えています。市場はすでにカナダの利上げを米国より多く織り込んでいるためです。この弱さはCAD/NOKのショートで利用できる可能性があります。複数の指標でこのクロスは大きく過大評価されています。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 Market Update - 2017年10月27日 スイスフラン チャート II-15 CHF テクニカル 1 CHF テクニカル 1 CHF テクニカル 1 チャート II-16 CHF テクニカル 2 CHF テクニカル指標 2 CHF テクニカル指標 2 スイスの最近のデータは良好でした： ヘッドラインインフレは予想通り0.8%でした。一方で月次のインフレは上振れし、0%となりました。 失業率も非常に低い水準で予想通り3%でした。 最後に、小売売上高の前年比成長は前月の2.6%に対し-0.2%と大きく上振れしました。 EUR/CHFは先週から比較的横ばいです。総じて、フランの上昇余地は限定的だと見ています。SNBは対外為替市場で積極的に介入を続けるでしょう。SNBが政策を変更するためには、スイスのインフレが相当期間高水準で推移する必要があります。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 長期フェアバリューモデルの更新 - 2017年9月15日 ノルウェー・クローネ チャート II-17 NOK テクニカル 1 NOK テクニカル指標 1 NOK テクニカル指標 1 チャート II-18 NOK テクニカル 2 NOK テクニカル 2 NOK テクニカル 2 ノルウェーの最近のデータは混在しています： ヘッドラインインフレは予想を上回り、1.6%となりました。 さらに、コアインフレも上振れし、1.4%となりました。 しかし製造業の生産成長は予想を下回り、0.3%となりました。 USD/NOKは原油価格が70ドル近辺に迫る中、約0.7%下落しています。それでも、USD/NOKの上値余地はここから限定的だと考えています。市場はフェドのさらなる利上げを織り込み始めるでしょう。それでも、より強い原油を見込む投資家はEUR/NOKをショートすることを検討できるでしょう。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - 2017年12月15日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 スウェーデン・クローナ チャート II-19 SEK テクニカル 1 SEK テクニカルズ 1 SEK テクニカルズ 1 チャート II-20 SEK テクニカル 2 SEKのテクニカル分析 2 SEKのテクニカル分析 2 2017年末に急落した後、USD/SEKは今年に入って比較的横ばいです。総じて、イングヴェス総裁は依然として非常にハト派ですが、最新の議事録では金融政策の変更が近づいていることを認めました。一方、副総裁のヤンソンは資産購入を継続することを支持しつつも、レポ金利を据え置くことは「受け入れがたい」と述べました。金融環境の引き締まりによるユーロ圏の減速を見込む投資家はEUR/SEKをショートすることを検討できます。 レポートリンク： 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - 2017年12月22日 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - 2017年12月15日 The Xs And The Currency Market - 2017年11月24日 トレード & 予測 予測サマリー コア・ポートフォリオ 戦術的トレード クローズド・トレード

Highlights U.S. Treasuries: U.S. Treasury yields are too low relative to the strength of global economic growth and the rising trend in U.S. inflation expectations. Maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in the U.S., stay underweight Treasuries versus global bond benchmarks, and continue to favor TIPS over nominals. Canada: The Canadian economic data is moving from strength to strength, and now price and wage inflation data is moving higher. The Bank of Canada will hike rates next week with additional increases likely in 2018. Remain underweight Canadian government bonds and stay long inflation protection (both through linkers and CPI swaps). 2017 Model Portfolio Performance Wrap-Up: We closed the books on the first full calendar year of our model bond portfolio with a total return of 3.75%. This was a small -13bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark, coming entirely from underweight positions on longer-dated developed market government bonds that offset the asset allocation gains from overweights to corporate debt. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Bond Yields Are Too Low 2018 has started much as 2017 ended, with growth-sensitive assets rallying alongside robust economic data. Most major global equity markets are already up 2-3% after the first week of the year, with the U.S. NASDAQ, Japanese Nikkei and Italian MIB indices advancing over 4%. Global credit markets are also off to a strong start, with spreads for U.S. High-Yield corporate debt and EM hard currency corporate debt tighter by -17bps and -8bps, respectively. Even commodity markets have joined the party, with the benchmark Brent oil price hitting the highest level in nearly three years. The pro-growth, pro-risk backdrop is keeping upward pressure on global government bond yields. This is occurring primarily through the inflation expectations component of yields, which are rising in all developed economies (even Japan). Real yields, which are not rising despite the strength of the broad-based global growth upturn (Chart of the Week), have been drifting lower, providing some offset to rising inflation expectations. The primary trend for global yields remains upward, however - especially if growth remains solid and inflation expectations continue to push higher, giving central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve the confidence to continue hiking interest rates. We continue to favor below-benchmark duration exposure, and overweight corporate bond allocations versus government debt, for global fixed income investors over the next 6-9 months. U.S. Treasuries: Still More Reasons To Sell Than Buy U.S. Treasury market participants have a lot to things to be nervous about at the moment. Likely future Fed rate hikes, the weakening U.S. dollar, rising oil prices, ongoing U.S. labor market strength, persistently booming economic growth, the never-ending equity bull market, the potential impact of the Trump fiscal stimulus, the Fed starting its balance sheet runoff - all factors that should force bond investors to expect yields to rise. Yet longer-dated Treasury yields continue to trade too low relative to the bond-bearish fundamentals. The current benchmark 10-year Treasury yield at 2.48% remains well below the fair value from our 2-factor regression model, which is now up to 2.94% (Chart 2). That valuation gap of 46bps is close to the widest levels seen in July 2016 and September 2017, which were both episodes that proved to be excellent entry points for bearish Treasury positions. The two inputs into our Treasury yield model are the global manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment towards the U.S. dollar (USD). The PMI is included as an indicator of global growth and currently sits at 54.5 - the highest level in nearly seven years - led by strong readings in almost every major economy (Chart 3). This has been the primary driver of the fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield since global growth bottomed out and began to accelerate in mid-2016. Chart 210-Year Treasuries Are##BR##Overvalued On Our Model Chart 3Global Growth##BR##Is Booming Sentiment towards the USD is the second input to our Treasury model. It is included as a weakening greenback represents an easing of monetary conditions that could trigger a need for more Fed rate hikes that can push the Treasury curve higher from the short-end (and vice versa for a rallying USD). At the same time, a depreciating USD can drive U.S. inflation higher through higher costs of imported goods & services, which can raise bond yields through higher inflation expectations or greater Fed tightening expectations (again, the opposite holds true for a strengthening USD). Right now, both the strong PMI and weak sentiment towards the dollar are boosting the fair value of the 10-year Treasury yield. The fall in value of the greenback is particularly unusual, as it is flying in the face of widening interest rate differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world (Chart 4, top panel). This is clearly a function of the fact that global growth is rapidly improving - especially in Europe - but very few central banks have yet to respond to that growth with interest rate hikes that match what the Fed has been delivering. So while actual interest rate differentials remain USD-supportive, expectations of some eventual tighter monetary policy outside the U.S. that could narrow those interest rate gaps are triggering speculative inflows into non-USD currencies. With the trade-weighted USD now 5% below levels of a year ago, this should lead to higher headline inflation in the U.S. in the next few months (middle panel). Combined with the continued strength in global oil prices, that means that the two biggest factors that weighed on realized U.S. inflation- the USD rally and oil price collapse of 2014/15 - are now both acting to boost inflation expectations (bottom panel). Throw in the growing body of evidence that a tight U.S. labor market that is putting gentle upward pressure on wage growth, and U.S. inflation expectations - which still remain 40-50bps below levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target - should continue to move higher in the next six months. Rising longer-term inflation expectations would typically result in bear-steepening pressures on the Treasury yield curve. That is not happening at the moment, however, with the 2-year/10-year Treasury curve still at a relatively flat 53bps at the time this report went to press. The flatness of the Treasury curve has worried investors, and even some Fed officials, given the well-known leading relationship between the yield curve and U.S. economic growth. It is too early to draw any conclusions between the shape of the curve and future U.S. economic growth, however, for several reasons: As mentioned above, inflation expectations are still well below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target on the PCE deflator (which translates to 2.5% on the CPI index used to price TIPS and CPI swaps). Both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) are still buying bonds through their asset purchase programs, although at a slower pace than previous years. This continues to depress local bond yields in Europe and Japan with spillover effects into the U.S. Treasury market - even as the Fed begins the slow runoff of Treasuries from its massive balance sheet. Data on mutual fund and ETF flows shows that there has been significant and sustained buying of bond funds by U.S. retail investors over the past couple of months. There has also been net selling of equity funds, however, suggesting that U.S. retail investors are rebalancing as the equity markets surge higher. Investor positioning in the U.S. Treasury market is very short at the moment, with the J.P. Morgan survey of "active" bond manager duration exposure at an all-time low and the net positioning on Treasury futures now slightly favoring shorts (Chart 5). It makes little sense to interpret a flattening Treasury curve as a signal that the bond market believes that the Fed was making a policy mistake if professional bond investors were running massive duration underweight positions that would benefit if bond yields rise. Chart 4Upside Pressure On U.S. Inflation##BR##From Oil & The USD Chart 5Big Duration Underweight##BR##Among U.S. Bond Managers All these factors muddy the economic signal provided by the Treasury curve at the moment. Nonetheless, we remain of the view that the Fed would not continue on its rate hiking path without U.S. inflation expectations moving sustainably back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target. In other words, the Treasury curve must bearishly steepen first through rising inflation expectations before bearishly flattening later through actual Fed rate hikes. The latter will dampen future U.S. growth expectations and eventually result in a cyclical peak in longer-dated Treasury yields, but from levels closer to 3% on the 10-year after inflation expectations "fully" normalize. Bottom Line: U.S. Treasury yields are too low relative to the strength of global economic growth and the rising trend in inflation expectations. Maintain below-benchmark duration exposure in the U.S., stay underweight Treasuries versus global bond benchmarks, and continue to favor TIPS over nominals. The Bank Of Canada Keeps On Playing Catch-Up The Canadian economic story continues to be the best within the developed world. The year-over-year growth rate for real GDP accelerated to over 3% late last year, primarily on the back of robust consumer spending (Chart 6). Even the lagging parts of the economy, like business investment and government spending, began to perk up last year. The momentum remained powerful at the end of 2017, with the unemployment rate in December hitting a 40-year low. The economic boom forced the Bank of Canada (BoC) to begin lifting interest rates last year, with two 25bp hikes occurring in July and September that unwound the easing from 2015. The rapid pace of growth has absorbed spare capacity much faster than the BoC originally projected. More hikes will be required if the current pace of growth is maintained, particularly with the BoC estimating that the neutral policy rate is around 3% and the current Overnight Rate is only at 1%. The Canadian consumer has been enjoying a powerful shopping spree. Real consumer spending growth is at 4% on a year-over-year basis - the highest level since early 2008 (Chart 7). This is led by a powerful surge in spending on consumer durables, where annual growth has surged to 10% (middle panel). Consumer confidence is booming and Canadian workers are enjoying the fastest pace of income growth since 2014 (bottom panel). Chart 6Robust Canadian Growth,##BR##Led By The Consumer Chart 7Canadian Consumers Are##BR##Confidently Spending Surprisingly, the powerful surge in consumer spending has occurred alongside some cooling of the overheated Canadian housing market. The growth rates of existing home sales and prices have both decelerated massively from the pace of the boom years in 2012-16 (Chart 8). The performance of house prices in the three biggest Canadian cities is now a mixed bag, with Vancouver prices reaccelerating, prices in Toronto decelerating and prices in Montreal growing only modestly (middle panel). Regulatory actions to limit the speculative buying of Canadian real estate by foreigners has helped dampen the surge in house prices in some markets. Although the bigger macro-prudential measures designed to tighten mortgage finance rules and reduce the amount of leverage in Canadian housing transactions has likely had a bigger effect. Canadian banks must now conduct stress tests to check if borrowers are able to pay off their mortgages if Canadian interest rates continue to rise. This represents a reduction in the marginal supply of riskier mortgage lending that will help restrain house price inflation in Canada's major cities. In addition, the supply of Canadian homes is growing with new home-building activity, both for single and multiple units, having picked up and overall residential investment growth now up nearly 5% on a year-over-year basis (bottom panel). With signs that the Canadian housing market has stopped rapidly inflating, the BoC can focus its interest rate policy on domestic growth and inflation considerations without worrying about pricking the housing bubble. On that front, the latest edition of the BoC's Business Outlook Survey, released yesterday, provided plenty of reasons to tighten monetary policy further. The overall survey indicator surged back to the peak seen last summer just before the BoC delivered its first rate hike (Chart 9). Capital spending intentions also rebounded back to the 2017 peaks, which bodes well for future gains in investment spending (second panel). Chart 8Canadian Housing Looking##BR##A Bit Less Frothy Chart 9BoC Business Outlook Survey Signaling##BR##Tightening Capacity Constraints The most interesting parts of the Business Outlook Survey were the capacity utilization measures. A greater share of companies were reporting labor shortages (third panel), with the highest percentage of firms reported difficulties in meeting unexpected increases in demand since 2007 (bottom panel). This suggests that the recent surge in employment, wage growth and price inflation are all sustainable. Headline and core CPI inflation are up to 2.1% and 1.8%, respectively, as of November. This is around the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target range (Chart 10). The Bank of Canada forecasts that CPI inflation will continue to rise and remain near 2% target in 2018, but all the risks are to the upside. The unemployment rate is now down to 5.7%, the lowest level since 1976 and well below the OECD's estimate of the NAIRU level at 6.5%. Average hourly earnings growth has surged in response, rising to just under 3% on a year-over-year basis since the trough in early 2017. The Phillips Curve appears to be alive and well in Canada. Canadian interest rate markets have already responded aggressively to the stronger growth and inflation data. Our interest rate discounters now show that the money markets are now expecting 61bps of BoC rate hikes over the next six months and 91bps over the next twelve months (Chart 11). With a 25bp hike at next week's BoC meeting now priced with almost full certainty, the current market pricing suggests at least one more hike will happen by June and nearly three more hikes by year-end. That would be even more hikes than we expect from the Fed in 2018, which is important for the Canadian dollar (CAD). The CAD has appreciated 16% since it bottomed out in early 2016, occurring alongside the rise in global oil prices over the same period (second panel). The price of Canada's Western Select grade of crude oil has lagged the move in other oil benchmarks massively over the past several months, due to a lack of pipeline capacity getting oil out of Alberta that has created a supply glut. This may limit the degree to which additional gains in global energy prices benefit the Canadian dollar from a terms-of-trade perspective. This will not prevent the BoC from delivering additional rate hikes, however - especially if that merely matches the 75bps of Fed rate hikes that the FOMC is projecting, and which we expect, over the rest of the year. In terms of investment strategy, the combination of robust Canadian economic growth and rising inflation pressures leads us to continue recommending an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds, as we have maintained since July 11, 2017. This week, we are introducing two new tactical trades that should benefit as Canadian inflation moves higher and the BoC tightens more aggressively in response (Chart 12): Chart 10The Canadian Phillips Curve Is Not Dead Chart 11The Market Now Expects A Lot From The BoC Chart 12Two New Tactical Trades In Canada Short the June 2018 Canada Bankers' Acceptance futures contact vs. the December 2018 contract (middle panel). The market is now discounting the likely maximum amount of tightening that the BoC can deliver by year-end, while there are only little more than two hikes priced by June. Assuming that the BoC hikes next week, that means that there is only one more hike expected by June. With three more BoC meetings scheduled between next week and June, that provides plenty of opportunities for hawkish surprises from the BoC before then. In other words, this trade is a way to play for the BoC being forced to front-load more rate hikes into the first half of 2018 versus the latter half. Long 10yr inflation expectations through linkers versus nominal government bonds, or using CPI swaps (bottom panel). Given the pickup in domestic inflation pressures currently underway, plus the rise in global inflation coming from the surge in commodity prices, there is room for Canadian market-based inflation expectations to rise from the current level of 1.7%. Bottom Line: The Canadian economic data is moving from strength to strength, and now price and wage inflation data is moving higher. The Bank of Canada will likely hike rates next week with additional increases likely in 2018. Remain underweight Canadian government bonds. 2017 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance: A Brief Review The turn of the year marked the end of the first full calendar year for the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio. This now allows us to report the performance of the portfolio on the same basis as our clients. In the future, we will publish quarterly reviews of the portfolio returns after the end of each quarter in a calendar year (in April, July, October and January). The GFIS model portfolio returned 3.45% in 2017. This underperformed our custom performance benchmark (a blend of the Barclays Global Aggregate Index with global high-yield corporate debt) by -13bps (Chart 13). That underperformance can be entirely attributed to our government bond duration allocations, which lagged the benchmark by -46bps. Our recommended credit positions were a positive contributor, generating 33bps of outperformance primarily through overweights to U.S. Investment Grade and High-Yield corporate bonds. The detailed breakdown of the 2017 returns is presented in Table 1. In terms of the government bond portion of the portfolio, the underperformance can be isolated completely to the longest maturity bucket (10+ years). The combined performance of that bucket for all countries lagged that of the benchmark by -52bps. Given our expectation that global yield curves would bear-steepen in the latter half of 2017, it is no surprise that the bulk of our underperformance came by having too little exposure at the long-end. Also, having too much exposure in Japanese government bonds offering no yield also represented a major drag on the income component of the model portfolio's returns (Chart 14). Chart 13GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##2017 Return Breakdown Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio##BR##2017 Return Breakdown In terms of our credit allocations, favoring U.S. corporate exposure vs. non-U.S. corporates was the right call, generally speaking (Chart 15). However, we did not have enough portfolio weight in that trade to offset the drag on the overall yield from the Japan government bond overweight. Chart 14GFIS Model Portfolio Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country Chart 15GFIS Model Portfolio Spread Product Performance Attribution Looking ahead, the new model bond portfolio allocation for 2018 that we discussed in our final report of 2017 should offer a better chance of outperforming the benchmark.1 Specifically, we dialed down the Japan overweight, increased the U.S. Investment Grade corporate bond overweight, and reduced the curve steepening exposure in Euro Area governments. This not only boosted the overall yield of the portfolio, but also moderated the overall portfolio duration underweight. This portfolio will do well in the first half of 2018 if our base case of an inflation-driven rise in global government bond yields, led primarily by the U.S. where corporate debt is also expected to outperform Treasuries, comes to fruition. Bottom Line: We closed the books on the first full calendar year of our model bond portfolio with a total return of 3.75%. This was a small -13bps underperformance of versus our custom benchmark, coming entirely from underweight positions on longer-dated developed market government bonds that offset the asset allocation gains from overweights to corporate debt. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Our Model Bond Allocation In 2018: A Tale Of Two Halves", dated December 19th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of December 31, 2017. The model's allocation to Australia has proven to be quite volatile as evidenced by the large increase to Australia this month to 7% from 1.7% in last month. As a result, the other commodity country, Canada, is now back to underweight from neutral last month. There are no significant large adjustments in other countries, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 80 bps in December as the model was underweight the U.K. versus EMU, yet the U.K. was the best performer in the month while EMU underperformed. Since going live in January 2016, the overall model has outperformed the benchmark by 47 bps, largely from the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. countries, which has outperformed its benchmark by 265 bps. The Level 1 model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 19 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of January 2, 2018. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The model has turned more bullish on global growth as seen by a 2% increase in aggregate cyclical overweight. However, the model continues to reduce its overweight in the resources-based sectors, and has upgraded financials to overweight on the back of improving momentum. Finally, both utilities and telecom stocks have been moved further into underweight territory. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, We are sending you this last issue of the year, a lighter fare than usual, highlighting 10 charts we find important. The first two charts tackle two of the key economic questions of the day: U.S. inflation and Chinese construction. The next seven charts are displays of technical action that has captured our attention for key currency pairs. The last chart tackles the topic du jour, bitcoin. We will resume regular publishing on January 5th, 2018. Finally, the Foreign Exchange Strategy team would like to thank you for your continued readership, and wishes you and your families a joyful holiday season as well as a healthy, happy and prosperous 2018. Warm Regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Feature 1) U.S. Inflation Chart I-1AU.S. Inflation Is On Its Merry Way (I) Chart I-1BU.S. Inflation Is On Its Merry Way (II) U.S. inflation has been moribund in 2017, dismaying believers of the Philips curve, the Federal Reserve included. A few factors have been at play. The Fed sigma models show that the negative impact of a dollar rally on U.S. inflation is at its strongest with a two-year lag. Additionally, the fall in capacity utilization that happened following the industrial recession in late 2015/early 2016 continued to affect inflation negatively this year. These headwinds are passing. As the left panel of Chart I-1 illustrates, the easing in U.S. financial conditions this past year is likely to continue and become most salient for inflation in 2018. Meanwhile, the right panel of the chart shows that as the deceleration in money velocity growth forecasted the weakness in core inflation in 2017, its recent re-acceleration points to a pick-up in inflation next year. The Fed might be able to achieve its interest rate forecast of 3.1% in 2020 after all. 2) Chinese Housing Chart I-2AFrosty Outlook For Chinese Construction (I) Chart I-2BFrosty Outlook For Chinese Construction (II) Chinese monetary conditions have been tightened in 2017, fiscal expansion has been curtailed, and the growth of the M3 broad money supply has fallen to 8.8%. So far, the Chinese economy is hanging in, still benefiting from the fact that real interest rates have collapsed since November 2015 as producer price inflation rebounded from a 6% contraction to a 6% expansion today. This increase in producer prices has also helped industrial profits, which are expanding at a 23% pace, helping put a floor under industrial production. However, the outlook for residential investment needs to be monitored. Construction contributed 17% of GDP growth during the past two years. Chinese construction also contributed to 20% and 32% of the global consumption of refined copper and steel, respectively. This means that Chinese construction was a key driver of metal prices. Yet our leading indicator for Chinese house prices points toward a marked deceleration in the coming quarters. As the right panel of Chart I-2 shows, this could get translated into additional downside for iron ore. 3) EUR/USD Chart I-3The Euro Is At A Key Threshold 1.20 continues to represent a big hurdle to cross for EUR/USD. For the euro to punch above this mark, U.S. inflation will have to remain moribund in 2018. The rally in EUR/USD tracked an improvement in market estimates of the European Central Bank's terminal policy rate relative to the Fed's. Yet this improvement did not reflect an upgrade of the ECB's terminal rate itself, but rather a major downgrade of the Fed's, as U.S. inflation disappointed. If U.S. inflation rebounds as BCA anticipates, the dollar should be able to rally toward 1.10, especially as euro area inflation is unlikely to follow suit, as euro area financial conditions have tightened massively relative to the U.S. If U.S. inflation does not rebound, a move toward 1.30 is possible. Glimpsing at Chart I-3, it should also be obvious that any strength in the dollar next year is likely to prove a long-term buying opportunity for the euro. The EUR/USD has only traded below current levels when the U.S. dollar has been in the thralls of a major bubble. Additionally, global portfolios are deeply underweight euro area assets, therefore, a long-term rebalancing of portfolios toward euro area assets will support the euro down the road. Finally, when the next recession hits, the ECB is likely to have less room to stimulate its economy than the Fed will have. This means that during the next recession, the euro could behave like the yen has over the past 20 years: because the ECB will be impotent to fight deflationary pressures, falling euro area inflation will result in rising euro area real interest rates, especially against the U.S. This helped the yen then, and it could help the euro in the future, especially as the euro area's net international investment position is set to move into positive territory over the next 24 months. 4) EUR/GBP Chart I-4Brexit And Valuations Will Keep EUR/GBP Range-Bound For Now EUR/GBP is at an interesting juncture. EUR/GBP has rarely traded above current levels (Chart I-4). On one hand, Brexit would suggest that EUR/GBP could actually rise. The uncertainty around the U.K. leaving the EU has caused the U.K. economy to be among the rare ones to not accelerate in unison with global growth this year, despite the stimulative effect of a lower pound. This suggests that the hands of the Bank of England will remain tied, limiting its capacity to increase the cash rate. Moreover, U.K. politics continue to take an increasingly populist tone, and the growing popularity of Jeremy Corbyn suggests that the discontent is present on all sides of the political spectrum. Populist policies are rarely good for a currency. On the other hand, the GBP is trading at such a discount to its fair value against both the USD and the EUR that historically, buying the pound at current levels has generated gains for investors with investment horizons measured in years. Moreover, if the EUR weakens in the first half of 2018, historical antecedents argue that EUR/GBP would also weaken in this context. When taken altogether, these factors suggest that EUR/GBP is likely to remain stuck in its post-Brexit trading range for as long as political uncertainty remains, especially as it is unlikely that the U.K. will receive a sweetheart FTA deal from the EU. Thus, while we expect EUR/GBP to retest 0.84 over the course of the next three to six months, at these levels we would buy EUR/GBP with a target of 0.90. 5) EUR/SEK Chart I-5EUR/SEK Will Fall From 10 To 9 EUR/SEK flirted with 10 this month. As Chart I-5 illustrates, this only happened during the financial crisis. Sweden is a much more pro-cyclical economy than the euro area, hence EUR/SEK exhibits very strong counter-cyclical behavior. It only trades above 10 when global growth is in tatters, and below 9 when it is booming. The recent spate of strength in EUR/SEK is thus perplexing, since global growth has been very robust and broad-based this year. The very easy policy of the Riksbank has been the main culprit. Timing a reversal in EUR/SEK is tricky, as it remains a function of the rhetoric of the Riksbank. But today, Swedish inflation is on the rise, with the CPIF, the inflation gauge targeted by the Swedish central bank, being at target. Thus, the days of super easy monetary policy in Sweden are numbered, especially as the output gap is a positive 1%, unemployment stands nearly 1% below equilibrium, and resource utilization measures have spiked up. Today, it makes sense to buy the SEK versus the euro. However, EUR/SEK is unlikely to move below 9, as the best of the global business cycle is probably behind us. 6) USD/JPY Chart I-6A Big Move In USD/JPY Is On Its Way USD/JPY is at an interesting technical juncture. This pair has been forming a very large tapering wedge in recent years (Chart I-6). This type of formation can be resolved in either a bullish fashion or a bearish one. Our current inclination is to bet on a bullish resolution for USD/JPY, as global bond yields seem to finally be regaining some vigor, which historically has been poison for the yen. Supporting our bias is the fact that we see more interest rate increases in the U.S. than are currently priced in, as we foresee a pick-up in inflation in 2018. The one thing that keeps us awake at night when thinking about our bullish disposition for USD/JPY is that EM carry trades have begun to weaken. Historically, this has led to a softening in global activity which foments further EM-carry-trade reversals and weakness in USD/JPY. Investors should keep an eye on this space. 7) AUD/USD Chart I-7AUD/USD At 0.8 Is A Line In The Sand The Australian dollar possesses the poorest outlook among the G10 currencies. The Australian economy continues to be plagued by large amounts of overcapacity, inflation is still absent, and Australia is the economy most exposed to a slowdown in Chinese construction activity as Australian terms-of-trade shocks follow metals prices. Additionally, China's push to fight pollution points to weakening coal prices, another key export of Australia. Moreover, Chart I-7 illustrates that the AUD rarely trades above 0.8. To do so, it needs an especially robust global economy, with China firing on all cylinders. We do not think China is about to crash, but it is not about to accelerate either, especially when it comes to demand for metals. Thus, with AUD/USD trading at 0.77, we see more downside for this pair than upside. In fact, when observed in a broader, longer-term context, the rally since 2016 in the AUD looks like a consolidation within a larger downtrend. 8) AUD/CAD Chart I-8AUD/CAD Will Breakdown AUD/CAD seems to have hit its natural ceiling this year. Only in the first half of the 1990s and when China was reflating its economy with all its might right after the financial crisis was AUD/CAD able to punch above 1.03 (Chart I-8). We do not see a repeat of this performance in the coming two years. First, as we mentioned, BCA does not anticipate any re-acceleration in Chinese investment or EM demand. Second, AUD/CAD is expensive, trading 9% above its fair value. Third, BCA remains more bullish on oil prices than metals prices. Fourth, a weakening AUD/USD tends to be associated with a weakening AUD/CAD. Finally, if these four factors cause AUD/CAD to weaken below 0.964, a key upward trend line that has supported AUD/CAD since late 2008 will be broken, which should prompt additional selling in this cross. 9) AUD/NZD Chart I-9AUD/NZD: Buffeted Between China, Jacinda, And Valuations AUD/NZD is likely to remain stuck in its trading range established since 2013 (Chart I-9). To begin with, the Australian dollar is trading at a 10% premium to the NZD. This has happened three times over the previous 17 years. Each of these instances were followed by vicious corrections in this cross. Additionally, while the AUD is very exposed to a slowing in Chinese construction and the associated problems for base metals prices, the NZD is not. In fact, the NZD may even benefit from the new economic objectives set by China's leadership. One of these new key objectives is to rebalance the economy toward the consumer. Moreover, Chinese consumer preferences have seen a switch toward higher quality foodstuffs.1 Higher quality foodstuffs, meat and dairy in particular, are exactly what New Zealand exports. Thus, a relative negative terms-of-trade shock is likely to come for AUD/NZD. The one big negative to our view is the political situation in New Zealand. The recent wave of populism points toward a fall in the potential growth rate, and thus a fall in the terminal policy rate of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The limit on foreign investment in Kiwi housing is another negative.2 Thus, we are not yet willing to bet on AUD/NZD falling below parity. 10) Bitcoins Chart I-10Groupthink Points To A Bitcoin Correction Toward 11,000 Valuing bitcoins is an arduous exercise. A lack of clearly defined fundamentals is the key difficulty. It is also why bitcoin prices can move so violently. We have already covered the technological elements behind Bitcoin and the blockchain,3 but to uncover what could be driving investors' imaginations, we have to move back to the realm of economics and finance. One theory tries to value bitcoin by linking it to a mode of payment. Using this method, Dhaval Joshi, who writes our BCA European Investment Strategy service, estimates a fair value for BTC/USD. Using the quantity of money theory, he shows that if the market assumes that bitcoins can support US$0.5 trillion of global GDP, and if the velocity of money historically averages 1.5 times, with 21 million potential bitcoins in issuance, a bitcoin should be worth US$17,000.4 Changing estimates for velocity or how much of global GDP will be transacted using bitcoins varies this estimate. Another approach has been to value bitcoins as an asset with a limited supply, like gold. Using this methodology, the global gold stock is worth approximately US$7 trillion, but cryptocurrencies, with their high volatility, are unlikely to steal the yellow metal's entire market share. Instead, they might be able to carve out 25% of gold's current total market capitalization. In this case, cryptos would be worth US$1.75 trillion. Bitcoin could represent half of this amount, which equates to a total market capitalization of US$875 billion. With a stock of 21 million bitcoins, the "fair value" would be around US$42,000. A third approach exists, and it is the simplest (Occam Razor's alert?). As Peter Berezin argues in BCA's Global Investment Strategy service, global governments extract seigniorage benefits from issuing currency.5 As an example, by printing cash, the U.S. government can buy services and good worth roughly US$90 billion per year, at a near zero cost. This is a very significant amount. Governments are unlikely to ever give up this source of funding. Since crypto currencies are a direct threat to this, they will likely be made illegal as a result. This would imply a fair value of BTC/USD of zero. The current fair value is likely to be a probability weighted average of all three scenarios. We assign a 10% probability for the first case (mode of payment), a 10% probability to the second case (store of value), and an 80% probability to the last case (zero value due to illegality). This would give a current fair value of roughly US$6,000. At the current juncture, bitcoin trading is exhibiting strong herd-like tendencies. When groupthink takes over a market, as is the case right now with crypto-currencies in general and bitcoin in particular, a trend reversal is likely to materialize. Today, bitcoin's "fractal dimension" has hit the 1.25 neighborhood, where such reversals have tended to happen (Chart I-10). As such, a correction is very likely. The average correction since 2016 has been around 35%. Following similarly parabolic moves as the one observed over the past month, pullbacks have been closer to 45%. A retracement toward BTC/USD of 11,000 is very probable over the coming quarters. That being said, it is too early to call the ultimate top for bitcoin. With the narrative among the bitcoin investing public increasingly switching to bitcoin being a store of value akin to gold, a move to the US$40,000 neighborhood is, in fact, not a tail event. However, this is a move to play at one's own peril, since fair value is likely to be well below these levels. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Atkinson, Simon. "Why are China instant noodle sales going off the boil?" BBC News, BBC, 20 Dec. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/business-42390058. He, Laura. "China's growing middle class lose appetite for instant noodles." South China Morning Post, 20 Aug. 2017, www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/2107540/chinas-growing-middle-class-lose-appetite-instant-noodles. 2 For a more detailed discussion of the political situation in New Zealand as well as its potential impact, please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Reverse Alchemy: How to Transform Gold into Lead" dated November 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Blockchain And Cryptocurrencies" dated May 12, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Bitcoins And Fractals" dated December 21, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve" dated December 22, 2017, available gis.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: Housing starts increased by 1.3 million units, beating expectations, building permits also outperformed; Both the Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Survey and Chicago Fed National Activity Index outperformed expectations; However, annualized Q3 GDP growth came in at 3.2%, less than the expected 3.3%; Growth in headline and core personal consumption deflators also failed to meet expectations, coming in at 1.5% and 1.3% respectively. Easier financial conditions are expected to slowly push the core PCE deflator back to the Fed's 2% target. This will allow Jerome Powell to continue in Janet Yellen's footsteps. As credit continues to grow, the large U.S. consumer sector will become an increasingly important tailwind to growth. The fiscal thrust from the new tax plan will could also accentuate growth and inflationary pressures. Therefore, investment and consumption activity are both likely to pick up next year. This will should support the Fed as well as the USD. Report Links: Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets - December 8, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was mixed: German ZEW Current Situation increased to 89.3, outperforming expectations of 88.5; European ZEW Current Situation slightly underperformed expectations of 18, coming in at 17.4; Manufacturing and services PMIs for Germany and Europe as a whole both outperformed expectations; European trade balance decreased to EUR 19 bn from EUR 25 bn, and the current account also underperformed; European CPI was in line with expectations, contracting at a monthly pace, and growing at a 0.9% annual pace, under the expected 1% rate. On the Back of strong momentum in activity indicators, the ECB upgraded its growth and inflation forecasts for the upcoming years. However, since inflation is expected to remain under target for the whole forecast horizon, the ECB is likely to tighten policy at a much slower pace than the Fed. Report Links: The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Temporary Short-Term Rates - November 10, 2017 Market Update - October 27, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Annual Import growth came in at 17.2%, surprising to the downside. Moreover, the All Industry Activity Index monthly growth also underperformed expectations, coming in at 0.3%. However, export annual growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 16.2%, an acceleration relative to last month's reading. On Wednesday, the Bank of Japan left its policy rate unchanged at -0.1%. Furthermore, the yield curve control policy, in which 10-year yields are kept around 0%, has been maintained. We stay bullish on USD/JPY, as we expect U.S. bond yields to rise when inflation picks up next year. However the yen could appreciate against commodity currencies if a risk-off period is triggered by tightening in China. Report Links: Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets - December 8, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Temporary Short-Term Rates - November 10, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Gfk Consumer confidence underperformed expectations, coming in at -13. This measure also decline from the November reading. However, CBI industrial Trend Survey for orders, surprised to the upside, coming in at 17. Finally, public sector borrowing also surprised to the upside, coming in at 8.118 Billion pounds. The pound has been flat against the U.S. dollar this week. Overall we remain skeptical in the ability of the Bank of England to tighten much in the near future, given that real disposable income growth is very depressed, house price growth continues to be tepid, and uncertainty weighs on capex. Moreover, inflation will likely come down from present levels, as the pass through from the pound depreciation dissipates. All of these factors will limit any upside to cable in the next months. Report Links: The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The AUD rallied solidly in recent weeks thanks to buoyant data out of Australia and China. Last week's labor numbers were especially important in this regard. The growth in full-time employment has outperformed that of part-time since summer, while the underemployment rate has declined by 0.3% since 2017Q2.. Moreover, RBA officials identified further positives in the housing market: excessive price appreciation has slowed down considerably and household's balance sheets are improving. For now, the biggest risk to the Australian dollar remains the Chinese economy. Xi Jinping's commitment to clamp down on pollution, debt and inequalities is a bearish prospect for the AUD. Additionally, Chinese house prices could decline substantially - something which would have negative repercussions for the AUD. Report Links: The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been mixed: The current account surprised to the downside, coming in at -2.6% of GDP. However this number did improve from last quarter's -2.8% reading. However, both imports and exports outperformed expectations, coming in at 5.82 billion and 4.63 billion respectively. Moreover, GDP growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 2.7%. However, this number did decline from the 2.8% reading in Q2. NZD/USD was flat this week, even as the USD weakened. We continue to believe that carry currencies like the NZD, will be affected by tightening of financial conditions in China. However, the NZD has upside against the AUD, as the New Zealand dollar is cheaper than the AUD, and it is not as levered to the Chinese industrial cycle as the Australian dollar is. Report Links: The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was strong this week: Retail sales increased month-on-month by 1.5%, outperforming expectations by 0.8%; core retail sales also increased by a 0.8% monthly pace; Core inflation is at 1.3%, outperforming the expected 0.8%; Headline CPI is at 2.1%, above the expected 2%; The Canadian economy is growing in line with our expectations. A strong U.S. economy has allowed the export sector to flourish, while high demand for jobs has caused the labor market to tighten substantially. As labor shortages intensify, wages should gain traction in the near future, paving way for the BoC to tighten at least twice next year. Report Links: The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recently, the SNB released its 4th quarter quarterly bulletin. This report highlighted that the Swiss economy continues to recover, and GDP growth is expected to reach 2% in 2018, after a 1% expansion this year. Furthermore, the bulletin remarked that the labor market continues to tighten, with unemployment reaching 3% and employment growth finally hitting its long term average. The SNB also remarked that although the output gap continues to be negative, measures of capacity utilization are very close to reaching their long term average. However, the SNB continues to be unapologetically committed to its dovish bias and to intervention in currency markets, as inflation in Switzerland continues to be too weak for the SNB to change its stance. Thus, the CHF is likely to continue depreciating. Report Links: The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has appreciated by nearly 1.5% since last week, even as Brent has rallied by more than 2.5%. This dynamic highlights the fact that USD/NOK continues to be more correlated to interest rate differentials between Norway and the U.S. than to oil prices. Inflationary pressures and economic activity continue to be too tepid for the Norges to adopt a much more hawkish tone than it did last week. Meanwhile, the Fed is likely to surprise the market next year, by following up on its "dot plot". These dynamics will continue to put upward pressure on USD/NOK. Nevertheless, foreign exchange investors can still use the krone to bet on higher oil prices resulting from the extension of the OPEC supply cuts. The way to do so is by shorting EUR/NOK, which is more correlated with oil prices. Report Links: Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish data has bounced back considerably: Headline CPI increased by 1.9% annually and CPIF grew by 2% annually; The unemployment rate dropped substantially from 6.3% to 5.8%, while the seasonally adjusted figure dropped from 6.7% to 6.4%. This week, the Riksbank announced a formal end to additional bond purchases by the end of December. However, reinvestments will continue until the middle of 2019, which means that the Bank's holdings of government bonds will actually increase into 2019. Additionally, the Swedish central bank also forecasts the repo rate to begin gradually increasing in the middle of 2018. This makes sense as the Swedish economy is running beyond capacity conditions. Given Sweden's stellar growth period, an appreciation in the SEK is long-awaited, but this will have to wait until Governor Ingves convinces markets that his perennial dovish-bias is ebbing. At that point, any hint of hawkishness will cause a sharp appreciation in the SEK, especially against the euro. Report Links: Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Recommended Allocation Highlights We are late cycle. Strong growth could turn in 2018 from a positive for risk assets into a negative. More risk-averse investors may thus want to turn cautious. But the last year of a bull run can be profitable, and we don't expect a recession until late 2019. For now, therefore, our recommendations remain pro-risk and pro-cyclical. We may turn more defensive in 2H 2018 if the Fed tightens above equilibrium. We expect inflation to pick up in 2018, which will lead the Fed to hike maybe four times. This will push long rates to 3%, and strengthen the U.S. dollar. Equities should outperform bonds in this environment. We prefer euro zone and Japanese equities over U.S., and remain underweight EM. Late-cycle sectors such as Financials and Industrials, should do well. We also favor corporate bonds and private equity. Feature Overview Fin de cycle Global economic growth in 2017 was robust for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 1). Forecasts for 2018 put growth slightly lower, but are likely to be revised up. However, as the year rolls on, the strong economic momentum may turn from being a positive for risk assets into a negative. U.S. output is now above potential, according to IMF estimates. As Chart 2 shows, historically recessions - and consequently equity bear markets - have usually come within a year or two of the output gap turning positive. With the economy operating above capacity, inflation pressures force the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which eventually causes a slowdown. Chart 1Growth Finally On A Firm Footing Global Growth Has Accelerated Chart 2Recessions Follow Output Gap Closing That is exactly how BCA sees the next couple of years panning out, leading to a recession perhaps in the second half of 2019. U.S. inflation was soft in 2017, but underlying inflation pressures are picking up, with core CPI inflation having bottomed, and small companies saying they are raising prices (Chart 3). Add to that wage pressures (with unemployment heading below 4% in 2018), tax cuts (which might boost growth by 0.2-0.3% points in their first year) and a higher oil price (we expect Brent to average $67 a barrel during the year), and core PCE inflation is likely to rise to 2%, in line with the Fed's expectations. This means the market is too sanguine about the risk of monetary tightening in the U.S. It has priced in less than two rates hikes in 2018, compared to the Fed's three dots, and almost nothing after that (Chart 4). If inflation picks up as we expect, four rate hikes in 2018 could be on the cards. Chart 3Inflation Pressures Picking Up Chart 4Market Still Underpricing Fed Hikes The consequences of this are that bond yields are likely to rise. Despite a significant market repricing since September of Fed behavior, long-term rates have not risen much, leading to a flattening yield curve (Chart 5). The market has essentially priced in that inflation will not rebound and that, consequently, the Fed will be making a policy mistake by hiking further. If, therefore, we are correct that inflation does reach 2%, the yield curve would be likely to steepen over the next six months, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reaching 3% by mid-year. Other developed economies, however, have less urgency to tighten monetary policy and we, therefore, see the U.S. dollar appreciating. The only other major economy with a positive output gap currently is Germany (Chart 6). However, the ECB will continue to set policy for the weaker members of the euro area, and output gaps in France (-1.8% of GDP), Italy (-1.6%) and Spain (-0.7%) remain significantly negative. In the absence of inflation pressures, the ECB won't raise rates until late 2019. Japan, too, continues to struggle to bring inflation up the BOJ's 2% target and the Yield Curve Control policy will therefore stay in place, meaning that a rise in global rates will weaken the yen. Chart 5Is Fed Making A Policy Mistake? Chart 6Still A Lot Of Negative Output Gaps This sort of late-cycle environment is a tricky one for investors. The catalysts for strong performance in equities that we foresaw a few months ago - U.S. tax cuts and upside surprises in earnings - have now largely played out. Global earnings will probably rise next year by around 10-12%, in line with analysts' forecasts. With multiples likely to slip a little as the Fed tightens, high single-digit performance is the best that investors should expect from equities. The macro environment which we expect, would be more negative for bonds than positive for equities. That argues for the stock-to-bond ratio to continue to rise until closer to the next recession (Chart 7). And, for now, none of the recession indicators we have been consistently monitoring over the past months is flashing a warning signal (Chart 8). Chart 7Stock-To-Bond Ratio Likely To Rise Further Chart 8Recession Warning Signals Still Not Flashing More risk-averse investors might chose to reduce their exposure to risk assets now, given how close we are to the end of the cycle. But this would be at the risk of leaving some money on the table, since the last year of a bull run can often be the most profitable (remember 1999?). We, therefore, maintain our recommendation for pro-cyclical and pro-risk tilts: overweight equities versus bonds, overweight credit, overweight higher-beta equity markets and sectors, and a preference towards riskier alternative assets. We may move towards a more defensive stance in mid to late 2018, when we see clearer signs that the Fed has tightened above equilibrium or that the risk of recession is rising. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Be The Impact Of The U.S. Tax Cuts? It is not a done deal, but it still seems likely (notwithstanding the Democratic victory in Alabama) that the U.S. House and Senate will agree a joint tax bill to pass before the end of the year. Since the two current bills have only minor differences, it is possible to make some estimates of the macro and sector impacts of the tax reform. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the cuts will reduce government revenue by $1.4 trillion over 10 years - or $1 trillion (5% of GDP) once positive effects on growth are accounted for. The Treasury argues that tax reform (plus deregulation and infrastructure development) will push GDP growth to 2.9% and therefore government revenues will increase by $300 billion. BCA's estimate is that GDP growth will be boosted by 0.2-0.3% in 2018 and 2019.1 For businesses, the key tax changes are: 1) a reduction in the headline corporate rate from 35% to 21%; 2) immediate expensing of capital investment; 3) a limit to deduction of interest expenses to 30% of taxable income; 4) a move to a territorial tax system from a worldwide one, with a 10% tax on repatriation of past profits held overseas; 5) curbs for some deductions, such as R&D, domestic production and tax-loss carry-forwards. Corporate tax cuts will give a one-off boost to earnings, since the effective tax rate is currently over 25% (Chart 9, panel 1), with telecoms, utilities and industrials likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. This is not fully priced into stocks, since companies with high tax rates have seen their stock prices rise only moderately (Chart 9, panel 2). BCA's sector strategists expect that capex will especially be boosted: they estimate that the one-year depreciation increases net present value by 14% (Table 1).2 This should be positive for the Industrials sector (supplying the capital goods) and for Financials (which will see increased demand for loans). We are overweight both. Chart 9Tax Cuts Should Boost Earnings Table 1 Is Bitcoin A Bubble, And What Happens When It Bursts? The recent surge in prices (Chart 10) of virtual currencies has pushed Bitcoin and aggregate cryptocurrency market cap to $275 billion and $500 billion respectively. The recent violent run-up certainly bears a close resemblance to classic bubbles, but the impact of a sharp correction should be minimal on the real economy and traditional capital markets. As mentioned above, the market cap of cryptocurrencies has reached $500 billion. Globally, there is about $6 trillion in currency3 outstanding, so the value of virtual currencies is now 8% that of traditional fiat currency. Additionally, an estimated 1000 people own about 40% of the world's total bitcoin, for an average of about $105 million per person. At the moment, the macro impact has been constrained by the fact that most people are buying bitcoins as a store of value (Chart 11) or vehicle for speculation, rather than as a medium of exchange. However, when the public begins to regard them as legitimate substitutes for traditional fiat currencies, their impact will be felt on the real economy. Chart 10A Classic Bubble Chart 11Bitcoin Trading Volume By Top Three Currencies That would raise the issue of regulation. The U.S. government generates close to $70 billion per year as "seigniorage revenue." Governments across the world have no intention of losing this revenue, and would most likely introduce their own competitors to bitcoin. Until then, the biggest potential impact of these private currencies might be to spur inflation in the fiat currencies in which their prices are measured. That would be bad for government bonds, but potentially good for stocks. A further risk - and a similarity with the real estate bubble of 2007 - is the use of leverage. The news of a Tokyo-based exchange (BitFyler) offering up to 15x leverage for the purchase of bitcoins has spooked investors. However, the U.S. housing market is valued at $29.6 trillion, almost 60 times that of cryptocurrencies. Finally, the 19th century free banking era in the U.S., which at one point saw 8000 different currencies in circulation, experienced multiple banking crises. A world with myriad private currencies all competing with one another would be similarly unstable. Why Did The U.S. Dollar Weaken In 2017, And Where Will It Go In 2018? Chart 12Positioning And Relative Rates Supportive For USD We were wrong to be bullish on U.S. dollar at the start of 2017. We think the dollar weakness during most of the year can be attributed to the fact that investors were massively long the dollar at the end of 2016 (Chart 12, panel 2), which made the market particularly vulnerable to surprises. Several surprises did come: inflation softened in the U.S. but strengthened in the euro area. There were also positive geopolitical surprises in Europe - for example the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election - while the failure to repeal Obamacare in the U.S. raised investors' concerns on the administration's ability to undertake fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. dollar depreciated against euro despite widening interest rate differentials (Chart 12 panel 4) in 2017. Chart 13late Cycle Outperformance Since investors are now aggressively short the dollar, the hurdle for the greenback to deliver positive surprises is much lower than a year ago. Since the Senate passed the Republican tax bill in early December, we have already seen some recovery in the dollar (Chart 12, panel 1). As the labor market continues to firm, with GDP running above potential, U.S. inflation should finally start to pick up in 2018, which will allow the Fed to hike rates, possibly as many as four times during the year. This will contrast with the macro situation overseas: Japan and Europe are likely to continue loose monetary policy to maintain the momentum in their economies. All this should be supportive of the dollar. Are Convertible Bonds Attractive Over The Next 12 Months? With valuations for traditional assets expensive and investors' thirst for yield continuing, the market is in need of alternative sources of return. Convertible bonds offer a hybrid credit/equity exposure, giving investors the option to participate in rising equity markets but with less risk. An allocation to convertibles could prove attractive for the following reasons: Convertible bonds typically outperform high-yield debt in the late stages of bull markets, because of their relatively lower exposure to credit spreads. Junk spreads have a history of starting to widen before equity bear markets begin. Fifty percent of the convertibles index comprises issuance from small-cap and mid-cap firms. Although equity valuations are expensive, prices should continue to rise as long as inflation stays low. Additionally, our U.S. Investment Strategy service thinks that small-cap equities will outperform large caps in the coming months, partly because the likely cuts in U.S. corporate taxes will disproportionately benefit smaller companies. Convertible bonds do appear somewhat cheap relative to equities (Chart 13, panel 3) but, on balance, there is not a strong valuation case for the asset class. Equities appear fairly valued relative to junk bonds, and convertibles are trading at an elevated investment premium. However, valuation is not likely to be a significant headwind to the typical late-cycle outperformance of convertibles versus high yield. biggest near-term risk for convertibles relative to high yield stems from the technology sector, which makes up 35% of the convertibles index. Technology convertible bonds have strongly outperformed their high-yield counterparts in recent months (Chart 13, panel 4), and are possibly due for a period of underperformance. We recommend investors stay cautious on technology convertibles. Other Than U.S. Tips, What Other Inflation-Linked Bonds Do You Like? Our research shows that inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment.4 With our house view of rising inflation in 2018, we have been overweight U.S. Tips over nominal Treasury bonds as the U.S. is the most liquid market for inflation-linked bonds, with a market cap of over US$ 1.2 trillion. Outside the U.S., we favor ILBs in Japan and Australia, while we suggest investors to avoid ILBs in the U.K. and Germany (even though the U.K. linkers' market is the second largest after the U.S.), for the following two key reasons: First, even though inflation is below target in Japan, Australia and the euro area, while above target in the U.K., in all of these markets, inflation has bottomed, as shown in Chart 14. Second, our breakeven fair-value models, which are based on trade-weighted currencies, the Brent oil price in local currencies, and stock-to-bond total-return ratios, indicate that ILBs are undervalued in Japan and Australia, while overvalued in the U.K. and Germany, as shown in Chart 15. Chart 14Inflation Dynamics Chart 15Where to Buy Inflation? The shorter duration (in real terms) of ILBs are an added bonus which fits well with our overall underweight duration positioning in the government bond universe. Global Economy Overview: Growth in developed economies remains strong and there is little in the data to suggest it will slow. This is likely to push up inflation and interest rates, especially in the U.S., over the next six to 12 months. Prospects for emerging markets, however, are less encouraging given that China is likely to slow moderately as it pushes ahead with reforms. U.S.: U.S. growth momentum remains very strong. GDP growth in the past two quarters has come in over 3%, and NowCasts for Q4 point to 2.9-3.9%. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 16, panel 1) has surged since June, and the Manufacturing ISM is at 53.9 and the Non-Manufacturing at 57.4 (panel 2). The worst that can be said is that momentum will be unable to continue at this rate but, with business confidence high, wage growth likely to pick up in 2018, and some positive impacts from tax cuts, no significant slowdown is in sight. Euro Area: Given its stronger cyclicality and ties to the global trade cycle, euro zone growth has surprised on the upside even more strongly than in the U.S. The Manufacturing PMI reached 60.6 in December (its highest level since 2000), and GDP growth in Q3 accelerated to 2.6% QoQ annualized. The euro's strength in 2017 seems to have done little to dent growth, and even weaker members of the euro zone such as Italy have seen improving GDP growth (1.7% in Q3). With the ECB reining back monetary easing only slightly, and banking problems shelved for now, growth should remain resilient in early 2018. Japan: Retail sales saw some weakness in October (-0.2% YoY), probably because of bad weather, but elsewhere data looks robust. Q3 GDP came in at 1.3% QoQ annualized and export growth remains strong at 14% YoY. There are even some signs of life in the domestic economy, with wages finally picking up a little (+0.9% YoY), driven by labor shortages among part-time workers, and consumer confidence at a four-year high. Inflation has been slow to rise, but at least core core inflation (the Bank of Japan's favorite measure) is now in positive territory at +0.2%. Emerging Markets: Chinese credit and monetary series, historically good lead indicators for the real economy, continue to decline (M2 growth in October of 8.8% was the lowest since data started in 1996). But, for now, economic growth has held up, with the Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing PMIs both stably above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). Key will be how much the government's moves to deleverage the financial system and implement structural reform in 2018 will slow growth. Elsewhere in emerging markets, economic growth remains sluggish, with GDP growth in Brazil barely rebounding to 1.4% YoY, Russia to 1.8%, and India slowing to 6.3% (down from over 9% in early 2016). Chart 16Growth Momentum Very Strong Chart 17Will China And EM Slow in 2018? Interest rates: We expect U.S. inflation to pick up in 2018, as the lagged effects of 2017's stronger growth and the weak dollar start to come through, amid higher oil prices and rising wages. We, along with the Fed, expect core PCE inflation to rise to 2% during the year. This means the Fed is likely to raise rates four times, compared to market expectations of twice. Consequently, we see the 10-year Treasury yield over 3% by mid-year. In the euro zone, the still-large output gap means inflation is less likely to surprise on the upside, allowing the ECB to keep negative rates until well into 2019. The Bank of Japan is unlikely to alter its Yield Curve Control, given the signal this would send to the market when inflation expectations are still well below its 2% target (Chart 17, panel 4). Chart 18Equities: Priced for Perfection Global Equities Still Cautiously Optimistic: Our pro-cyclical equity positioning in 2017 worked very well in terms of country allocation (overweight euro zone and Japan in the DM universe) and global sector allocation (favoring cyclicals vs defensives). The two calls that did not pan out were underweight EM equities vs. DM equities, which was partially offset by our positive stance on China within the EM universe, and the overweight of Energy, which was the worst performing sector of the year. The stellar equity performance in 2017 was largely driven by strong earnings growth. Margins improved in both DM and EM; earnings grew in all sectors, and analysts remained upbeat (Chart 18). Another important contributor to 2017 performance was the extraordinary performance of the Tech sector, especially in China: globally, tech returned 41.9%, outperforming the MSCI all country index by 18.9%. GAA's philosophy is to take risk where it is mostly likely be rewarded. In July, we took profits in our Tech overweight and used the funds to upgrade Financials to overweight from neutral. Then in October we started to reduce tracking risk by scaling down our active country bets, closing our overweight in the U.S. to reduce the underweight in EM. BCA's house view is for synchronized global growth to continue in 2018, but a possible recession in late 2019. We are a little concerned that equity markets are priced for perfection, given that our earnings model indicates a deceleration in the coming months mostly due to a base effect. As such, our combination of "close to shore" country allocation and "pro-cyclical" sector allocation is appropriate for the next 9-12 months. Country Allocation: Still Favor DM Over EM Chart 19China: From Tailwind to Headwind for EM ? Our longstanding call of underweight EM vs. DM since December 2013 was gradually reduced in scale, first in March 2016 (to -5 percentage points from -9) and then in October 2017 (further to -2 points). Going forward, investors should continue to maintain this slight underweight position in EM vs. DM. First, our positive stance on China proved to be timely as shown in Chart 19, panel 4, with China outperforming EM by 54.1% since March 2016, and by 18.8% in 2017. Back then our positive stance on China was supported by attractive valuations (bottom panel) and our view that Chinese politics would be supportive for global growth in the run up to the 19th Party Congress. Now BCA's Geopolitical Strategists think that "China politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets".5 In addition, Chinese equities are no longer valued at a discount to the EM average (bottom panel). Second, BCA's currency view is for continued strength in the USD, especially against emerging market currencies. This does not bode well for EM/DM performance in US dollar terms (Chart 19, panel 1). Third, EM money growth leads profit growth by about three months (Chart 19, panel 2). The rolling over in money growth indicates that the currently strong earnings growth may lose steam going forward, while relative valuation is in the fair-value zone (Chart 19, panel 3). Sector Allocation: Stay Overweight Energy Our pro-cyclical sector positioning has worked well in aggregate as the market-cap-weighted cyclical index significantly outperformed the defensive index in 2017. This positioning is also in line with BCA's house view of synchronized global growth and higher inflation expectations, which translates into two major sector themes: capex recovery and rising interest rates. (Please see detailed sector positioning on page 24.) Within the cyclical space, however, the Energy sector did not perform as expected in 2017 (Chart 20). It returned only 3.4%, underperforming the global aggregate by 19.6%. For the next 9-12 months, we recommend investors to stay overweight this underdog of 2017. Chart 20Energy Stocks Lagging Oil Price First, the energy sector is a major beneficiary from a capex recovery. There are already signs of a recovery in basic resources investment in the U.S.6 Second, the energy sector's relative return lagged oil price performance in 2017. Given the generally close correlation between earnings and the oil price, and between analyst earnings revisions and OECD oil inventory growth, earnings in the sector should outpace the broad market. Third, based on price-to-cash earnings, the energy sector is still trading at about a 30% discount to the broad market, and offers a much higher dividend yield (about 1.2 points higher) than the broad market. Even though these discounts are in line with historical averages, they are still supportive of an overweight. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. One important theme for 2018 will be a resumption of the cyclical uptrend in inflation.7 The implications are that both nominal bond yields and break-even inflation rates will be higher in 2018. We have been underweight duration in government bonds since July 2016. Now with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield at 2.35%, much lower than its fair value of 2.81%, there is considerable upside risk for global bond yields from current low levels. Investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds Maintain Overweight Tips Vs. Treasuries. The base-case forecast from our U.S. bond strategists is that the Tips breakeven rate will rise to 2.4-2.5% as U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target, probably sometime in the middle of 2018. Compared to the current level of 1.87%, 10-yr Tips would have upside of 33-38 bps, an important source of return in the low-return fixed-income space (Chart 21, bottom panel). In terms of relative value, Tips are now slightly cheaper than nominal bonds, also supportive of the overweight stance. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has taken profits in their short Canada vs. U.S. and U.K. tactical position, as the market has become too aggressive in pricing in more rate hikes in Canada. Strategically, however, the underweight of Canada (Chart 22) in a hedged global portfolio is still appropriate because: 1) the output gap has closed in Canada, according to Bank of Canada estimates, and so any additional growth will translate into higher inflation; and 2) the rising CAD will not deter the BoC from more rate hikes if the oil prices remain strong. Chart 21U.S. Bond Yields Have Further To Rise Chart 22Strategic Underweight Canadian Bonds Corporate Bonds Our overweights through most of 2017 on spread product worked well: U.S. investment grade (IG) bonds returned around 290 bps over Treasuries in the year to end-November, and high-yield bonds almost 600 bps. Returns over the next 12 months are unlikely to be as attractive. Spreads (Chart 24) are now close to historic lows: the U.S. IG bond spread, at 90 bps, is only about 30 bps above its all-time record. High-yield valuations look a little more attractive: based on our model of probable defaults over the next 12 months, the default-adjusted spread over U.S. Treasuries is likely to be around 240 bps (Chart 25). In both cases, however, investors should expect little further spread contraction, meaning that credit is now no more than a carry trade. However, in an environment where rates remain fairly low and investors continue to stretch for yield, that pick-up will remain attractive in the absence of a significant turn-down in the economic cycle. The key to watch is the shape of the yield curve. An inverted yield curve in history has been an excellent indictor of the end of the credit cycle. We expect the yield curve to steepen somewhat in H1 2018, before flattening again and then inverting late in the year. Spread product is likely, therefore, to produce decent returns until that point. Thereafter, however, the deterioration of U.S. corporate health over the past three years (Chart 23) could mean a sharp sell-off in corporate bonds. This might be exacerbated by the recent popularity of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs: a small widening of spreads could be magnified by a panicked sell-off in such funds. Chart 23Rising Leverage May Worsen Sell-Off Chart 24Credit Spreads Close To Record Lows Chart 25But Default - Adjusted, Junk Still Looks Attractive Commodities Energy: Bullish Energy prices performed strongly in H2 2017, and we expect bullish sentiment to continue. OPEC 2.0 is likely to maintain production discipline, and will maintain its promised 1.8mm b/d production cuts through the end of 2018. Our estimates for global demand growth are higher than those of other forecasters. This, along with potential unplanned production outages in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela (together accounting for 7.4mm b/d of production at present), drives our above-consensus price forecast of $67 a barrel for Brent crude during 2018. Industrial Metals: Neutral Since China accounts for more than 50% of world base-metal consumption, prices will continue to be highly dependent on developments there. (Chart 26, panel 4). Since the government is trying to accelerate environmental and supply-side reforms, domestic production capacity for base metals will shrink, which will be a positive for global metals prices. However, a focus on deleveraging in the financial sector and restructuring certain industries could slow Chinese GDP growth, reducing base-metal demand. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold has risen by 12% in 2017, supported by an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with low interest rates. We believe that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and that inflation may rise in the U.S., which would be positives for gold (Chart 26, panel 3). Based on BCA's view that stock market could be at risk from the middle of 2018,8 a moderate gold holding is warranted as a safe-haven asset. However, rising interest rate and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are likely to limit the upside for gold. Currencies USD: The currency is down over 6% on a trade-weighted basis over the past 12 months (Chart 27). Looking into 2018, the USD is likely to perform well in the first half. U.S. inflation should gather steam in the first two to three quarters, and the Fed will be able at least to follow its dot plot - something interest rate markets are not ready for. As investors remain short the USD, upside risk to U.S. interest rates should result in a higher dollar. Chart 26Bullish Oil, Neutral Metals Chart 27Dollar Likely To Appreciate EM/JPY: Carry trades are a key mechanism for redistributing global liquidity, and they have recently begun to lose steam. A crucial reason for this has been the policy tightening in China which has been the key driver of growth in EM economies. Additionally, Japanese flows have been chasing momentum into EM assets. Further tightening in EM could reverse the flows and initiate a flight to safety, favoring the yen relative to EM currencies. CHF: The currency continues to trade at a 5% premium to its PPP fair value against the euro. However, after considering Switzerland's net international investment position at 130% of GDP, the trade-weighted CHF trades in line with fair value. The CHF will continue to behave as a risk-off currency, and so long as global volatility remains well contained, EUR/CHF will experience appreciating pressure. GBP: Sterling continues to look cheap, trading at an 18% discount to PPP against the USD. However, Brexit remains a key problem. If future immigration is limited, the U.K. will see lower trend growth relative to its neighbors, forcing its equilibrium real neutral rate downward. Consequently, it will be more difficult to finance the current account deficit of 5% of GDP. Until negotiations with the EU come closer to completion, the pound will continue to offer limited reward and plenty of volatility. Alternatives Chart 28Favor Private Equity and Farmland Alternative assets under management (AUM) have reached a record $7.7 trillion in 2017. Lower fees and a broader range of investment types have helped attract more capital. Private equity remains the most popular choice,9 driven by its strong performance and transparency. Many investors have also shifted part of their allocations toward potentially higher-return private debt programs. Return Enhancers: Favor Private Equity Vs. Hedge Funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 12.1%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 5.9% return (Chart 28). We expect private-equity fund-raising to continue into 2018, but with a larger focus on niche strategies with more favorable valuations. Additionally, deploying capital gradually not only provides for vintage-year diversification, but also creates opportunities for investors to benefit from potential market corrections. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds outside of recessions. During a recession, we recommend investors take shelter in hedge funds with a macro mandate. Inflation Hedges: Favor Direct Real Estate Vs. Commodity Futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 5.1%, whereas commodity futures are down over 3.7%. Direct real estate as an asset class continues to provide valuable diversification, lower volatility, steady yields and an illiquidity premium. However, a slowdown in U.S. commercial real estate (CRE) has made us more cautious on the overall asset class. With regards to the commodity complex, the long-term transition of the global economy to a more renewables-focused energy base will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. We continue to stress the structural and long-term nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Volatility Dampeners: Favor Farmland & Timberland Vs. Structured Products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 3.2% and 2.1% respectively, whereas structured products are up 3.7%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland. The slow U.S. housing recovery has added downward pressure to timberland returns. Investors can reduce the volatility of a traditional multi-asset portfolio with inclusion of farm and timber assets. For structured products, low spreads in an environment of tightening commercial real estate lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, warrant an underweight. Risks To Our View We think upside and downside risks to our central scenario for 2018 - slowing but robust economic growth, and continuing moderate outperformance of risk assets - are roughly evenly balanced. On the negative side, perhaps the biggest risk is China, where the slowdown already suggested in the monetary data (Chart 29) could be exacerbated if the government pushes ahead aggressively with structural reforms. Geopolitical risks, which the market over-emphasized in 2017, seem under-estimated now.10 U.S. trade policy, Italian elections, and North Korea all have potential to derail markets. Also, when the U.S. yield curve is as flat as it is currently, small risks can be blown up into big sell-offs. This is particularly so given over-stretched valuations for almost all asset classes. Chart 29China Monetary Conditions Suggest A Slowdown Table 2How Will Trump Try To Influence The Fed? The most likely positive surprise could come from a dovish Fed. New Fed chair Jay Powell is something of an unknown quantity, and the White House could use the three remaining Fed vacancies to push the Fed to keep rates low, so as not to offset the positive effect of the tax cuts. Without these new appointees, the Fed would have a slightly more hawkish bias in 2018 (Table 2). The intellectual argument for hiking only slowly would be, as Janet Yellen said last month: "It can be quite dangerous to allow inflation to drift down and not to achieve over time a central bank's inflation target." The Fed has missed its 2% target for five years. It is possible to imagine a situation where the Fed increasingly makes excuses to keep monetary policy easy (encouraged, for example, by a short-lived sell-off in markets or a slowdown in China) and this causes a late-cycle blow-out, similar to 1999. 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Sector Implications," dated December 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 CBNK Survey: Monetary Base, Currency in Circulation. Source: IMF - International Financial Statistics. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Two Virtuous Dollar Circles," dated October 28, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated 20 November 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Source: BNY Mellon - The Race For Assets; Alternative Investments Surge Ahead. 10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. GAA Asset Allocation

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update One thing worth noting is that the model now is neutral on Canada, after a long-standing underweight. Canada's valuation ranking had been improving, but the signal was only confirmed this month by the technical ranking. There are no significant changes among other countries, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 68 bps in November as the model was underweight both the U.S. and Japan, which were the only two countries to outperform the MSCI World benchmark in November! The underweight in the U.K. and Australia worked well, but not enough to offset the loss from the overweight of the euro area. Since going live in January 2016, the overall model has outperformed the benchmark by 157 bps, largely from the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. countries, which has outperformed its benchmark by 489 bps. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of November 30, 2017. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The model has turned more bullish on global growth and consequently increased the aggregate cyclical overweight. However, within the cyclical basket there has be re-shuffle from resources-based sectors to consumer discretionary and technology stocks. This was driven by improving momentum in these two sectors. Finally, utilities stocks have been downgraded to underweight on the back of the bullish growth outlook. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

特別レポート

Highlights We are exploring the key FX implications of the views presented in BCA's 2018 annual outlook. The dollar is likely to experience some upside in the first half of 2018, but then weaken as U.S. monetary policy becomes increasingly onerous. The euro should mirror these dynamics, bottoming toward 1.1 in mid-2018. The yen could continue to weaken for most of 2018. But as markets begin to collide with policy, the second half of 2018 should be friendlier to the yen as potential risk-off events emerge. Risk-off events should also support the CHF versus the EUR. The GBP will remain victim to Brexit negotiations. It is cheap, but on a risk adjusted basis, potentially elevated expected returns will come at the price of heavy volatility. The commodity currencies and the Scandinavian currencies will suffer when global volatility picks up. Feature Key Views From The Outlook This past Monday we sent you BCA's Annual Outlook, exploring the key macroeconomic themes that we expect will shape 2018. This year, the discussion between BCA's editors and Mr. X, and his daughter, Ms. X, yielded the following key views:1 The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflation pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly, which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the odds of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the euro area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China's economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their "dots" projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal currently have 10-year government bond real yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The euro area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between three and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. Essentially, global economic growth remains robust, which opens a window for global policy makers to abandon their ultra-easy policy stance. Asset markets will have to ultimately adjust to this gradual tightening in global policy. This will be an environment where risk in DM economies should perform well in the first half of the year. However, as policy becomes increasingly constraining, risk assets are likely to fare more poorly in the second half of 2018. Implications For The FX Markets What are the key implications of these views for currency markets? The USD is likely to perform well in the first half of 2018. BCA believes that U.S. inflation should gather steam during the first two to three quarters of 2018. This suggests the Fed will be able to follow the path described by the dot plots - something interest rate markets are not ready for (Chart I-1). As investors are short the USD, upside risk to U.S. interest rates should result in a higher dollar (Chart I-2). Chart I-1BCA Sees Upside To Rates Chart I-2The Dollar Is A Pariah The euro is likely to continue to behave as the anti-dollar. The euro is currently over-owned and vulnerable to negative surprises. While the European economy remains very strong, growing at a 2.5% pace on an annual basis last quarter, inflation is set to ebb as our core CPI diffusion index has sharply decelerated (Chart I-3). This means that contrary to the U.S., the upside risk is limited in the European OIS curve. The divergence in our inflation forecast between the U.S. and the euro area should thus be translated in a lower EUR/USD in the first half of 2018. A target around 1.1 on EUR/USD makes sense for mid-2018. The euro is unlikely to find much downside beyond these levels, as it would be trading at a more than 15% discount to its purchasing-power-parity equilibrium - a level often associated with bottoms. Moreover, investors are still cyclically underweight European assets, which points to pent-up buying power in favor of the euro (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Dissipating Inflation Pressures##br## In Europe Chart I-4Portfolio Rebalancing Toward Europe ##br##Key To A Higher Euro The picture for the yen is likely to be buffeted by two factors. The Japanese economy seems to be on the mend. The recent decoupling between the Nikkei and the yen is very interesting (Chart I-5). The strength of Japanese stocks could highlight that Japan's domestic economy is gaining momentum, and is less in need of massively easy policy. Thus, the Bank of Japan may be moving away from the apex of its easy policy. Moreover, the rising probability of growing fiscal stimulus could further diminish the need for easy monetary policy. This is a consequence of Abe winning yet another supermajority, which raises the likelihood that he will begin campaigning on a referendum to amend the Japanese constitution. Despite this, the BoJ will still maintain among the loosest policy settings in the world. Moreover, USD/JPY remains closely correlated with Treasury yields and Treasury/JGB spreads (Chart I-6). BCA anticipates both these variables to continue to trend in a yen-negative fashion. If BCA's view that risk assets could peak during the second half of 2018 is correct, bond yields may peak around that time frame as well. Since the yen is trading at a massive discount (Chart I-7), mid-year may well prove a massive buying opportunity for yen bulls, especially if the U.S. yield curve ends 2018 in a near-flat state. Chart I-5Nikkei Trying To Tell Us Something Chart I-6Yen Still A Function Of T-Notes Chart I-7Yen Is Cheap The Swiss franc continues to trade at a 5% premium to its PPP fair-value against the euro. This means the Swiss National Bank will maintain very easy policy that will promote CHF weakness. However, the fight will remain difficult; once Switzerland's prodigious net international investment position of 130% of GDP is taken into account, the trade-weighted CHF trades in line with fair value (Chart I-8). Thus, the CHF will continue to behave as a funding, or risk-off, currency. So long as global market volatility remains well contained, EUR/CHF will experience appreciating pressure. If asset markets peak in the second half of 2018, EUR/CHF is likely to depreciate, which will prompt renewed intervention by the SNB to mitigate any deflationary impact of a stronger CHF. The pound does look very cheap, trading at an 18% discount against the USD (Chart I-9). However, Brexit remains a key problem. Brexit is about limiting immigration into the U.K., the key force that has generated the U.K.'s economic outperformance over the past 15 years (Chart I-10). Without higher trend growth than its neighbors, England will see its equilibrium real neutral rate fall, limiting the upside to the Bank of England's cash rate. As FDI into the U.K. is succumbing to the heightened level of uncertainty, a falling neutral rate means it will be more difficult to finance Britain's current account deficit of 5% of GDP. Thus, the pound is cheap for a reason. Until negotiations with the EU progress, the pound will continue to offer limited reward and plenty of volatility. Chart I-8CHF: Not What It May Seem Chart I-9GBP: A Value Trap? Chart I-10U.K. Trend Growth And Neutral Rate Will Fall Commodity currencies are at a difficult juncture. The AUD, CAD, and NZD could begin the year on a firm tone, if global growth remains robust in the early innings of 2018. However, they will suffer if global volatility rises, which seems unavoidable if markets and policy indeed collide in the second half of 2018 (Chart I-11). The pain for commodity currencies could be compounded by the fact that China looks set to start some potentially painful reforms. The AUD is the worst placed of the three as it is the most expensive, while the CAD is the best placed, as BCA's commodity strategists remain more positive on the energy complex than on the base metals market. Shorting AUD/JPY may prove to be a great hedge for investors who are long risk assets. The Scandinavian currencies are at an interesting juncture as well. Both the NOK and the SEK are extremely cheap on a trade-weighted basis and against the euro (Chart I-12). While strong oil prices should help the NOK, and the overheating Swedish economy should prompt investors to price in policy tightening by the Riksbank, neither of these fundamentals are lifting their respective currencies. The strength in EUR/SEK and EUR/NOK is likely to reverse in the first half of 2018. However, if BCA is correct that markets could begin to feel the pain from gradual tightening in global policy in the second half of 2018, the historically very cyclical Scandinavian currencies should only enjoy a short-lived rally against the euro. Chart I-11The End Of The Great Carry##br## Trade Is Coming Chart I-12Scandies Should Rally##br## In Early 2018 Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 The full report, The Bank Credit Analyst, titled "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course", dated November 20, 2017, is available at fes.bcaresearch.com Forecasts Forecast Summary

Highlights The euro doesn't have the key attributes of a funding or a risk-off currency. This means its behavior is not fixed. While in the past it has behaved as a risk-off currency, this year it has traded as a risk-on one, correlating with key risky assets. The current episode of market volatility will not help the euro. CAD/SEK will benefit if asset-market volatility continues. A global growth deceleration helps the CAD outperform the SEK, especially as this cross trades at a discount to rate differentials. Feature As markets have begun selling off, the euro has once again become well bid. Does this reaction makes sense, or is it a move that should be faded? We are inclined to look the other way, as it is highly unlikely that the euro will benefit from market weakness this time around. The Chameleon Currency Is the euro a risk-off or risk-on currency? We believe it is neither, and that its behavior evolves over time. The reason for this is that the euro is not underpinned by one of the key attributes that offer currencies like the Swiss franc or the yen their strong defensive characteristic: a large positive net international position (NIIP). While Switzerland or Japan have NIIPs in excess of 130% of GDP and 62% of GDP, respectively, the euro area owes the equivalent of 3% of GDP more to the rest of the world than the rest of world owes the Eurozone. This means the euro does not benefit from its investors repatriating funds at home when market turbulences emerge. In other words, unlike Japan or Switzerland, local investors' home bias does not come to the euro's rescue when markets vacillate. Moreover, unlike the USD, the euro is not the key reserve currency global investors seek when turmoil grips the market. The euro represents 20% of allocated global reserves, while the USD still garners 64% of these reserves. Rightly or wrongly, investors do not yet feel that the euro area has the permanence of the U.S., nor that it possesses the military might and the same capacity to control global sea lanes that the U.S. currently enjoys. Lacking these attributes, the euro is a bit of a chameleon. When investors are negative on the outlook for the European economy, the euro is used as a funding currency for carry trades. However, sometimes it is used as the vehicle to bet on a weaker dollar or an improving global economy. These two last bets are often one and the same, as the greenback remains a countercyclical currency, enjoying strength when the global economy weakens (Chart I-1). This is because the U.S. is low-beta economy as it is much less exposed to the vagaries of EM growth - a key source of variation in the global economy and the global industrial cycle - than the euro area is (Chart I-2). This is the case as the manufacturing sector is a much lower contributor to U.S. growth than to the euro area. Chart 1The Dollar Is Countercyclical Chart I-2The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Economy This time around, the euro seems to have been used to bet on stronger global growth and a weaker dollar. This makes sense. There is no doubt that the European economic upswing is based on domestic dynamics, but foreign factors have supercharged the European recovery this year. As Chart I-3 illustrates, French exports to Germany and China have tracked the Chinese Keqiang index - a key measure of Chinese industrial activity. More interestingly, French exports to Germany and China have been correlated with Chinese monetary conditions, suggesting China's economic rebound has filtered through a wide swath of the euro area. The action of the euro only agrees with the macroeconomic observations made above. The euro and copper - a key beneficiary of Chinese reflation - have both been moving together through most of 2017 (Chart I-4). The same holds true for EM stocks. As Chart I-5 shows, the euro has tracked the performance of EM equities relative to U.S. ones since August 2015. Both these observations make sense. A stronger China should benefit EM economies more than it benefits the U.S. A stronger China should help copper as it consumes three times as much of the red metal as the U.S., the euro area, and Japan combined. And stronger EM help Europe more than they help the U.S. Chart I-3The Positive Influence Of China Chart I-4EUR/USD Moves With Copper Chart I-5EUR/USD And EM Relative Performance Yet, as we highlighted last week, cracks are emerging in the global economy that should prove particularly painful for EM economies and EM assets.1 Behind some of these weaknesses lies China itself. After having eased fiscal and monetary conditions through most of 2015 and all of 2016, Chinese authorities are using elevated core CPI and producer price readings to reverse course. Aggregate fiscal spending is slowing massively - pointing to a negative fiscal impulse - and broad money supply is growing at its slowest pace ever (Chart I-6). The tightening in monetary conditions is bearing fruit. Chinese industrial production and retail sales disappointed this month, and the Chinese surprise index has now dipped into negative territory (Chart I-7). The boost to global growth, and EM growth especially, that was caused by Chinese imports lifted by domestic investment is now receding. Chart I-6China: Aggregate Fiscal Spending Growth##br## Is Also Weak China: Broad Money Growth Is At ##br##Record Low Chinese Policy Tightening Chart I-7Chinese Surprises Have ##br## Turned Negative EM assets are not ready for this, as they are priced for perfection. EM assets, which have traded in line with U.S. high-yield bond prices since 2008, are now very expensive relative to this already expensive asset (Chart I-8). A slowdown in Chinese and EM growth is likely to represent a substantially negative shock for EM equities, especially as the slowdown in EM M1 to 9.3% already portends a contraction in EM profit growth. The breakdown in U.S. and EM high-yield bond prices could easily catalyze these risks. Copper, too, is vulnerable. With an almost insatiable love for the red metal, investors are not positioned for a reversal of its bull market (Chart I-9). However, China already has near record-high inventories of copper; slowing public spending and money growth suggest that the construction industry is likely to decelerate, limiting China's intake over the next few quarters. A negative surprise is likely to come. Chart I-8EM Stocks Offer No Protection##br## Against A Slowdown Chart I-9Too Much Love For Copper Equals ##br##High Risk Of Disappointment Falling copper prices and underperforming EM equity prices will thus drive the euro lower, as they will be key symptoms of the waning of a crucial euro support. Moreover, the euro is now overbought, and as we have highlighted before, over-owned (Chart I-10). This picture alone should support the notion that the euro is unlikely to benefit from a short squeeze as global risk aversion rises. How could it? After all, investors did not sell the euro to fund carry trades when global growth was rising and global volatility was falling. They were buying it along with carry trades. Maybe the euro was buoyed by strong GDP prints out of Europe this week, with Germany growing at a 3.2% pace on an annualized basis in the third quarter, faster than the U.S. If this response of the euro were to be durable, it should be associated with a commensurate move in interest rate differentials. Neither the gap in 5-year risk-free rates or 1-year forward, 1-year risk free rates between Europe and the U.S. have moved in favor of the euro in the wake of the release (Chart I-11). However, in the face of the existing gap between the euro and interest rate differentials, to stay stable, the euro will need an increase in the pace of positive surprises relative to the U.S. over the coming months - something that is unlikely to materialize as European financial conditions have greatly tightened relative to the U.S. Chart I-10The Euro Has Not Been Used##br## To Fund Carry Trades Chart I-11If Growth Was The Current Driver, The Euro And ##br##Rate Differentials Would Be Moving Together Instead, we believe that worries regarding the U.S. tax plan may be playing a role in the euro's strength. Investors are worried of a repeat about the Obamacare repeal debacle. Now that Senators Cruz, Rand and Cotton want to add a provision to the tax bill that would eliminate Obamacare's individual mandates, investors worry that Senators McCain, Murkowski and Collins will down the bill. This is a valid concern, but we should not forget that this is only U.S. legal process, and that reconciliation of the House version and the Senate version of the bill will need to take place before it is finalized, suggesting the final bill proposed could be very different from the version currently being discussed. Bottom Line: The euro is unlikely to benefit from a risk-off environment if the current selloff in EM and high-yield bonds continues. The euro area's net international investment position is too small to suggest that fund repatriation by local investors will result in the euro being bid. In fact, the euro has rallied on a similar impulse that pushed EM assets and copper higher: Stronger global growth and Chinese stimulus. Thus, now that the euro is over-owned and overbought, any tightening in EM financial conditions is likely to hurt it as well. Long CAD/SEK: The Rationale Last week, we opened a long CAD/SEK trade. The rationale for this position is rather straightforward. To start, the SEK is a more pro-cyclical currency than the CAD. Our Global Growth Indicator has rolled over and, if history is any guide, when this global growth gauge weakens, this leads to a period of depreciation for the stokkie relative to the loonie (Chart I-12). Stefan Ingves's renewed leadership of the Riksbank makes this risk even more salient. Throughout his tenure, Governor Ingves has emphasized that the Swedish central bank would fight imported deflation. Weakening global growth should result in some deflationary forces in Sweden, even if the domestic economy is experiencing growing resource utilization pressures. Ingves will counterbalance these dynamics by keeping the SEK down. Also, over the past 10 years, when U.S. two-year rates have been rising relative to euro area short rates, CAD/SEK has appreciated (Chart I-13). This is simply because the Canadian economy is tied to the U.S., while Sweden's is tied to the euro area. Thus when U.S. rates rise, this tends to let the Bank of Canada hike as well without putting undue pressure on CAD/USD. The same relationship is true between Swedish and European rates. As such, the current upward bias in U.S. relative to euro area rates is creating an upward drift on Canadian relative to Swedish rates. Chart I-12Growth Rolling Over Leads ##br##To A Stronger CAD/SEK Chart I-13When The Fed Tightens Versus ##br##The ECB, CAD/SEK Rises Some key domestic factors are also favoring the CAD over the SEK. Canadian real retail sales have spiked, growing a record three percentage points faster than Sweden's. Moreover, this development has occurred despite a surge in the Swedish credit impulse relative to that of Canada. The relative credit impulse is now slowly moving in favor of the Canadian economy. If this continues, since the Canadian consumer is already roaring, it will support Canadian aggregate demand relative to Sweden's. With Canadian wages set to pick up as labor shortages intensify, this could stoke additional wage and inflationary pressures (Chart I-14). The BoC is thus likely to continue to hike even if Ingves is hampered by the ECB and EM. Finally, CAD/SEK is trading at a 5% discount to our relative intermediate-term timing model (Chart I-15). This kind of a discount has historically been associated with tradeable rebounds in the loonie relative to the stokkie. We believe that a risk-off period in global capital markets is the likely catalyst required to realize the good value currently present in this cross. Chart I-14Canada Will Experience Rising Wages Chart I-15CAD/SEK Trading At A Discount to Rates This trade is obviously not devoid of risks. The most salient one remains the renegotiation of NAFTA. As Marko Papic, our Chief Geopolitical strategist argues in a Special Report, large swaths of the U.S. population are not in favor of free trade, and feel they have not gained much from globalization. Low social mobility, high income inequality, stagnant middle-class wages and growing difficulty to access debt have fueled this sentiment.2 Since U.S. President Donald Trump and not Congress is ultimately in charge of trade relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world, Trump has much leeway to please his electorate. He can therefore repudiate NAFTA. Such a development would hurt Canada. Exports to the U.S. represent 20% of Canada's GDP. A large share of these exports, especially in the auto sector, could fall under a new trade regime. This means that net exports might become a drag on Canadian growth, but it also means that a lot of capex that should have materialized in Canada will instead be realized in the U.S. This would boost USD/CAD. However, as excess investment in the U.S. is a positive for U.S. rates, it would also lift the USD against the EUR. Considering EUR/USD has a negative 67.3% correlation with CAD/SEK, this would limit the damage to our long CAD/SEK trade created by NAFTA renegotiations. Bottom Line: CAD/SEK should benefit as global growth and global risk assets hit a snag in the coming months. Moreover, the Canadian economy continues to experience growing inflationary pressures, while the Riksbank is likely to prove ultra-sensitive to any weakness in EM. With CAD/SEK trading on the cheap side, such a development is likely to result in a tactical upswing in this cross. The biggest risk to this position is related to an adverse ending to NAFTA renegotiations. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Temporary Short-Term Risks", dated November 10, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism", dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was generally positive: PPI measures beat expectations, with the headline measure coming in at 2.8% and the core at 2.4%; Core CPI beat expectations, coming in at 1.8%, while headline inflation remained steady at 2%; Continuing jobless claims decreased to 1.86 million, however initial jobless claims increased to 249,000; Net long-term TIC flows increased to USD 80.9 bn, while total net TIC flows are negative at USD -51.3 bn; NFIB Business Optimum Index and the Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Survey underperformed expectations, coming in at 103.8 and 22.7, respectively; There was, however, a generally bearish rhetoric for the USD this week due to perceived inability of President Trump's administration to push through tax reform. Nevertheless, stronger inflation should lift the dollar in the coming months. Report Links: It's Not My Cross To Bear - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Euro area data was generally positive: German GDP accelerated greatly, hitting an annual rate of 2.3%, although this was in line with expectations. However, the quarterly measure of 0.8% beat expectations of 0.6%; European GDP grew in line with expectations of 2.5% on an annual basis; Industrial production increased by 3.3%, beating expectations of 3.2%; CPI across the euro area stayed steady and in line with expectations, with core inflation slowing to 0.9%. Importantly, the euro area core CPI diffusion index is decelerating sharply; As expected, French unemployment increased to 9.7% from 9.5%. The euro experienced a strong week following the release of these data points. However, as we have iterated in the past, the appreciation in the euro has tightened financial conditions, which means that inflation is unlikely to increase much from current levels. Report Links: Temporary Short-Term Rates - November 10, 2017 Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data has surprised to the upside in Japan: Industrial production monthly growth was not as weak as expected, only weakening -1%. Meanwhile, yearly growth came in at 2.6%, an acceleration relative to last month. Gross domestic product annual growth also outperformed expectations, coming in at 1.4%. However it is worth to point out that growth slowed from a 2.6% reading last quarter. The yen has appreciated slightly this week, with USD/JPY rising by about 0.4%. Overall we continue to bearish on the yen against the dollar, given that interest rate differentials will continue to be the main determinants of this cross. On the other hand we are more bullish on the yen against commodity currencies like the NZD, given that we expect a temporary growth downshift is likely to cause commodity and EM plays to experience some downside. Report Links: Temporary Short-Term Rates - November 10, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Consumer price inflation underperformed expectations, coming at 3%. Core inflation also surprised to the downside, coming in at 2.7%. However average hourly earnings surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.2%. It is important to note however, that this is a slowdown from last month's number of 2.3%. Moreover, retail sales growth outperformed expectations coming in at -0.3%. Nevertheless, this measure drop sharply from last month's reading of 1.3%. Overall, the GBP/USD has stayed relatively flat this week, while it has depreciated by about 1% against the euro. We believe that the upside for the pound against the dollar from here on is limited, as the BoE has very little incentive to hike any more than what is priced into the SONIA curve given that inflation seems to be stabilizing. Report Links: Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The AUD has suffered this week following a slew of mixed data: NAB Business Conditions improved to 21 from 14, but Business Confidence remained steady at 8; Westpac Consumer Confidence was negative at -1.7%; Wage growth remains depressed at 2% annually and 0.5% quarterly, underperforming the expected 2.2% and 0.7%, respectively; Melbourne Institute's Consumer Inflation Expectations declined to 3.7% from 4.3% in November; The participation rate dropped 10 bps to 65.1% and employment grew by only 3,700, below the expected 17,500. However, this was because the decline in part-time employment of 20,700 was offset by the increase in full-time employment of 24,300. While there were some positive developments in the labor market, wages remain depressed, pointing to ongoing underemployment within the economy. This is likely to leave the RBA to stay cautious. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The New Zealand dollar has depreciated by almost 2% this week, as commodities and junk bonds have plunged. We continue to be bearish on this currency against both the dollar and then yen, as we expect a further deterioration in EM financial conditions. This is mainly due to 2 factors: First, monetary tightening in China should cause a worsening in financial conditions, which will weigh on growth and commodity producers. Moreover, market-based expectations of U.S. interest rates could experience some upside as U.S. inflation is slated to pick up. This will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, and thus, weigh on commodity prices. Nevertheless, we continue to be bullish on the NZD relatively to the AUD, as the Australian economy is much more sensitive to the dynamics described above. Report Links: Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data has been positive: Manufacturing shipments increased by 0.5% on a monthly basis, beating expectations of -0.3% but they were weaker than the previous release of 1.6%; Foreign portfolio investment in Canadian securities increased to CAD 16.81 bn, above the expected CAD 10.68 bn and also beating the previous figure of CAD 9.77 bn. However, oil weaknesses weighed on the CAD this week. Furthermore, a lack of Canadian data meant that USD/CAD traded mostly off positive U.S. data, which further handicapped the CAD. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The Swiss franc has continued to depreciate, with EUR/CHF surging by almost 1% this week. This cross is now roughly 2.5% away from the level at which it was when the Swiss National Bank took off its floor in early 2015. Overall we see very little indication that the SNB will let off their ultra-dovish monetary policy and currency intervention. Speaking with the government on Wednesday, the SNB's president Thomas Jordan said that the Franc is still "highly valued". Although there has been a slight improvement in price inflation and in economic activity, it still too tepid for central bankers to change policy significantly. Thus, the franc will continue to suffer downward pressure, due to FX market intervention. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Gross domestic product growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 0.7%. Moreover core inflation also surprised to the upside, coming in at 1.1%, and increasing from last month's reading of 1%. However headline inflation underperformed substantially, coming in at 1.2% and decreasing from last month's reading of 1.6%. The krone has depreciated slightly against the dollar, as USD/NOK has risen by almost 0.6% this week. In spite of our positive view on oil, we continue to be bullish on USD/NOK, given that this cross is more sensitive to interest rate differentials than it is to oil prices. The Norwegian economy is still plagued with plenty of slack, thus the spread between U.S. and Norwegian rates will continue to widen. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK had a dismal week due to downbeat data: Inflation slowed greatly to 1.7% from 2.1%, even underperforming the expected slowdown of 1.8%. In monthly terms, it contracted by 0.1%; Capacity Utilization fell in Q3 to 0.2% from 0.5%, indicating slack in the economy; The unemployment rate also rose to 6.3%; EUR/SEK traded near 10.0000, appreciating to levels reached last October. These data points will certainly be taken into account by the Riksbank, and a dovish tilt has most likely been priced in by the market. Close EUR/SEK trade Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

特別レポート

Dear Client, Instead of our Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Marko argues that while there is considerable risk that NAFTA is abrogated, the Trump administration would quickly move to alleviate the effects to trade flows. The risk to our view is that President Trump is a genuine populist, a view that his actions thus far do not support. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The "Great Gatsby" Curve Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto Manufacturing More Competitive What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 Chart 11Mexico's Growing Population Is A Potential Market U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).1 0Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto##br## Manufacturing More Competitive The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has ##br##Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment:##br## China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).10 Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,” dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S. Election: The Great White Hype,” dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency,” dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.