ポリシー

Highlights While bullish sentiment for copper remains high, concerns that policymakers' attempts at a managed slowdown in China this year goes too far will weigh on the market. Fundamentally, support for copper prices from potential supply shortfalls at both the mining and refining levels will be offset by a stronger USD and slower growth in China this year (Chart of the Week). Despite our expectation a slight physical supply deficit will emerge this year, we remain neutral copper. We do not believe this will be enough to rally prices in a meaningful way. Energy: Overweight. Ministers from Saudi Arabia and Russia confirmed OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by these states - will survive beyond the expiry of their production-management deal at the end of this year. What and how they will manage the production of coalition members, however, remains unknown. Base Metals: Neutral. Positive fundamentals for copper are at risk if the USD rallies on the back of Fed tightening this year or China's managed economic slowdown is too severe (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices remained well bid, despite expectations for three or four Fed rate hikes this year, suggesting the market is pricing in either fewer rate hikes and lower real rates, or geopolitical risk - most prominently in Venezuela or North Korea. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybean has been gaining ground on concerns about yield damage due to droughts in parts of Argentina. Expectations of a bumper year for Brazil will mitigate the impact on global supply. Feature Bullish copper sentiment is at a multi-year high, with four bulls for every bear in the market (Chart 2). The strong global economy, weak USD, and elevated risk of further supply-side disruptions - at mines as well as at the refining level - are feeding into buyers' optimism. Chart of the WeekChina Fears Weighing##BR##On Copper Prices Chart 2Bullish Sentiment Remains##BR##At Multi-Year Highs Our outlook for 2018 calls for another, albeit smaller, refined copper deficit (Chart 3). This will come on the back of escalated risks from supply side disruptions at mines in Chile and Peru, and potential constraints on primary and secondary refined output from China, the largest refined copper producer (Table 1). Chart 3A (Smaller) Deficit##BR##In 2018 Table 1China Is Significant For##BR##Copper Supply And Demand China also is the world's largest refined-copper consumer, which makes the risk of a more severe downturn in China arising from too much policy-driven restraint in the metal's top consumer acute. In the following sections, we present our expectations for the fundamentals: copper mine output, refined copper production, and refined copper consumption. Industrial Action Will Threaten Mine Output Again In 2018 Copper had an exceptional year in 2017. The synchronized global upturn and weak USD set the stage for a memorable performance. On the supply-side, disruptions at some of the world's largest mines pushed prices up 8% in 1H17. Although the risk of further production shocks had subsided by 2H17, copper gained another 22% on the back of restrictive Chinese scrap import policies and better than expected demand fundamentals. Last year, the copper market registered a physical deficit, mainly on the back of a decline in copper mine supply. A 0.3% yoy fall in copper ores and concentrate output in the first eleven months of the year kept production broadly unchanged compared to the same period last year. In fact, this was the first yoy decline for that period since 2002, and contrasts with an average 5% expansion in ore and concentrate output for that period since 2012 (Chart 4). The most notable supply side disruptions last year were: Chart 4Supply Disruptions Put##BR##Copper In Deficit Last Year A 9% yoy decline in output from top producer Chile in 1H17. Chile accounts for more than a quarter of global ore & concentrate supply. The decline is a result of strikes at the Escondida mine as well as lower output from Codelco mines. The Indonesian government's ban on exports of copper ores in the first four months of the year led to a 6% yoy decline in production in the first eleven months. U.S. output, which accounts for~7% of global copper ores & concentrates supply is down 12% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. In fact, the last time the U.S. recorded a positive yoy growth rate was in October 2016. The decline in U.S. output came mainly on the back of lower grade ores, a fall in mining rates, and poor weather conditions. The majority of these disruptions occurred in 1H17 - the first five months of the year witnessed a 1.6% yoy fall in output, while the Jun-Oct period experienced a 0.7% yoy increase. Nonetheless, the ramp up in second part of the year is significantly slower than the 6% yoy and 5% yoy increases in the same period in 2015 and 2016. Global supply was partially supported by Peruvian and European production. Peruvian output grew 3.6% yoy in the first eleven months of the year. However this rate is dwarfed in comparison to previous years. Output grew almost 40% yoy in 2016 and 23% yoy in 2015. Similarly, European output - which accounts for 8% of global supply - seems to be continuing its uptrend. It expanded by 2.4% in the first eleven months of 2017 to record the highest level of output for that period. In fact, growth in output is above the average 0.8% yoy pace in the same period in 2014-2016. We expect a small rebound in mine production in 2018. According to the International Copper Study Group, temporarily shut down capacity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia will resume operations, supporting mine supply this year. Supply-side disruptions pose a significant risk to mine supply again this year. An estimated more than 30 labor contracts, representing ~5mm MT of mined copper - a quarter of global production - will expire this year.1 While surely not all of these negotiations will result in strikes and supply disruptions, the figure is noteworthy as it is significantly above the average 1.7mm MT worth of annual copper supply at risk from contract renewal between 2011 and 2016. The most significant of these renewals is that which was most damaging last year. The 44-day strike at BHP Billiton's Escondida mine in Chile last year, which resulted in a 7.8% yoy fall at the world's most productive copper mine, ended without agreement. Although the contracts were extended, they are due for renegotiation in June. In fact, one of the unions at Escondida held a day long "warning strike" in November, an indication that they do not intend to back down from their demands. Unless management gives in, this implies a heightened risk of disruptions. Bottom Line: Supply disruptions negatively impacted mine supply in some of the world's top producers in 1H17. Although European and Peruvian supply has been somewhat supportive, global supply stagnated in 2017. Industrial action remains the major risk to mined copper this year. 5mm MT worth of copper ores and concentrates are at risk of supply side disruptions in 2018 - the highest figure since 2010. Environmental Reforms Limit Refined Production From China Chart 5China's Scrap Imports Cushion##BR##Against High Prices World refined production grew 1.3% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017, the slowest growth rate for that period since 2009. This reflects significant declines in refined copper production in Chile and the U.S. Supply disruptions at mines in Chile - the world's second-largest producer of refined copper - led to a 182k MT fall in refined output in the first eleven months of 2017, compared to the same period in 2016. Refined output from the U.S. fell by 91.4k MT in that period. However, the downside pressure on refined output from lower ore production was mitigated by increased secondary production from scrap, which accounts for ~20% of global refined copper production. Chinese copper producers took advantage of the oversupply in global scrap and ramped up their production. According to the ICSG global secondary output expanded by almost 10% yoy in the first ten months of last year. China's copper scrap imports increased 9% yoy in the first eleven months of last year, following four years of declines (Chart 5). China makes up less than 10% of global mined copper, but it is the largest producer of refined copper in the world, accounting for 36% of the global production. China is expected to remain the main contributor to world refined production growth (Chart 6). However, Beijing's environmental reforms, and measures to curb the imports of "foreign trash" will limit secondary refined production. Chart 6China Remains Most Significant Factor In Refined Production Growth New policies affecting refined output in China are supportive of copper prices this year: 1. In relation to scrap copper, Beijing recently imposed two policy changes, in line with its environmental reforms. First, since the start of 2018, only copper scrap end-users and processors will be granted import licenses. Second, a proposal to limit the hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports to 1% by March. Both these policies will curtail China's scrap copper imports. China imports an estimated 3mm MT of scrap copper annually, accounting for roughly half of its total scrap copper supply. Such limitations would severely dent China's scrap supply. Furthermore, scrap copper imports play a significant role in China. They act as a buffer against high prices, soaring during periods of high prices and dwindling when prices are low - as they were between 2013 and 2016. If China does in fact go through with the tighter regulations on scrap imports, Chinese copper consumers would not be able to fall back on the secondary metal when prices rise - as they have been over the past year - leading to greater demand for imports of primary products, chasing prices higher. However, over the long term, we are likely to see Chinese scrap traders move their businesses offshore, notably in Southeast Asia, where they will process the scrap until it meets the regulations necessary to be imported by China.2 In fact, this has already started to happen in the case of the category 7 scrap - derived from end-of-life electronics, households, cars and industrial products - which is widely believed will be banned by year-end. Nevertheless, these recycling plants do not yet exist. Thus, the transition cannot occur overnight, and we expect the tighter policies on scrap imports to support prices in the interim as China increases its imports of ores and refined copper in order to fill the supply gap. 2. China's environmental reforms also pose a risk on refined supply this year. Smelters and refiners risk being shut down if they do not comply with tighter pollution controls. This could limit copper output this year. Similar to the winter production cuts occurring at steel and aluminum producers, China's second largest copper smelter - Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group - announced plans to reduce its smelter capacity by up to 30% during the winter.3 In addition, late last month, China's largest smelter - Jiangxi Copper Co. - was forced to curb output while local pollution levels were assessed.4 The extent to which these measures are adopted by other producers will interrupt refined output this year. Given the more elevated pollution levels during the winter months, this risk is most notable in the November to March period. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper supply is China's environmental reforms which will likely constrain copper scrap imports, and could lead to temporary shutdowns of polluting smelters and refineries. If Beijing tightens these regulations, we are likely to witness disruptions in both primary and secondary refined output, while the copper supply chain readjusts to be able to comply with these policies. Slowdown In China Would Temper Copper World refined copper consumption grew 0.8% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. Weaker consumption was mainly in the 1H17, during which global consumption fell 1.8% yoy, whereas consumption in the July-to-November period accelerated by 3.9% yoy. Weaker demand in the first half of the year came on the back of weaker demand from China, which accounts for half of global consumption. China recorded a 7.7% yoy fall in consumption of refined copper in the January-to-April period. However, Chinese copper demand subsequently strengthened, accelerating by 7.4% yoy in the May-to-November period. While demand from the rest of the world muted the impact of weaker Chinese consumption in the first half of the year, it weakened in the second half of the year, falling 3.3% yoy in the May-to-October period. This fall in copper demand was driven by a 5.5% yoy fall in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, a 2.0% yoy fall in demand in Japan in the May-to-November period. According to China Customs data, China's refined copper imports fell 5.1% in 2017 after growing 3.7% in 2016 (Chart 7). However, what is noteworthy is that while imports fell 18.3% yoy in H1, they picked up in H2, increasing by 11.3% yoy, mainly on the back of strong demand in Q3. This is in line with strong economic performance in China in 2H17 - an upside surprise which supported copper prices. Going into 2018, we expect a managed deceleration in China - and in China's demand for copper - to be mitigated by stronger demand from the rest of the world. In fact, the IMF revised up its 2018 and 2019 global growth forecasts in the latest WEO Update earlier this week (Table 2). Global growth is now forecast to reach 3.9% in 2018, up from the estimated 3.7% last year. Chart 7China's Q4 Imports Were Strong Table 2Upward Revisions To IMF Growth Projections Chart 8Speed Bump Ahead For China? That said, our China construction Indicator - which includes several variables measuring construction activity in China - shows strong growth in the main end-user for copper (Chart 8). Given that building construction accounts for 43% of copper end-use in China, this indicates demand for copper should remain healthy in the near term. Furthermore, despite concerns of a slowdown, China's manufacturing PMI still points to a healthy economy. Even so, a decline in the Li Keqiang Index, which tracks industrial activity, warrants caution and could be signaling trouble ahead for the Chinese economy. In addition, government spending has decelerated significantly from its mid-2017 peak. Against these risks, the global economy is expected to remain strong. Thus the biggest risk to our assessment is a pronounced deceleration in China which would hit demand for the red metal. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper demand this year is a slowdown from China. Downside Risk From A Stronger USD In addition to the fundamental variables highlighted above, U.S. monetary policy - and its effect on the USD - will also be an important driver of the copper market. We expect the Fed to embark on its interest rate normalization process more aggressively this year, hiking its policy rate up to four times. This would see copper prices weaken as the red metal becomes more expensive in USD terms. The USD is significant because a weaker dollar means that dollar-based commodities are cheaper for foreign buyers. Thus, foreigners tend to buy dollar-denominated commodities when the USD is weak, and sell when the USD is strong, in order to also benefit from exchange rate differentials. Continued weakness of the USD has been supportive of copper prices since the beginning of 2017. A risk to our outlook is an unexpectedly dovish Fed, which would keep the dollar muted and be favorable to copper. Bottom Line: We expect the copper market to record a small physical deficit this year. A stronger USD and deceleration in China will prevent a repeat of 2017's performance. However supply side disruptions at the mine and refined levels will provide opportunities for some upside in the market. Synchronized global demand will be a tailwind throughout the year. In the near term, we expect copper to continue gyrating around its current level of $3.10/lb. Absent a marked slowdown in China, we expect a rally into mid-year as contract renegotiations get underway. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Copper soars to 4-year high as funds bet on shortages," dated December 28, 2017, available at reuters.com. 2 Please see "As China restricts scrap metal companies look to process copper abroad," dated January 8, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "Chinese Copper Smelter Halts Capacity to Ease Winter Pollution," dated December 7, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. 4 Please see "Copper Rallies to Three-Year High as China Plant Halts Output," dated December 26, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: The modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. Maintain below-benchmark duration. 10-Year Yield: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Risk Premiums & Treasury Returns: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Feature Chart 1The Long End Catching The Train The sell-off in U.S. bond markets continued last week with the 10-year yield breaking above its previous peak of 2.62%. Of course yields at the short end of the curve made new cyclical highs long ago and have increased even further during the past few weeks (Chart 1). In this report we look at both the long and short ends of the yield curve and ask whether yields are finally fairly priced. But first, a quick re-cap of our cyclical investment stance. In our prior two bulletins we noted that the cyclical outlook for bonds remains bearish, and this continues to be the case. The main reason is that, despite recent increases, the long-term cost of inflation protection is still below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target. However, we have also warned that the message from some near-term technical indicators is starting to shift. Specifically, net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures are now 2% net short. Positioning at these levels has historically been consistent with a modest decline in the 10-year yield during the subsequent three months (Chart 2). Also, the U.S. Economic Surprise Index (ESI) sits at a lofty +65 and is poised to mean revert as investor expectations grow increasingly optimistic. Our simple auto-regressive model of the ESI projects that it will decline to +28 during the next month.1 A positive value on the ESI is consistent with a continued increase in Treasury yields (Chart 3), but we will be watching closely for signs that the ESI is about to break below zero. Chart 2Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (I) Chart 3Message From Our Near-Term Indicators (II) Taken together, the modest bond-bullish message from our technical indicators does not yet outweigh the bond-bearish forces we expect to prevail on a 6-12 month horizon. We therefore maintain our below-benchmark duration bias. We also maintain our overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. Though inflationary pressure in the economy is starting to build, it is still not sufficient to spur significant spread widening. We will elaborate further on our spread product views in next week's report. How High For The 10-Year? In the current environment we find it instructive to split the nominal 10-year yield into its two main components - the compensation for inflation protection and the real yield - and consider each in turn. Inflation Chart 4TIPS Breakevens Are Still Low As was mentioned in the first section of this report, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen a lot. From a trough of 1.66% last June to 2.05% as of last Friday. But this is still somewhat too low (Chart 4). Historically, the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has traded in a range between 2.4% and 2.5% when realized inflation is well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. With inflation almost certain to move back to the Fed's target before the end of the cycle, and indeed our Pipeline Inflation Indicator shows that inflationary pressures continue to build (Chart 4, bottom panel), there is still another 35 bps to 45 bps of cyclical upside in the 10-year breakeven rate. Real Yield As for the 10-year real yield, a simple model introduced in a report last month shows that it is driven by a combination of: The fed funds rate. The expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months, as measured by our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter. Implied rate volatility as measured by the MOVE index. Included as a proxy for the term premium embedded in 10-year yields. The model is shown in Chart 5, where we also incorporate very conservative assumptions for each of the three independent variables. We assume that: The fed funds rate is raised three times this year, in line with the FOMC's median projection (Chart 5, panel 2). The 12-month discounter falls to 25 bps by year end. In other words, we assume that by then investors will only be looking for one rate hike only in 2019 (Chart 5, panel 3). The MOVE volatility index stays flat at historically low levels (Chart 5, bottom panel).2 Chart 5A Simple Model Of The Real 10-Year Treasury Yield The key message from Chart 5 is that it is very difficult to craft a reasonable scenario where the 10-year real yield has meaningful downside from current levels. Even using the benign assumptions described above, our model projects that the 10-year real yield will increase 4 bps in the next 11 months. From current levels that suggests a 10-year real yield of 0.61% by the end of the year. Summing it all up, on a cyclical horizon we project another 35 bps to 45 bps of upside in the inflation component of the 10-year Treasury yield, and at least 4 bps of upside in the real component. This suggests that the 10-year nominal Treasury yield should move into a range between 3.01% and 3.11% by the time that inflation reaches the Fed's target. Bottom Line: The 10-year Treasury yield has risen a lot, but still has considerable upside on a 6-12 month horizon. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is still 35 bps below its fair value range, and it is difficult to craft a realistic scenario where a higher cost of inflation protection is offset by lower real yields. Is The Front End Fairly Priced? At this time last year the 1-year Treasury yield was 0.84% and the fed funds rate was 0.66%. During the past 12 months the fed funds rate rose from 0.66% to 1.42%, equating to an average fed funds rate of 1.10% during this period (using monthly compounding). An investor who bought a 1-year Treasury note last year and held to maturity would have earned a risk premium of -26 bps relative to a position in cash. Not a great return by any means, but yields have moved a lot since then. The 1-year yield is now 1.79% and the 2-year yield is 2.05%. Is it possible that front-end yields now provide adequate compensation for the path of rate hikes during the next 1-2 years? And more importantly, does the risk premium earned on short-maturity notes tell us anything about the total returns we can expect to earn from the overall Treasury index? These are the two questions we consider in this section. Calculating The Ex-Ante Risk Premium In Short-Maturity Yields Table 1 shows three different scenarios for the path of Fed rate hikes during the next two years. The median FOMC scenario assumes that the funds rate rises in line with the Fed's median projection. That is, the rate is lifted three times this year and twice next year. The hawkish scenario assumes that the funds rate is raised once per quarter between now and mid-2019, and the dovish scenario assumes that after hiking rates in March and June of this year the Fed is forced to go on hold. Table 1Fed Rate Hikes Scenarios & The Implied Risk Premium We see that the 1-year yield is priced exactly in line with the FOMC's median projection. That is, if the fed funds rate is hiked three times in 2018, then 12 months from now an investor will have been indifferent between a position in a 1-year note and a position in cash. In this same scenario an investor holding a 2-year note to maturity will end up losing 4 bps relative to a position in cash. Unsurprisingly, the hawkish scenario leads to much more negative realized risk premiums for both 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity trades. The dovish scenario leads to a small positive risk premium on a 2-year horizon, but a small negative risk premium on a 1-year horizon. This is because our dovish scenario still assumes there are two rate hikes this year. Our initial conclusion is that despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Especially since a position in a 1-year or 2-year note is somewhat riskier than a position in cash, due to the additional duration risk. Short-Maturity Risk Premiums And Treasury Returns But there is one more possible application for the above analysis. We calculated the actual risk premiums earned in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity positions going back to 1973, and found that these risk premiums correlate quite well with changes in the average yield for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index for the same time horizon. In other words, 12-month periods in which an investor in a 1-year note would have earned a positive risk premium relative to an investor in cash tend to coincide with a falling Treasury index yield, and vice-versa (Chart 6). The correlation is even stronger on a 2-year horizon (Chart 7). Chart 61-Year Risk Premium & 12-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Chart 72-Year Risk Premium & 24-Month Change ##br## In Treasury Index Yield Using the relationships from Charts 6 & 7 we are able to calculate the expected change in the average index Treasury yield in each of our three scenarios for Fed rate hikes. We can then translate those yield changes into expectations for total returns from the Treasury index. Those projected total return figures are shown in the final column of Table 1. Our calculation shows that the median FOMC scenario translates into a projected Treasury index 1-year total return of 2.7%, and an annualized 2-year return of 1.7%. The annualized 2-year return in the hawkish scenario is only 84 bps, while it is 2.3% in the dovish scenario. Chart 8Very Low Returns On The Horizon Of course, these figures come with a good deal of uncertainty. Nowhere in the calculation do we consider possible price changes in longer-maturity bonds, which of course are a significant part of the index. In fact, Chart 8 shows that while the total return projections derived from this exercise give a good sense of the general direction in Treasury index returns, there is still considerable variability from year to year. Perhaps the most accurate statement we can make is that with 1-year and 2-year risk premiums likely to be negative - or at least very close to zero - during the next 1-2 years, we should also expect very low total returns from the overall Treasury index. Bottom Line: Despite the recent increases in short-dated Treasury yields, Treasuries with 1-2 years remaining until maturity still do not offer adequate compensation for the likely future path of rate hikes. Negative risk premiums in 1-year and 2-year hold-to-maturity Treasury positions are also likely to coincide with very low Treasury index total returns during the next 1-2 years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Trade #1: Go Short The December 2018 Fed Funds Futures Contract. The trade has gained 64 bps since we initiated it. We are lifting the stop to 60 bps and targeting a profit of 75 bps. Trade #2: Go Long Global Industrial Stocks Versus Utilities. The trade is up 13.1%. We are targeting a profit of 15%, and are tightening the stop further to 12%. Trade #3: Go Short 20-Year JGBs Relative To Their 5-Year Counterparts. The trade is up 0.7%. We see this as a multi-year trade with significant upside potential. The unwinding of heavy short positions could cause the yen to strengthen temporarily. The euro is vulnerable to negative growth surprises. A retracement of some of its recent gains is likely. Feature Looking Back, Thinking Forward I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's Annual Investment Conference held in New York on September 27th of last year where I offered three "tantalizing" trade ideas. Chart 1 reviews their performance. They were the following: Trade #1: Go Short The December 2018 Fed Funds Futures Contract We argued last summer that U.S. growth was likely to accelerate, taking rate expectations higher. That has indeed happened. Aggregate hours worked rose by 2.5% in Q4 over the previous quarter. Assuming that productivity increased by 1.5% in Q4 - equal to the pace recorded in Q3 - real GDP probably increased by nearly 4%. A variety of leading indicators point to continued above-trend growth in the months ahead (Chart 2). Chart 1Three Tantalizing Trades: ##br##An Update Chart 2Leading Indicators Pointing ##br##To Above-Trend U.S. Growth We think the Fed will raise rates four times this year, one more hike than projected by the dots and roughly 35 bps more in tightening than implied by current market expectations. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. We have been saying for a while that above-trend growth will take the unemployment rate down to a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. If the unemployment rate falls this much, the Fed will probably turn more hawkish. Stronger inflation numbers should also give the Fed confidence to keep raising rates once per quarter. Core inflation surprised on the upside in December. We expect this trend to continue in the coming months, as the ISM manufacturing index, the New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, and our own proprietary pipeline inflation index are already foreshadowing (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Inflation ##br##Should Accelerate Chart 4A Pick-Up In Wage Growth ##br##Would Put Upward Pressure On Service Inflation As we noted two weeks ago,1 service sector inflation should get a lift from faster wage growth this year (Chart 4). Goods inflation should also rise on the back of higher oil prices and the lagged effects of a weaker dollar (Chart 5). In addition, health care inflation is likely to pick up from its current depressed level, especially if the Congressional Budget Office is correct that insurance premiums will rise due to the elimination of the individual mandate (Chart 6). Housing inflation will moderate, but this is unlikely to stymie the Fed's tightening plans since excessively low interest rates could lead to even more overbuilding in the increasingly vulnerable commercial real estate sector. Chart 5Higher Oil Prices And A Weaker Dollar ##br##Are A Tailwind For Inflation Chart 6Health Care Inflation ##br##Should Move Higher Granted, four rate hikes equal four opportunities to defer raising rates. It is easy to imagine scenarios where the Fed stands pat, but hard to conjure scenarios where the Fed has to raise rates five times or more this year. Thus, the risk to our four-hike view is to the downside. As such, we will be looking to take profits of 75 bps on the trade, and are putting in a stop of 60 bps. Trade #2: Go Long Global Industrial Stocks Versus Utilities Capital spending tends to accelerate in the late innings of business-cycle expansions. We are in such a phase now, as evidenced by capital goods orders, capex intention surveys, and our global capex model (Chart 7). Increased capital spending will benefit industrial companies. Conversely, rising bond yields will hurt rate-sensitive utilities. Valuations in the industrial sector have gotten stretched, but are not at extreme levels (Chart 8). Based on enterprise value-to-EBITDA, industrials are still only slightly more expensive than utilities compared to their post-1990 average. Chart 7Capex Is Shifting Into ##br##Higher Gear Chart 8Industrial Stocks: Valuations Are Stretched, ##br## But Not Yet Extreme While we do think global growth will slow this year from the heady pace of 2017, it should remain firmly above-trend. A bigger-than-expected slowdown - especially if it is concentrated in China - would undoubtedly hurt industrials. A stronger dollar could also be a headwind. Thus, we are keeping this trade on a short leash, with a target of 15% and a stop of 12%. Trade #3: Go Short 20-Year JGBs Relative To Their 5-Year Counterparts The Japanese economy is on fire. Growth almost reached 2% in 2017 and leading indicators suggest a solid start to 2018 (Chart 9). The unemployment rate has fallen to 2.7%, a full point below 2007 levels. The ratio of job openings-to-applicants has surpassed its bubble peak. The Tankan Employment Conditions Index is pointing to an exceptionally tight labor market. Wages excluding overtime pay are rising at the fastest pace in twenty years (Chart 10). Chart 9Japanese Growth Momentum Is Positive Chart 10Signs Of A Tight Labor Market Inflation is low but is starting to edge up. The most recent release surprised on the upside. Inflation expectations moved higher on the news, benefiting our long Japanese 10-year CPI swap trade recommendation (Chart 11). A simple scatterplot between the unemployment rate and core inflation suggests the Phillips curve remains intact in Japan -- amazingly, it even looks like Japan (Chart 12)! Chart 11Inflation Expectations Have Edged Higher Chart 12The Phillips Curve In Japan Looks Like Japan Still, with core inflation excluding food and energy running at only 0.3%, there is a long way to go before inflation reaches the BoJ's target -- and even longer if the BoJ honours its promise to generate a meaningful overshoot to compensate for the below-target inflation of prior years. This suggests the BoJ will not meaningfully water down its Yield Curve Control regime anytime soon. As such, five-year yields are likely to stay put while yields with maturities in excess of ten years should move higher. Our "tantalizing trade" being short 20-year JGBs versus their 5-year counterparts still has a long way to run. Too Risky To Short The Yen The exceptionally strong correlation between USD/JPY and U.S. Treasury yields has broken down this year (Chart 13). Had the relationship held, the yen would have actually weakened against the dollar. Still, we are reluctant to get too bearish on the yen (Chart 14). The yen real effective exchange rate is close to multi-decade lows. Positioning on the currency is heavily short. The current account surplus has mushroomed from close to zero in 2014 to 4% of GDP at present. And even if the BoJ keeps the Yield Curve Control regime in place, investors may still anticipate its demise, leading to a temporary bout of yen strength. Chart 13Strong Correlation Is Broken Chart 14Too Risky To Short The Yen What's Propping Up The Euro? The euro has been on a tear since last week, egged on by the ECB minutes, which hinted at a faster pace of monetary normalization. Growing confidence that Angela Merkel will be able to form a grand coalition also helped the common currency, along with hopes that the new government will loosen the fiscal purse strings. The euro is often thought of as the "anti-dollar." And sure enough, the euro's strength has been reflected in a broad-based decline in the dollar index in recent days. BCA's Global Investment Strategy service went long the dollar on October 31, 2014. We "doubled up" on this call in the fall of 2016, controversially arguing that "Trump will win and the dollar will rally." Obviously, in retrospect, I should have rung the register and declared victory on our long dollar view when I had the chance. EUR/USD fell to 1.04 on December 2016, within striking distance of our parity target. Bullish dollar sentiment had reached unsustainably lofty levels. That was the time to sell the greenback. But hubris got the best of me. While our other currency trade recommendations have delivered net gains of 11% since the start of 2017, the long DXY trade has stuck out like a sore thumb. Hindsight is 20/20. The key question is what to do today. EUR/USD is still trading below the level it was at when we went long the DXY. Relative to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity exchange rate of 1.32, the euro is 7% undervalued. That said, PPP exchange rates may not be a reliable benchmark in this case. Given current market expectations, EUR/USD would need to strengthen to 1.41 over the next ten years just to cover the carry cost of being short the dollar. Even assuming lower inflation in the euro area, that would still leave the euro trading above its long-term fair value. It is possible, of course, that rate differentials will narrow further, but the scope for this is more limited than it might appear. The market currently expects policy rates ten years out to be 95 basis points higher in the U.S., down from a spread of nearly 180 basis points in late December (Chart 15). Given that euro area inflation expectations are 40-to-50 bps lower than in the U.S., this implies a real spread of about 50 bps - broadly in line with our estimate of the real neutral rate gap between the two regions. Ultimately, the fate of the euro in 2018 will rest on the same question that drove the currency in 2017: Will euro area growth surprise on the upside, prompting investors to price in a faster pace of monetary normalization? The bar for success is certainly higher at present. Chart 16 shows that euro area consensus growth estimates have risen significantly since the start of last year. The expected lift-off date for policy rates has also shifted in by more than a year to mid-2019. Considering that Jens Weidmann stated earlier this week that he thinks current market pricing is broadly consistent with when the ECB expects to hike rates, there is little scope for the lift-off date to move forward. Chart 15Little Scope For Rate Differentials ##br## To Narrow Further Chart 16Euro Area Growth Estimates Have Been Revised Up ##br##Since The Start Of 2017 Meanwhile, financial conditions have tightened significantly in the euro area relative to the U.S., the euro area credit impulse has turned negative, and the U.S. economic surprise index has jumped above that of the euro area (Chart 17). Euro area inflation has also dipped. Especially worrying is that core inflation in Italy has fallen back to a near record-low of 0.4% (Chart 18). How is Italy supposed to navigate its way out of its debt trap if nominal growth stays this weak? On top of all that, long speculative euro positions have soared to record-high levels (Chart 19). Given the choice of betting whether EUR/USD will first hit 1.30 or 1.15, we would go with the latter. If our bet turns out to be correct, we will use that opportunity to shift to neutral on the dollar. Chart 17The Euro Is Vulnerable ##br##To Negative Growth Surprises Chart 18Euro Area Core Inflation ##br##Has Dipped Chart 19Euro Positioning: From Deeply Short ##br##To Record Long Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The euro is in a cyclical bull market. It is supported by attractive valuations, improving balance of payments dynamics, declining political risk, potential shifts in reserves preferences, and a re-rating of the European terminal rate. This positive cyclical backdrop hides a more treacherous short-term outlook. EUR/USD is vulnerable because ECB members are increasingly worried, the European periphery is displaying early strains, European inflation will slow versus the U.S., global industrial activity may experience a mini down cycle, and sentiment measures are massively stretched. Short EUR/JPY for now, and use any move in EUR/USD to 1.15 or lower to buy this pair. Feature The euro has undergone a major paradigm shift over the course of the past 16 months. In December 2016, the euro was trading near parity, and expectations were uniform that it would fall well below that threshold. The narrative was simple: Europe was turning Japanese, with inflation forever moribund; also, Europe was succumbing to the siren call of nationalism and populism, which meant the euro was bound to break up within the next five years. Meanwhile, the U.S. was on the rebound. Core consumer price inflation was above 2.2%, and U.S. President Donald Trump was set to massively stimulate the American economy, giving a free hand for the Federal Reserve to hike to its heart's content. Today, the picture could not be more different. Investors expect the European Central Bank's first hike to materialize in the summer of 2019, European growth is stellar, and European inflation is not low enough to warrant emergency-level policy rates. As a result, not only is EUR/USD trading above 1.20, but consensus forecasts increasingly see the euro trading into the 1.25 to 1.30 zone by year end. Is EUR/USD at 1.22 a buying or a selling opportunity? Short-term risks are currently elevated for the euro, but a move toward 1.15 would represent a buying opportunity, as the cyclical bear market in the euro is over. The Long-Term Bull Case A crucial long-term positive factor for the euro is that it is cheap. EUR/USD currently trades at a 10% discount to its purchasing-power-parity equilibrium, even after a nearly 17% rally since its December 2016 low. Encapsulating this concept, the real effective exchange rate for the euro remains well below equilibrium (Chart I-1). Additionally, our fundamental long-term fair value model pegs the euro as being almost 1-sigma undervalued. The euro area's balance of payment is also very favorable. It is well known among the investment community that the euro area sports a surplus of 3.5% of GDP, but significant changes are also materializing in the capital account. Portfolios outflows out of the euro area have begun to decrease, as equity inflows are rising and bond outflows are becoming smaller. Moreover, the euro area basic balance is moving into positive territory, which historically has been a precursor to sustainable euro rallies (Chart I-2). The supply of euro for international markets is therefore decreasing. Additionally, the euro area's net international investment position (NIIP), which was as low as -17% of GDP in 2014, will likely move into positive territory toward the end of the year. The NIIP has historically been a strong driver of long-term exchange rate moves.1 Chart I-1The Euro Is Still Cheap Chart I-2The European Balance Of Payments Has Improved Politics too have been moving in the right direction. Euro skepticism is not taking hold in the euro area: Last year's French election was a vivid demonstration that "more Europe" is not electoral poison. Even the Italian elections this coming March may not land much of a blow to the European project: The Five Star Movement is rapidly softening its anti-euro rhetoric, and support for centrist parties is strengthening (Chart I-3). Moreover, a German move toward a grand coalition means Angela Merkel's CDU is very likely to be governing along with a pro-euro SPD, whose campaign theme was "MEGA": Make Europe Great Again. Already, Germany is lending a listening ear to some of Macron's integrationist proposals, and fiscal stimulus could well be in the pipeline. Long-term reserves diversification is also in the euro's favor. A headline last week suggested that China would unload some of its vast holdings of Treasurys. This leak was soon condemned as "Fake News" by China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange. However, while the news clearly lacked substance, the reality remains that despite the euro area and the U.S. being similarly sized economies, the euro only represents 20% of allocated global reserves, compared to 65% for the greenback. The greater depth and liquidity of U.S. bond markets contributes to this discrepancy, but the ECB's bond buying, by creating a scarcity of euro denominated securities, has exacerbated the disparity. This latter handicap for the euro will end sometime next fall, and if Europe's integrates further, European bond markets will increasingly become alternatives to U.S. ones. A rebalancing of reserves would principally help the euro by hurting the U.S. dollar: It will become more tenuous for the U.S. to achieve a positive international income balance while sporting a NIIP of -40% of GDP if official international demand for dollars falls (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Italian Centrists Are Gaining Ground Chart I-4The USD Needs Its Reserve Status Finally, the terminal rates differential between the U.S. and the euro area remains well above its long-term average of 110 basis points. Thus, there is scope for a normalization of European terminal rates relative to the U.S. on a long-term basis (Chart I-5). However, an average is only a number. What forces could cause the terminal rate spread between the euro area and the U.S. to normalize over the coming years? European policy is currently very loose when compared to the U.S., which will enable the ECB to play catchup over the coming years. To make this judgment, we look at broad money supply in excess of money demand. Because money demand is an unobserved variable, we have to estimate it. Economic theory argues it should be a positive function of economic activity, wealth and uncertainty. Therefore, to get a sense of what money demand may be, we regress the real broad money aggregates of various countries on uncertainty indices and real wealth.2 The difference between real broad money supply numbers and these estimates represent excess money supply. If a country's excess money is being generated today, it ends up stimulating future economic activity and inflation. This increase in expected nominal growth should contribute to lifting expected interest rates at the long end of the yield curve - i.e. expected terminal rates. As Chart I-6 shows, the stock of excess money supply in the U.S. has stopped growing since 2015. However, it is currently exploding in the euro area as European commercial banks are regaining their health and lending again. The money supply dynamics in Europe signal that the easy policy of the ECB is finally bearing fruit. And as the bottom panel of Chart I-6 illustrates, when European excess money supply increases relative to the U.S., as is currently the case, EUR/USD experiences cyclical rallies.3 This counterinituitive result exists because previous ECB easing is bearing fruits, European asset returns are rising, and economic activity is increasing. As a result, the European terminal rate now has more scope to rise vis-à-vis the U.S. The steepening of the German yield curve relative to the Treasury curve only confirms this message (Chart I-7). Chart I-5The U.S. Terminal Rate Has Room To Fall##br## Against That Of Europe Chart I-6European Excess##br## Money Is Surging Chart I-7Listen To Yield ##br##Curves The five forces described above imply that the euro's move from 1.03 to 1.21 was the first salvo in what is likely to be a long cyclical bull market that could end up driving the euro above 1.40 over many years. However, these factors provide little insight regarding the euro's path over the next three to six months. Bottom Line: The euro is likely to have embarked on a cyclical bull market at the beginning of 2017. Five factors support this judgment: The euro is cheap, the European balance-of-payment backdrop is favorable, political winds in the euro area remain favorable to further European integration, global foreign exchange reserves are very underweight the euro, and the spread between U.S. and euro area expected terminal rates remains well above its long-term average, and has scope to narrow. Murkier Short-Term Outlook While the long-term outlook is very favorable for the euro, the shorter-term outlook is much more clouded. First, the chorus of complaints against the euro's strength is growing among European central bankers. In recent days, not only have Vitor Constâncio and Francois Villeroy voiced concerns over the euro's recent strength, but so has Ewald Nowotny, the rather hawkish Austrian central banker. Additionally, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann stated that the market should not anticipate a rate hike before the summer of 2019, suggesting he would not want to see a more aggressive rate pricing than what is currently at play (Chart I-8). Second, the less competitive and more fragile European periphery is already showing early signs that the sharp appreciation in the euro is causing some pain. Peripheral equities have begun to underperform the stocks of core euro area nations, and are also sharply underperforming U.S. equities. This phenomenon tends to be associated with a weakening euro. Moreover, peripheral inflation excluding food and energy has already weakened to 1.3% from a high of 2% in February last year, the consequence of a tightening in financial conditions (Chart I-9). Chart I-8ECB Doesn't Want This To Change Chart I-9Peripheral Core Inflation In Free Fall Third, the economic environment points to underperformance of aggregate European inflation relative to the U.S. A fall in the gap between euro area and U.S. inflation tends to be associated with short-term gyrations in EUR/USD (Chart I-10). This is because a fall in relative inflation against the euro area causes investors to temporarily tweak the perceived path of future policy differentials. Over the course of 2018, U.S. inflation is set to increase. A simple model based on U.S. capacity utilization and the velocity of money shows that U.S. core CPI could hit 2.1% (Chart I-11). While this model has done a good job picking the turning points in U.S. core inflation, it has consistently overestimated inflation since 2013. Correcting for this bias, the model still forecasts a significant pick-up in inflation to 1.8% (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-10Higher European Inflation Equals Higher Euro Chart I-11A U.S. Inflation Pick Up Is Coming The same cannot be said for euro area inflation. Not only is the European periphery already feeling the pain caused by the euro's strength, but also we have entered the window of time where the previous tightening in euro area financial conditions vis-à-vis the U.S. puts a brake on euro area relative inflation.4 Moreover, the diffusion index of the components of the euro area core CPI index has been below 50% for four months in a row now. Historically, this has been associated with a fall in core CPI. Fourth, over the past year or so, EUR/USD has traded in line with risk assets. The euro area has benefited from EM growth improvement, which has lifted all corners of the global economy levered to the global industrial cycle. As a result, as investors become increasingly bullish on industrial metals, EM assets or momentum plays, so they have of the euro.5 However, clouds are slowly forming over the global economy, at the very least pointing to a mini-cycle downturn. For one, Chinese producer prices have rolled over, and Chinese import growth has significantly underperformed expectations in recent months, slowing to a 5% pace from a 20% pace as recently as September 2017. Essentially, industrial activity has slowed in response to a tightening in Chinese monetary conditions. This slowdown is already beginning to impact various corners of the globe: Korean and Taiwanese export growth continues to decelerate; BCA's Global LEIs Diffusion Index is well below the 50% mark, which normally precedes slowdowns in the global LEI itself; Our boom/bust and global growth indicators have slowed further - two precursors to global industrial production decelerations. Our global economic and financial A/D line, which tallies 100 pro-cyclical variables, has also rolled over sharply, another early warning sign for the global economy (Chart I-12). Finally, as we highlighted in December, EM/JPY carry trades, a canary for the global economy, have lost momentum - a signal that has normally preceded a slowdown in global industrial activity.6 All these signals only confirm the "Yellow Flags" we highlighted last October.7 In an environment where complacency is rampant and assets levered to growth are priced for perfection, this is worrisome. The euro's recent elevated correlation to such risk assets, along with the fact that the gap between European and U.S. core inflation is itself led by Chinese PPI, suggests that the euro is tactically vulnerable. Fifth, from a technical perspective speculators have never been this long the euro, which represents a significant danger as the euro is trading at a sharp premium to its short-term interest rate driver (Chart I-13). Moreover, risk-reversals for EUR/USD point to heightened susceptibility of a selloff if the bad omen on global growth and European inflation come to fruition (Chart I-14). Chart I-12Rising Risks For Global Growth Chart I-13The Euro Is Vulnerable Chart I-14Risk Reversals Point To Euro Downside This short-term picture suggests that the probability of a move in EUR/USD toward 1.15 is growing over the course of the next three to six months. Bottom Line: While the cyclical picture for the euro is bright, the short-term snapshot is much more dangerous. Not only are an increasing number of ECB officials weighing in on the impact of the euro's recent rally, but the European periphery is showing growing signs that the euro rally has indeed taken a bite. Additionally, European inflation is set to underperform U.S. inflation, and the global economic cycle could enter a short burst of disappointment. Finally, investors are not positioned for such developments, increasing the likelihood of a downward move in the euro. What To Do? Caught between a cyclically propitious backdrop and a tactically dangerous environment, EUR/USD presents a riddle for FX investors right now. The odds of a euro correction over the next three to six months are substantially greater than 50%. But as we highlighted last week, instead of taking a direct bet on EUR/USD, we recommend investors short EUR/JPY. Shorting EUR/JPY is an even cleaner way to take advantage of the cloudy weather building over the global economy.8 Moreover, in recent years, EUR/JPY has fallen when the 52-week rate-of-change of momentum trades began to weaken (Chart I-15). This highly mean-reverting indicator is currently in the 96th percentile of its distribution for the past 25 years, suggesting an imminent rollover. Additionally, EUR/JPY tends to perform well when the LIBOR-OIS spread widens. Today, the three-month FRA-OIS spread has been widening, even as the end-of-year dollar funding shortage has passed (Chart I-16). These kinds of dynamics point to a potential drying out in global liquidity, a phenomenon which historically hurts risk assets, especially when they are as frothy as they are now. This should once again hurt EUR/JPY. Chart I-15EUR/JPY And Momentum Stocks Chart I-16Funding Stresses Point To A Fall In EUR/JPY Thus, shorting EUR/JPY is our highest conviction trade for the next six months or so. If, as we foresee, EUR/USD weakens during the first half of 2018, we will look to buy this pair. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets" dated February 26, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 We do not include real GDP in the models because since wealth is affected by GDP, they are two co-integrated variables, which creates strong multi-collinearity in the regressions. Of the two variables, real wealth was the stronger explanatory variable. 3 While the focus of this report is on the euro, the relationship between relative excess money supply and currency performances works across many exchange rates. We will develop this theme over the coming weeks. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Assessing Fair Value In FX Markets" dated February 26, 2016 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Euro: Risk On Or Risk Off" dated November 17, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter" dated January 5, 2018 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Best Of Possible Worlds?" dated October 6, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!" dated January 12, 2018 available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Data out of the U.S. was strong this week: Industrial production increased by 0.9% on a monthly pace; Capacity utilization increased to 77.9% from 77.2%; Continuing jobless claims increased to 1.952 million from 1.876 million, beating expectations of 1.9 million; Initial jobless claims however decreased to 220K from 261K, beating expectations of 250K. We continue to expect the Fed to hike more than is priced by the market. A tightening labor market will eventually feed inflationary pressures, causing upward pressure on the dollar. Report Links: A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter - January 5, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data was decent: German CPI came in unchanged and at expectations, at 1.6%; European headline and core CPI also remained unchanged and at consensus, coming in at 1.4% and 1.1% respectively. However, the euro seems to be losing momentum his week. Comments by ECB board members such as Ewald Nowotny, Vitor Constâncio, and Francois Villeroy, all pointed to issues with the euro's sharp rise, and how they "don't reflect changes in fundamentals". Additionally, relapsing inflation data in the peripheries shows that the strength in the euro is beginning to cause strains and may even negatively affect the ECB's mandate. Report Links: The Unstoppable Euro - January 19, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 A Cold Snap Doesn't Make A Winter - January 5, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: Domestic corporate goods year on year inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 3.1%. It also decreased substantially from November. Moreover, the Eco Watchers Survey for current conditions underperformed expectations, coming in at 53.9. It also decreased from the November reading. However, machinery orders yearly growth outperformed expectations substantially, coming in at 4.1%. USD/JPY is relatively flat from last week. Overall we expect upside to the yen to be limited against the U.S. dollar, given that bond yields are set to go up in the U.S. That being said, the yen has upside against the euro, as financial conditions have eased significantly in Japan relatively to the euro area. This should cause rate expectations in Japan to improve relative to those of Europe's, pushing EUR/JPY lower. Report Links: Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets - December 8, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: The DCLG House Price Index yearly growth outperformed expectations, coming in at 5.1%. However, core consumer price inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.5%. It also decreased from the 2.7% reading of November. Moreover, headline inflation came in line with expectations at 3%. This also marks the first decrease in inflation in the U.K. since July 2017. Lifted by the USD's weakness, cable has now reached the pre-Brexit low 1.38 hit in February 2016. However, GBP has been experiencing a downtrend versus the euro since last September Overall, we continue to be skeptical of the ability of the BoE to raise interest rates meaningfully. Thus, we would fade any further rally from GBP/USD. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was strong this week: Home loans grew at a 2.1% annual pace in November, higher than the expected -0.2%; Employment grew by 34.7K, beating expectations of 9K. The part-time component increased by 19.5K, while the full-time component grew by 15.1K; The participation rate increased to 65.7% from 65.5%; Unemployment rate increased to 5.5% from 5.4%. Foreign exchange traders lifted the AUD further this week. While the headline employment data remains stellar, the heavy concentration part-time job creation means that overall labor utilization measures is staying low. This will cap wage and inflationary pressures, especially as the AUD is once again expensive, further exacerbating deflationary pressures. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been negative: The month-on-month growth of food prices declined from -0.4% to -0.8%. Moreover, Electronic Card retail sales yearly growth slowed from 4.3% to 3.3%. Finally the ANZ Commodity Price Index year on year growth declined from -0.9% to -2.2%. The New Zealand Dollar has surges by almost 3% year to data against the U.S. dollar. This has been largely due to the depreciation of the greenback itself, as global growth continues to beat forecast. On a short term basis we are positive on the NZD relative to the AUD, as Chinese tightening should weigh more on Australia than New Zealand. However, the new populist government in New Zealand worsens the outlook of the kiwi on a long term basis. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead - November 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Movements in the petrocurrency were muted following the 'dovish hike' by the Bank of Canada. Numerous factors were highlighted to justify the rate hike to 1.25%, such as: strong employment growth; higher wages; robust consumption; and exceptional GDP growth in 2017. While the Bank's Business Outlook Survey suggests the labor market is tightening due to labor shortages, the BoC underplayed this factor, pointing to much more muted overall labor utilization metrics. The BoC also noted the expected decline in the contribution of housing and consumption to growth this year due to higher mortgage and borrowing rates. While the economy is firing on all fronts, the spread between the West Canada Select and West Texas Intermediate oil prices continues to widen due to a lack of pipeline capacity to ship the oil out of Canada. According to the Bank, these bottlenecks should be temporary, which means that the CAD could catch up to oil later. Report Links: Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 On Tuesday, Thomas Jordan, the president of the SNB once again reiterated that the franc is still "highly valued", and thus interest rates need to stay low so as to prevent the franc from appreciating. Moreover, he emphasized that while expansionary monetary policy was necessary, it was important to not wait too long to normalize rates. Overall, we believe that the SNB will want to see sustained inflation at relatively high levels to justify an exit from their radical monetary policy. In the meantime the Swiss Central bank will stay accommodative, and thus, EUR/CHF is likely to have limited downside. If the mini down cycle takes hold of the global economy, this would temporarily weigh on EUR/CHF. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The krone continued to appreciate this week, and is now UP 3.3% year-to-date. The krone has been helped mostly by the surge in oil prices and by the fall in the dollar. Overall, we are bullish on this cross against the CAD, as there are 60 basis points of hiked priced in the Canadian curve, even after this week's hike. In the meantime, there are only 21 basis points in the Norwegian curve. We believe this spread is too high, and thus, that the krone should appreciate against the Canadian dollar. Moreover, further downside in EUR/NOK is limited, given that near 70 dollars, there is not much room for oil prices to go up. Thus, we are closing our EUR/NOK trade with a 3.40% gain but keep our long NOK/SEK call in place. Report Links: Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 In a recent speech in Uppsala, Sweden, Deputy Governor Henry Ohlsson reminded the audience of his view from the December meeting that it would have reasonable to hike rates in "early 2018". He pointed to Sweden's robust economic performance, highlighting population growth, migration into cities, and higher real wages. Inflation has also been on target since mid-2017. This assessment is in line with our view of the economy, however Governor Ingves consistently supported a strong dovish tone which undermined our view. Now that the ECB has begun tapering, the consensus within the Riksbank seems to also be shifting. Falling house prices need to be monitored closely, especially when one keeps in mind Governor Ingves dovish inclinations. Report Links: 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 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 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmarks. Feature Several highly-watched Chinese data releases are being published as we go to press, including Q4 GDP growth, and December retail sales, industrial production, and fixed asset investment. We are inclined to agree with Bloomberg's consensus expectations that these series will come in flat-to-modestly down, given our base case view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown. While we cannot rule out the potential for significantly positive surprises from this data, our November 30 Special Report noted in detail that these types of activity indicators tend to lag (or are not correlated with) the Li Keqiang index, which we have shown continues to act as an important predictor of the growth in investable EPS and nominal import growth.1 As such, the series in today's release do not rank highly on our list of important data to watch over the coming 6-12 months. Instead, we remain focused on the components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, as well as the evolution of the relationship between the Li Keqiang index and the growth in earnings and imports. December: A Bad Month For Money & Trade Chart 1A Non-Trivial Deceleration##br## In Money Growth Among the December data released in the first half of this month, the most important series in our view have been the Caixin Manufacturing PMI, imports/exports, and the money supply. The PMI was a bright spot; after having decelerated since August, the index unexpectedly increased from 50.8 in November to 51.5 in December. The Caixin Services PMI also surprised to the upside. The year-over-year (YoY) growth rate of nominal imports, however, fell sharply in December, and significantly missed expectations. In addition, supply of money (measured either as M2 or BCA-defined M3) also fell on a YoY basis, with the 3-month annualized rate of change declining meaningfully (Chart 1). Given that M2 and M3 are components of our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. Several points are worth considering: China's trade data is highly volatile, and a smoothed version of nominal import growth is behaving exactly as the Li Keqiang index suggests that it should (Chart 2). In addition, while import growth significantly missed the street's expectations, negative surprises of this magnitude have frequently occurred in the past (Chart 3). Chart 2Despite A Weak December, ##br##Smoothed Nominal Imports Look As They Should Chart 3Negative Import Surprises ##br##Are Fairly Common Money supply measures form just one-third of our Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and the other factors aren't nearly as negative as these measures imply. Chart 4 illustrates that the indicator would be considerably higher if M2 and M3 were excluded, and that the overall indicator is not falling at a sharp or aggressive pace. Even though we did not include it in our composite indicator, we noted in our November 30 Special Report that the manufacturing PMI is an important signal for the Chinese economy, so it is encouraging that it ticked higher. While 51.5 may not seem like an elevated reading when compared with developed economies, it ranks in the 91st percentile of the data since mid-2011. Export growth remained buoyant, which will provide the industrial sector with some reflationary offset. We noted in a previous report that strong export growth would likely decelerate and converge to global industrial production growth over the coming year,2 but a regression-based approach to modelling Chinese export growth suggests that it may stay strong if leading indicators of global economic activity remain robust (Chart 5). Chart 4Severely Weak Money Measures ##br##Are In Contrast To Other Indicators Chart 5Chinese Export Growth ##br##May Stay Strong Bottom Line: December's money and trade data releases were not positive, but they do not likely herald a more aggressive economic slowdown than our base case view would suggest. Some Approaches To Gauging The Stance Of Chinese Monetary Policy While we do not regard December's economic data as a deviation from our base case view, that view does acknowledge that a gradual, controlled slowdown is occurring. There are two drivers of this ongoing economic slowdown. The first is the past imposition of "supply side" constraints on some industrial sectors, which have been part of the government's efforts to cut excess capacity and reduce pollution. For example, we noted in our October 5 Special Report that coal, base metals and cement producers have chronically underperformed in recent years, and have also hurt the overall performance of the industrial sector.3 Similarly, capital spending in the mining sector, historically highly sensitive to moves in global metals prices, have continued to contract, despite the sharp increase in metals prices since 2016 (Chart 6). The more obvious catalyst for a slowdown in the economy is, however, the tightening in monetary policy that began in late-2016. We have strongly emphasized the importance of monetary conditions in our approach to tracking the end of China's mini-cycle, and part of the tightening in these conditions can be linked to the end of material RMB depreciation. But a variety of interest rates have also increased substantially over the past year, which has been worrying to some investors. These concerns have been magnified recently by quite a bit of hawkish rhetoric from the PBOC, including an ultimately retracted statement from a leading PBOC researcher last week that stronger economic conditions have created enough room for a hike in the benchmark one-year lending rate. The current environment naturally raises the question of what would constitute tight policy in China. Chart 7 presents two conventional methods of answering this question, both of which aim to compare the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate to a fair, neutral, or equilibrium level. The first method uses a Taylor Rule approach with the IMF's output gap, headline consumer price inflation, and the IMF's assumptions of a 6% nominal equilibrium interest rate and a 3% headline inflation target.4 The second method simply compares the benchmark lending rate to that prescribed by our BCA China Interest Rate Model, which is a proprietary indicator based on China's growth momentum relative to its recent average, Chinese inflation, U.S. interest rates, and the CNY/USD exchange rate. Chart 6Policy Constraints Weigh Heavily On ##br##Some Sectors Chart 7Conventional Methods Say The Benchmark##br## Lending Rate Should Rise... At first blush, Chart 7 seems to imply that a significant increase in the benchmark 1-year policy lending rate is warranted. But these approaches ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year, in some cases materially. A comprehensive understanding of the framework and mechanics of China's new monetary policy era is still elusive to many investors, and is an area of ongoing research at BCA. But for now, it is important to note that the benchmark lending rate merely acts as a reference point for Chinese banks when determining the actual interest rate charged on new loans. Chart 8 highlights that the percentage of loans issued above the benchmark rate correlates strongly with, and is led by, the 3-month interbank lending rate. Given the significant increase in 3-month SHIBOR over the past year, it is not surprising that China's weighted average lending rate has recently been increasing, even though the benchmark rate has remained constant. The rise in the average lending rate has so far been moderate, with our Q4 estimate showing only a 35% cumulative retracement of the 180bps decline that occurred from 2014 - 2016. But Chart 9 illustrates what would likely occur to the average lending rate if the PBOC were to hike the benchmark rate by 50bps over the coming year, based on two different scenarios: 1) an unchanged 3-month SHIBOR rate, and 2) a 50bps rise in 3-month SHIBOR (i.e. a parallel shift with the benchmark rate). The chart makes it clear that such a move would push average lending rates above the midpoint of the 2014-2016 range, which from our perspective is a reasonable estimate of the threshold between easy and tight monetary policy. Chart 8...But This Ignores The Recent Rise##br## In Market-Based Interest Rates Chart 9Even Modest Hikes To The Benchmark Rate ##br##Will Create Tight Policy A rise into tight monetary policy territory would be exacerbated even further if the 3-month SHIBOR rate rose disproportionately to any increase in the benchmark rate, which is not a trivial risk given the extent of their rise since late-2016. In short, given that China's economy is already slowing, this analysis underscores that any meaningful increases to the benchmark rate are likely unwarranted, and would be greeted negatively by global investors were they to occur. Bottom Line: Conventional methods of gauging the tightness of China's monetary policy stance tend to ignore the fact that market-based interest rates have already increased over the past year. Meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate are therefore unwarranted barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum. Monetary Policy And Investment Strategy We presented a "decision tree" for Chinese stocks in our January 4 Weekly Report,5 and noted that signs of significant further tightening of monetary policy should be met with a downgrade bias towards Chinese equities. We argued that the "bark" of monetary authorities would be worse than their "bite" over the coming several months, given that growth momentum and house price appreciation has already peaked. Recent market performance suggests that global investors agree with our assessment that the PBOC will refrain from any meaningful increases to the benchmark lending rate, and that any further rise in the average lending rate will be modest. Chart 10 shows that while the performance of Chinese investable ex-tech stocks versus global ex-tech did challenge its 200-day moving average in mid-December, the selloff has been completely reversed over the past month. In addition, Chart 11 shows that bottom-up 12-month forward EPS growth expectations remain solid and net earnings revisions remain close to a seven-year high, suggesting that there is no imminent fundamental basis for a major decline in Chinese investable equity prices. Chart 10Investors Aren't Worried##br## By The Specter Of Tight Policy Chart 11There Is Fundamental Support ##br##For Chinese Stocks Accordingly, while further monetary policy tightening remains a risk to be monitored over the course of the year, our "decision tree" framework continues to suggest that investors should be overweight Chinese stocks. We regard this as a recommendation to be cautiously bullish, a stance that we will be continually evaluating over the course of the year as more information about the risk factors that we have identified presents itself. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Despite several identifiable risk factors, investors should remain overweight Chinese investable stocks versus the emerging market and global benchmark. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 IMF Country Report No. 17/247, People's Republic of China : 2017 Article IV Consultation, August 8, 2017. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The "Decision Tree" For Chinese Stocks", dated January 4, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Controversial gaffes aside, President Trump has started 2018 by moving to the middle; This comes at a time when animal spirits are reawakening thanks to tax cuts; And the path of least resistance for fiscal policy points towards more profligacy; Meanwhile, Chinese growth is imperiled by structural reform efforts; With money growth and import data showing signs of stress; The combination of upside growth risks in the U.S. and downside growth risks in the rest of the world should revive the U.S. dollar and threaten EM performance in 2018. Feature In just the first two weeks of 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump has: Hosted a meeting on immigration policy with Republican and Democratic leaders during which he said that the upcoming legislation should be a "bill of love," while encouraging congressional leaders to think big and pursue comprehensive immigration reform; Claimed that he has a "very good relationship" with Kim Jong-Un, while refusing to deny that he has already spoken privately with the North Korean leader; Supported bringing back "earmarks" in order to grease the wheels of bipartisanship in Congress - i.e., new spending that allocates funds to specific projects; Extended sanction relief to Iran, albeit with the caveat that it would be the last time he does so without demanding modifications to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the Iran nuclear deal); Broken with his former chief political strategist Steve Bannon - dubbing him "Sloppy Steve" in the process - while disparaging Bannon's penchant for scorched-earth tactics.1 On the whole, Trump's actions in January suggest a move towards the political center. Meanwhile, the media and political opponents continue to dwell on Trump's alleged comments where he disparaged immigrants from certain countries, obscuring the subtle shift in political strategy. What would be the reason for a Trump shift to the middle? As we wrote last week, the Pocketbook Voter Theory in political science suggests that Trump's Republican Party should be benefiting from a surge in popular support amid strong economic data and record-setting market performance.2 However, the 2018 generic congressional ballot still points to a very challenging midterm election for the Republican Party (Chart 1). Trump has two choices. First, he can ignore the poor GOP polling, as well as his own (Chart 2) in the face of stellar economic performance, and plow into an electoral disaster. This would make him the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. As we wrote in December, this choice is a serious market risk for investors.3 Lame duck presidents have often sought relevancy abroad, given the lack of constitutional constraints to executive action in the foreign policy realm. In the case of Trump, we could think of three avenues by which he might increase geopolitical risk premiums: Protectionist policies towards China, the abrogation of NAFTA, or military tensions with Iran. Chart 1History Favors The Opposition Chart 2Trump Is Extraordinarily Unpopular The second option for President Trump is to move to the middle ahead of the midterms. This would be unexpected in every way other than that Trump is the master of the unexpected. We happen to agree with his supporters that he is a political genius. Unless, that is, he continues to waste an extraordinary bull market, strong economy, and soaring consumer/business confidence by refusing to woo the median voter. What would a shift towards the center mean for the equity market? First, the already low probability that domestic political intrigue will upend the ongoing rally would get even lower in a world where Trump moves to the center. Second, the risk of market-moving geopolitical risks prompted by White House policy would decline as Trump would presumably seek and follow the advice of his establishment advisers. In other words, it would be pure nectar for the already buoyant markets. This is not to say that there would not still be reason for a pullback in U.S. equities. The bull-bear ratio is dangerously high (Chart 3), and consumer confidence is ominously stretched (Chart 4). Chart 3Investor Bullishness Is At Record High... Chart 4...And So Is Consumer Confidence U.S.: Business Owners Are Republican While some of our clients in the financial community may fret about Trump's unorthodoxy, our clients in the corporate world clearly do not. This is not merely an offhand observation, it is an empirical fact (Chart 5). America's business leaders have given President Trump the benefit of the doubt since he was elected. Bill Dunkelberg, the Chief Economist of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which publishes the Small Business Optimism survey, went on to comment this month: "we've been doing this research for nearly half a century ... and I've never seen anything like 2017 ... The 2016 election was like a dam breaking."4 It is dangerous, therefore, to be overly mathematical about U.S. growth prospects in 2017. While we agree with our colleague Peter Berezin that, on face value, the strict growth impact of the tax cuts may merely add 0.3% of GDP growth in 2018, the qualitative impact of unleashing animal spirits is incalculable.5 The risk to growth in the U.S. is therefore very much tilted to the upside. First, as we discussed in a Special Report published with our U.S. Equity Strategy colleague Chris Bowes, a crucial, yet under-reported change in the corporate tax bill allows the immediate expensing of capital investment.6 Most market observers have overlooked this part of the legislation as it is simply a shift in the "time value of money." The IRS already allows significantly accelerated depreciation of capex; this reform merely brings it forward. Our analysis, however, suggests that the impact of bringing it forward could, at the margin, change spending behavior for firms and drive the next upleg in capex. This comes at a time when the prospects for business investment are already positive (Chart 6).7 Chart 5Business Owners Are Depressed When##br## Democrats Control The White House Chart 6Animal Spirits Will ##br##Spur CAPEX Second, investors are underestimating the probability that the current budget impasse - which could lead to a government shutdown in late January - gets resolved through more, not less, federal spending. Trump surprised legislators during a meeting on immigration when he offered his support for "earmarks" - i.e., legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks were done away with in 2011 by the GOP following the Tea Party-inspired 2010 midterm victory, but they have crept back into the discussion through different guises (Chart 7). Chart 7Pork-Barrel Prohibition Is Ending The timing of Trump's statement on earmarks is interesting as the House Rules Committee is holding public hearings on the originally GOP-instituted earmark ban. In fact, the 115th Congress (the current one) almost reinstated earmarks at the beginning of 2017, only to be held back by House Speaker Paul Ryan and the newly elected White House. In January 2017, Ryan and the White House agreed that it would be unseemly to approve "pork barreling" so quickly after the election of a man who promised to "drain the swamp." Apparently, a year later, the appropriate amount of time has passed to make the move okay! What about the fears that the budget deficit is unsustainable? Investors may be fretting about a problem that does not exist (at least not yet). Chart 8 shows that budget deficits have decreased in almost every case ahead of a recession by 1.16% on average in the eight quarters before a downturn. This is because revenues are very important in determining deficit dynamics. Only just before the recession hits, as growth slows, does the deficit start to flatline or expand. If the risk to the U.S. economy is to the upside, as we believe it is, then deficits will come down regardless of tax or spending policy. Chart 8The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet Fiscal policy rhetoric may alone be far more important to the equity, bond, and currency markets than the market is currently pricing. Talk of draconian spending cuts - remember the May 2017 White House budget? Anyone? - could very quickly be replaced with an appropriation bill in late January that combines higher defense spending with higher discretionary spending. Given the current low levels of discretionary spending (Chart 9), the move towards greater spending could be sizeable and surprising. And if earmarks make a comeback, look out! Chart 9Government Spending Is Bottoming Chart 10Global Economy Is Firing On All Cylinders This fiscal fuel is coming when the fire of the U.S. economy is already well lit. Yes, global growth is strong (Chart 10), but U.S. growth is likely to beat it in 2018 (Chart 11). The global and U.S. economy may diverge just as the BCA's two-factor 10-year Treasury yield model is showing that U.S. long-dated bonds are expensive (Chart 12), while dollar bearishness is overcrowded (Chart 13). Chart 11U.S. May Outperform Global Growth Chart 12More Room For Yields To Rise Chart 13The Dollar Will Be Great Again Bottom Line: Tax cuts will unleash animal spirits in the U.S. in 2018. Meanwhile, the political path of least resistance on fiscal policy is towards profligacy. Fade any talk of austerity or entitlement reform, earmarks are back! A combination of easy fiscal policy and tax cuts should be good for equity markets, bad for Treasuries, and good for the greenback in 2018. Technical indicators flag some near-term risks to the dollar, but over the course of the year, our assessment is that it will hold at current levels or rally. China: Reform Reboot Is Growth-Constraining Unlike the U.S. economy, where risks lie to the upside, China is our top candidate for growth disappointments in 2018. Premier Li Keqiang has announced that China's GDP grew by 6.9% in 2017, slightly above expectations at the beginning of the year. However, growth momentum is already slowing due to cyclical factors, the waning of fiscal and credit stimulus, and the government's financial tightening measures that were implemented over the past year (Chart 14). Chinese imports are what really matter from a global macro perspective, and the latest import data suggest that the domestic economy is slowing more abruptly than expected. Import growth fell sharply to 5% year-on-year in December and 0.46% month-on-month. Import volume growth fell from 27.1% in early 2017 to 9.3% in December (Chart 15). Chart 14Chinese Economy: Weakness Ahead Chart 15What Happens In China, Does Not Stay In China Policy changes are highly likely to add to this slowdown. There can no longer be much doubt about the reformist turn in government policy that we highlighted last year.8 All of the policy announcements that came out of the nineteenth National Party Congress in October so far have had a reformist bent. The market agrees, as the sectors of the equity market most likely to benefit from reforms - health care, IT, energy and consumer staples - have outperformed the broad market significantly since President Xi's five-year policy speech on October 18, 2017 (Chart 16). Two separate news items that caused market jitters over the past week reflect the reformist turn. First came unconfirmed rumors that China would make its exchange rate more flexible by abandoning a "counter-cyclical factor" in its daily fixing rate; second came a "fake news" report that China planned to diversify its foreign exchange reserves away from U.S. Treasuries (Chart 17). The rumors were not significant in themselves, at least not without more information, but they were significant in suggesting that debates on major macro policies are intensifying.9 The question is how much resolve will China's central government have in executing its renewed reform agenda? President Xi obviously does not want to self-impose a recession, yet meaningful reform will constrain credit, investment, and growth. For instance, the current financial regulatory crackdown has caused a precipitous drop in the growth of wealth management products (WMPs), which are investment products that make up about 60% of the burgeoning non-bank credit flows; non-bank credit, for its part, makes up 28% of total credit (total social financing). And regulators have gone on to tackle entrusted loans, corporate bonds, and other innovative financial products as well (Chart 18). The impact could be material over the course of this year. Chart 16Markets Believe In China Reforms Chart 17Chinese Treasury Reserves Can Be Weaponized Chart 18China's Dodd-Frank Moment We strongly urge clients to fade the narrative that China is already "easing up" on reforms. In the three months since China's party congress we have seen a handful of false media narratives about how the government is backtracking on its policy agenda. For instance, both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times declared that the outcome of the major annual economic policymaking meeting - the Central Economic Work Conference - included a turn away from deleveraging. This was not only a misreading of the high-level policy priorities but also a mistranslation of the Economic Work Conference documents, which argued that deleveraging remains a key policy focus.10 It would be humiliating for President Xi - who, not incidentally, has achieved Mao-like authority within the Communist Party - to backtrack on his second-term economic agenda before he has even officially been elected to his second term. Xi will be re-elected in March and he is looking at 2020-21 deadlines for progress on key reforms according to the thirteenth Five Year Plan (2015-20) and his own three-year plan to fight the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, poverty, and pollution. The only way to meet these deadlines while ensuring that the country is strong and stable for the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021 is to frontload the reform push in 2018-19.11 In Table 1 we update our "Reform Reboot Checklist" to reflect the reality that the Central Economic Work Conference produced a strikingly reform-oriented outcome. This is significant because it was billed as the first major statement of economic policy under "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era." Table 1How Do We Know China Is Reforming? The money growth (M2) target for 2018, for instance, is rumored to be the lowest in China's history after that meeting (supposedly it will be 9%, down from the low- to mid-teens seen in previous years). Now all we need to confirm that serious reforms are afoot is slower bank loan growth (which will likely be tipped in January numbers due in early February), or substantially tighter interbank rates, plus the announcement of significant reform initiatives at the annual "Two Sessions" in early March. It is very common in China for central government decrees to be too draconian initially and then to be modified after an outcry from industry. This year, however, we would advise clients to avoid confusing the inevitable back-and-forth between the central and local governments for a lack of resolve from the central government.12 China's bark will have bite this time around because the political and macroeconomic constraints to the core leadership are lower than they have been at any point in the past ten years. Table 2 shows the issues that we are watching to gauge the reform process and its impact on growth. In light of the above initiatives, we give a 30% subjective probability that China's policymakers will overtighten this year, which could lead to a global risk-off move in financial assets. Table 2China Is Rebooting Economic Reforms Even in our baseline case - China slows abruptly but remains stable - we believe financial markets have yet to understand the shift in Chinese policymaker thinking, which means that China is the prime candidate for negative surprises in a year in which markets are priced for perfection. Chart 19China's Trade Surplus Is A Geopolitical Risk Finally, China is still a major geopolitical risk this year. It scored the largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in 2017 (Chart 19) and several key U.S. trade rulings are looming that could trigger a tit-for-tat conflict. This was, of course, the real reason behind the rumors about halting U.S. Treasury purchases. We will discuss the trade and geopolitical tensions in a forthcoming report. Bottom Line: China's reform reboot is gaining steam. It will threaten to constrain growth via the anti-corruption campaign, financial and regulatory tightening, corporate and industrial restructuring, and local government scrutiny. In combination with a stronger U.S. economy, China's downward-sloping business cycle and reform-capable political cycle spell disappointments for global markets this year. Investment Implications A faster growing U.S. economy and a slower growing China is beneficial for DM versus EM, the USD versus the RMB and other EM and commodity-linked currencies, U.S. stocks relative to DM stocks (because China's slower growth will weigh on Japanese and European earnings), and Chinese stocks relative to EM. It is bearish for China/EM corporate bonds. It will have varying impacts on commodity prices, depending on the role of Chinese supply-side reforms, but in the long term - as overcapacity cuts are priced in - it should be marginally bearish base metals as a result of China's desired switch of the growth model to a less investment-intensive model.13 Could stronger U.S. growth compensate for slower Chinese growth? We doubt it very much. China is alone expected to make up a third of all global economic growth in 2018, with China-leveraged EM making up the other 45%, according to the latest IMF World Economic Outlook (Chart 20). It is unfathomable to see how the U.S., which is expected to contribute just 10% of all growth, can compensate for slower growth in developing nations. Even if U.S. growth massively surprised to the upside, the U.S. economy is far too domestically driven to make a genuine difference through higher imports. Chart 20Chinese Growth Outweighs U.S. Globally As for the U.S. economy and markets, a global slowdown may be precisely what the doctor ordered. With stretched valuations, a foreign-induced correction may be healthy from a valuation perspective while having no impact on domestic economic fundamentals. Meanwhile, a dollar rally combined with some market volatility later in the year may be enough to give the Fed just enough pause to slow down the pace of hikes. Technical indicators are flagging some near-term risks to the dollar, but over the course of the year our assessment is that it will hold at current levels or rally. While this is not our base case, it would be the type of event that could prolong the current economic cycle. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 In his official statement on the break with Mr. Bannon, President Trump concluded with an important paragraph: "We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down." The statement was important as it aligned President Trump firmly with Congressional Republicans in their opposition to the Bannon/Breitbart Clique. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The American Pocketbook Voter," dated January 10, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see NFIB, "December 2017 Report: Small Business Optimism Index," dated December 12, 2017, available at www.nfib.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Four Key Questions On The 2018 Global Growth Outlook," dated January 5, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Equity Sector Implications," dated December 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The biggest pushback against our view comes from the oft-repeated anecdote of a meeting between Gary Cohn, the Director of the National Economic Council, and American business leaders. Apparently, when Cohn asked the attendees how many would invest if their corporate taxes were cut, only one executive raised their hand. We have now heard this anecdote repeated to us so many times by clients that it has become clear that it is essentially the only evidence that U.S. corporations have no intention of increasing capex. Needless to say, we do not base our analysis on a single anecdote! 8 For this theme, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "China Down, India Up?" dated March 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The change to the RMB fixing method is not confirmed, while the rumor of a change in the forex reserve portfolio management came from an unreliable media report that was denied by China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE). China's purchases of U.S. Treasuries peaked in 2011; China would harm itself if it sold its Treasuries rapidly. However, it may want to highlight this threat in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of broad tariffs on Chinese imports. 10 The official communique from the 2017 Central Economic Work Conference did not specifically use the term "deleveraging," as in the 2015 and 2016 statements. This omission triggered U.S. news reports claiming that Beijing was backing off its deleveraging goal. However, the 2017 communique clearly emphasized preventing financial risk, including the first of the administration's "three battles" for the next three years. It also indirectly referred to "deleveraging" by citing the "Three De's, One Lower, and One Make Up," which is shorthand for the policy phrase "De-capacity, de-stocking, deleveraging, lowering costs and making up for weaknesses," which has been a fixture in rhetoric on China's supply-side reforms. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 For instance, the central government is facing pushback on new asset management regulations that are set to be fully in force by June 2019. While there may be some compromise, we do not expect the regulations themselves to be watered down too much. 13 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore," dated January 11, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com; and BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: Economic fundamentals indicate that U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher on a 6-12 month horizon. In the near term, however, positioning data suggest that the uptrend in U.S. bond yields is due for a pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Oil & U.S. Bonds: The cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of U.S. bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. This will continue to be true until long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. At that point the oil price will become a less important driver of U.S. bond yields. Australia: Maintain an overweight position in Australian government debt. Economic data are still mixed and the RBA will stay on hold for the foreseeable future. Against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes, Australian debt should outperform. Feature Chart of the WeekHigher Yields, Driven By Inflation There was certainly no shortage of possible catalysts for last week's bond rout (Chart of the Week). The Bank of Japan (BoJ) reduced its buying of long-dated JGBs, there was a rumor that China plans to slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt, and U.S. inflation expectations started to ramp back up - driven by a combination of higher oil prices and a strong December core CPI print. But of all these factors we think it is only the third that merits much attention. Once the BoJ started targeting the level of the yield curve in September 2016, its quantity targets became irrelevant. A reduction in the pace of BoJ buying only matters if it foreshadows a shift to a higher yield curve target. Our foreign exchange strategists don't think such a move is likely in the next 12-18 months.1 China, for its part, still has a highly managed currency and now that capital is no longer flowing out of the country it will start to rebuild its foreign exchange reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States (Chart 2). The compensation for 10-year U.S. inflation protection broke above 2% last week, after having been as low as 1.66% as recently as last June. This 34 basis point increase in inflation compensation coincided with a 36 basis point increase in the nominal U.S. 10-year yield and a Brent crude oil price that rose from $45 per barrel last June to $70 per barrel as of last Friday. We think these correlations will continue to be the most important factors driving bond yields during the next 6-12 months, and the bulk of this report is dedicated to disentangling the linkages between oil prices, inflation, inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. But first we reiterate our cyclical investment stance. Last week's U.S. CPI report provided further evidence that U.S. core inflation is in the process of bottoming-out (Chart 3). The 10-year U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rate will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's target. By that time the nominal 10-year yield will be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. Likewise, our energy strategists anticipate that an ongoing steady decline in commercial inventories will keep crude prices well supported on a 6-12 month horizon. Chart 2China's Forex Reserves Are Rising Chart 3U.S. Inflation Turns The Corner However, on a shorter time horizon (3 months or less), recent shifts in speculative positioning signal that the uptrends in bond yields and the oil price might be due for a pause (Chart 4). After having been solidly "net long" since the middle of last year, net speculative positions in the 10-year U.S. Treasury futures contract have just dipped into "net short" territory. Historically, net speculative positions have been a decent indicator of 3-month changes in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, and at current levels they signal that the 10-year yield could decline modestly during the next three months (Chart 5). Similarly, speculators in the oil futures market are now more "net long" than at any time since last February. While this positioning indicator does not work quite as well for the oil market as for the Treasury market, net longs at more than 20% of open interest (most recent reading is 26%) have more often than not been met with 3-month price declines since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 4Net Speculative Positioning##BR##For Oil And Bonds Chart 5Net Speculative Positions &##BR##10-Year Treasury Yield (2010 - Present) Chart 6Net Speculative Positions &##BR##WTI Oil Price (2010 - Present) Bottom Line: The outlook for U.S. inflation suggests that TIPS breakeven rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher. However, positioning data in both bond and oil markets suggest that the recent run-up in yields might be due for a near-term pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. Oil, TIPS, Inflation And U.S. Bond Yields: Sorting Out The Mess During the post-financial crisis period two relationships have been both (i) incredibly robust and (ii) unlike relationships observed in prior periods. They are: The cost of inflation protection has been an unusually important determinant of nominal U.S. bond yields. The oil price has shown a very strong correlation with the cost of inflation protection. Both relationships can be explained by the Federal Reserve's asymmetric ability to control inflation. We consider each relationship in turn. The Importance Of Inflation Chart 7TIPS Beta Declines When##BR##Breakevens Are Low A common rule of thumb is to estimate the TIPS beta - the proportion of movement in U.S. nominal bond yields that is explained by movement in TIPS (real) yields - at around 0.8. In other words, this assumes that 80% of the movement in nominal bond yields is explained by the real component. However, we observe that since the financial crisis the 10-year TIPS beta has been a much lower 0.68, and at times it has been closer to 0.5 on a 12-month rolling basis (Chart 7). We also observe that the TIPS beta tends to be lower when TIPS breakeven inflation rates are un-anchored to the downside. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that the Fed's ability to influence inflation is asymmetric. The Fed has a strong track record of successfully tightening to bring inflation down, but has been less successful at easing to drive it up. This asymmetric ability to influence prices is due in no small part to the zero-lower bound on interest rates. Because the Fed's ability to ease policy is constrained while its ability to tighten is not, bond market participants may at times question the Fed's ability to ease and revise their inflation expectations lower. It is also during these periods that inflation expectations become more volatile and a more important determinant of nominal bond yields. This is because they are increasingly driven by the swings in the economic data and less by the Fed's policy bias. The Importance Of Oil This is where the oil price comes in. Oil and other commodities are crucial inputs to the production process. As such, not only do these prices rise in response to stronger aggregate demand, but higher prices also signal mounting cost-push inflationary pressures. But despite this obvious truth, there is not always a strong correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations. This is because the Fed's reaction function influences the relationship. Consider the pre-crisis (2004-2008) period. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates stayed range-bound between 2.4% and 2.5% even as the oil price increased dramatically (Chart 8). Since investors perceived that the Fed would simply tighten policy to tamp out any inflationary pressures that might arise, there was no desire to demand greater compensation for inflation. However, this logic does not work in reverse. When commodity prices fell in 2014, inflation expectations declined alongside. In fact we observe that the correlations between long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates and both oil and commodity prices have been much stronger in the post-crisis period, when inflation expectations have been un-anchored (Table 1). Chart 8The Unstable Correlation: Breakevens & Oil Table 1Correlations Between TIPS Breakeven Inflation & Commodities Investment Conclusions The Fed's asymmetric reaction function leads to two crucial investment conclusions. First, long-maturity inflation expectations (as measured by the U.S. TIPS breakeven inflation rate) can fall when deflationary pressures mount, but their upside is capped in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. This is because the market has no reason to question the Fed's ability to lower inflation by lifting rates. The upside limit of 2.4% to 2.5% will remain in place unless the Fed changes its inflation target. A change to the inflation target that allows for higher inflation is an idea that is quickly gaining traction among policymakers, but is unlikely to be implemented this year. Second, when long-maturity inflation expectations are below their 2.4% to 2.5% upper-bound they become both (i) a more important driver of nominal yields - as evidenced by the lower TIPS beta - and (ii) more sensitive to swings in commodity prices. For this reason, the oil price will continue to be an important driver of inflation expectations and nominal U.S. bond yields for the next few months, but will decrease in importance as TIPS breakevens move back to their 2.4% to 2.5% range. Once inflation expectations are re-anchored, nominal bond yields will once again be predominantly driven by the real component and swings in the price of oil will be less important for bond markets. The dynamics described above are not merely theoretical. Consider the evidence from five developed countries presented in Charts 9 & 10. Chart 9 shows that the oil price is tightly correlated with inflation expectations in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan, but also that inflation expectations in the U.K. and Australia did not respond to the recent increase in oil prices. The reason is that core inflation in the U.K. and Australia is already relatively close to the central bank's target (Chart 10). It is only where core inflation is far below target (in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan) that the oil price remains an important driver of bond yields. Chart 9Oil & Inflation Expectations Highly Correlated... Chart 10...But Only When Inflation Is Low The U.K. in particular presents an interesting case study. U.K. core inflation was quite far below target throughout 2015 and 2016, and during this time period U.K. inflation expectations were tightly linked with the oil price. It is only in the past few months that U.K. core inflation has moved back above target, and not surprisingly the correlation between the U.K. 10-year CPI swap rate and the price of oil has started to break down. Bottom Line: At present, the cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of U.S. bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. Both of these dynamics will continue to be true for the next few months, but will decline in importance as TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. When long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, then the oil price will become a less important driver of U.S. bond yields. Australia: Too Soon To Expect A Hike Chart 11Australia: A Solid Rebound In Growth... Over the last quarter much of the economic data from Australia have improved. Real GDP growth rebounded sharply to 2.8% YoY in Q3 from 1.9% the previous quarter (Chart 11). Iron ore prices have been rising since mid-October. Employment growth is robust and the unemployment rate is well below its estimated natural level. This begs the question - with so much going right is it time for the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to lift rates? Our answer is an emphatic "no." First, most data improvements have been relatively minor and the overall economic picture remains mixed. As we mentioned in our recent Special Report,2 the RBA is stuck between conflicting forces. Booming house prices and rising household indebtedness on the one hand, and an economy still working off excess capacity on the other. Nevertheless, our expectation is that the RBA will allow the economy to recover further for the following reasons: Consumer health is fragile. Policymakers left cash rates unchanged at the last monetary policy meeting in December, and Governor Philip Lowe expressed concerns about household consumption. Consumption is a significant driver of economic growth and the combination of declining savings, elevated debt levels and weak income growth is worrisome (Chart 12). Since then, real income growth has dipped back into positive territory, but only barely so. Meanwhile, house prices are still surging, despite macro-prudential measures aimed at tightening lending standards, thereby supporting consumer spending through the wealth effect. Given an extreme household debt to income ratio, consumption would be very vulnerable if the RBA were to curb house price gains by raising rates. Labors markets have plenty of slack. The unemployment rate has fallen to a four year low and other labor market statistics show a broad-based improvement over the last quarter. However, the unemployment rate is still significantly higher than it was in the previous cycle and other improvements in the labor market have also occurred from extremely weak levels. In 2017Q1, the underemployment rate and part-time workers as a percentage of total workers both reached all-time highs. Those numbers have dipped slightly in Q3, with underemployment falling to 8.3% and part-time workers as a percentage of total declining to 31.7%, but those elevated levels suggest there still needs to be significant improvement before spare capacity is worked off and real wage growth starts to move higher (Chart 13). Chart 12...But Consumers Can't Afford A Rate Hike Chart 13Still Plenty Of Slack In Australian Labor Markets Inflation is still too low. Headline and core inflation readings came in at 1.8% and 1.9% respectively in Q3 (Chart 14). While headline slowed, core inflation recovered over the last quarter. Tradeable goods inflation collapsed into negative territory at -0.9%, as a result of currency strength and increased competition among retailers. Going forward, we expect consumer price growth to be muted given the lack of inflationary pressures. The output gap is wide, despite rebounding growth, and the IMF forecasts that it will be years before the Australian economy reaches capacity. The trade-weighted Aussie dollar index has risen almost 5% since it bottomed in early December, while the AUD/USD has broken above its 40-week moving average. Continued currency strength would exert even further deflationary pressure. As stated above, the labor market also requires significant improvement to work off excess capacity. All of these factors caused the RBA to dial back its inflation forecast in the November statement. It now expects that inflation will remain quite flat for the next two years, only touching the lower-end of its 2%-3% target range at the end of 2019. Consequently, inflation will not be forcing the RBA's hand in the foreseeable future. One of our key themes for 2018 is that global growth will be less synchronized. Central banks will therefore employ diverging monetary policies, presenting cross-country bond market investment opportunities. As such, we recently shifted to a slight overweight position in Australian debt within our model portfolio, arguing that it would outperform global government bond benchmarks during a year expected to be driven by Fed tightening and ECB/BoJ tapering concerns. Historically, relative yield moves have closely tracked relative shifts in monetary policy (Chart 15). In the U.S., above-trend growth, a tight labor market and the continued recovery in inflation will force the Fed to become more aggressive. If the RBA stays inactive as we expect, then this gap should continue to move in favor of Australian debt. Additionally, there is still a modest yield pickup in Australian debt relative to the global index and as we expect global bond yields to rise, low-beta Australian government bonds should offer considerable protection. Chart 14Australia: Lacking Inflationary Pressures Chart 15Australian Relative Yields Track Relative Policy This also leads us to continue holding our tactical Long Dec 2018 Australian Bank Bill futures trade from last October. We initially entered into this trade as a more focused way of expressing that the RBA will stay on hold. The trade is currently 6 bps in the money and with markets still pricing about 30 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, there is plenty of room for further profit as market expectations are revised down. Bottom Line: Maintain an overweight position in Australian government debt. Economic data are still mixed and the RBA will stay on hold for the foreseeable future. Against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes, Australian debt should outperform. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Stuck Between A Rock And A Hard Place", dated July 25, 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

Highlights Duration: Economic fundamentals indicate that TIPS breakeven inflation rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher on a 6-12 month horizon. In the near term, however, positioning data suggest that the uptrend in bond yields is due for a pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Oil & Bonds: The cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. This will continue to be true until long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. At that point the oil price will become a less important driver of yields. Fed: The Fed will start actively discussing alternative monetary policy frameworks in 2018. While we think the Fed will eventually adopt a policy framework that tolerates higher inflation, this shift probably won't occur this year. Feature There was certainly no shortage of possible catalysts for last week's bond rout (Chart 1). The Bank of Japan (BoJ) reduced its buying of long-dated JGBs, there was a rumor that China plans to slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt, and U.S. inflation expectations started to ramp back up - driven by a combination of higher oil prices and a strong December core CPI print. But of all these factors we think it is only the third that merits much attention. Once the BoJ started targeting the level of the yield curve in September 2016 its quantity targets became irrelevant. A reduction in the pace of BoJ buying only matters if it foreshadows a shift to a higher yield curve target. Our foreign exchange strategists don't think such a move is likely in the next 12-18 months.1 China, for its part, still has a highly managed currency and now that capital is no longer flowing out of the country it will start to rebuild its foreign exchange reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States (Chart 2). Chart 1Higher Yields, Driven By Inflation Chart 2China's Forex Reserves Are Rising The compensation for 10-year U.S. inflation protection broke above 2% last week, after having been as low as 1.66% as recently as last June. This 34 basis point increase in inflation compensation coincided with a 36 basis point increase in the nominal 10-year yield and a Brent crude oil price that rose from $45 per barrel last June to $70 per barrel as of last Friday. We think these correlations will continue to be the most important factors driving bond yields during the next 6-12 months, and the bulk of this report is dedicated to disentangling the linkages between oil prices, inflation, inflation expectations and nominal bond yields. But first we reiterate our cyclical investment stance. Last week's CPI report provided further evidence that core inflation is in the process of bottoming-out (Chart 3). The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that core inflation returns to the Fed's target. By that time the nominal 10-year yield will be in a range between 2.8% and 3.25%. Likewise, our energy strategists anticipate that an ongoing steady decline in commercial inventories will keep crude prices well supported on a 6-12 month horizon. Chart 3U.S. Inflation Turns The Corner Chart 4Net Speculative Positioning For Oil And Bonds However, on a shorter time horizon (3 months or less), recent shifts in speculative positioning signal that the uptrends in bond yields and the oil price might be due for a pause (Chart 4). After having been solidly "net long" since the middle of last year, net speculative positions in the 10-year U.S. Treasury futures contract have just dipped into "net short" territory. Historically, net speculative positions have been a decent indicator of 3-month changes in the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, and at current levels they signal that the 10-year yield could decline modestly during the next three months (Chart 5). Similarly, speculators in the oil futures market are now more "net long" than at any time since last February. While this positioning indicator does not work quite as well for the oil market as for the Treasury market, net longs at more than 20% of open interest (most recent reading is 26%) have more often than not been met with 3-month price declines since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 5Net Speculative Positions & 10-Year Treasury Yield Chart 6Net Speculative Positions & WTI Oil Price Bottom Line: The outlook for U.S. inflation suggests that TIPS breakeven rates have further cyclical upside and this will drive nominal bond yields higher. However, positioning data in both bond and oil markets suggest that the recent run-up in yields might be due for a near-term pause. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. Oil, TIPS, Inflation And Bond Yields: Sorting Out The Mess During the post-financial crisis period two relationships have been both (i) incredibly robust and (ii) unlike relationships observed in prior periods. They are: The cost of inflation protection has been an unusually important determinant of nominal U.S. bond yields The oil price has shown a very strong correlation with the cost of inflation protection Both relationships can be explained by the Federal Reserve's asymmetric ability to control inflation. We consider each relationship in turn. The Importance Of Inflation Chart 7TIPS Beta Declines When ##br##Breakevens Are Low A common rule of thumb is to estimate the TIPS beta - the proportion of movement in U.S. nominal bond yields that is explained by movement in TIPS (real) yields - at around 0.8. In other words, this assumes that 80% of the movement in nominal bond yields is explained by the real component. However, we observe that since the financial crisis the 10-year TIPS beta has been a much lower 0.68, and at times it has been closer to 0.5 on a 12-month rolling basis (Chart 7). We also observe that the TIPS beta tends to be lower when TIPS breakeven inflation rates are un-anchored to the downside. There is a very good reason for this. The reason is that the Fed's ability to influence inflation is asymmetric. The Fed has a strong track record of successfully tightening to bring inflation down, but has been less successful at easing to drive it up. This asymmetric ability to influence prices is due in no small part to the zero-lower bound on interest rates. Because the Fed's ability to cut rates is constrained by the zero-bound while its ability to lift rates is not, bond market participants may at times question the Fed's ability to ease and revise their inflation expectations lower. It is also during these periods that inflation expectations become more volatile and a more important determinant of nominal bond yields. This is because they are increasingly driven by the swings in the economic data and less by the Fed's policy bias. The Importance Of Oil This is where the oil price comes in. Oil and other commodities are crucial inputs to the production process. As such, not only do these prices rise in response to stronger aggregate demand, but higher prices also signal mounting cost-push inflationary pressures. But despite this obvious truth, there is not always a strong correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations. This is because the Fed's reaction function influences the relationship. Consider the pre-crisis (2004-2008) period. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates stayed range-bound between 2.4% and 2.5% even as the oil price increased dramatically (Chart 8). Since investors perceived that the Fed would simply tighten policy to tamp out any inflationary pressures that might arise, there was no desire to demand greater compensation for inflation. However, this logic does not work in reverse. When commodity prices fell in 2014, inflation expectations declined alongside. In fact we observe that the correlations between long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates and both oil and commodity prices have been much stronger in the post-crisis period, when inflation expectations have been un-anchored (Table 1). Chart 8The Unstable Correlation Breakevens & Oil Table 1Correlations Between TIPS Breakeven Inflation And Commodities Investment Conclusions The Fed's asymmetric reaction function leads to two crucial investment conclusions. First, long-maturity inflation expectations (as measured by the TIPS breakeven inflation rate) can fall when deflationary pressures mount, but their upside is capped in the 2.4% to 2.5% range. This is because the market has no reason to question the Fed's ability to lower inflation by lifting rates. The upside limit of 2.4% to 2.5% will remain in place unless the Fed changes its inflation target. A change to the inflation target that allows for higher inflation is an idea that is quickly gaining traction among policymakers, but is unlikely to be implemented this year (see section titled "The Fed In 2018: Contemplating A Major Change" below). Second, when long-maturity inflation expectations are below their 2.4% to 2.5% upper-bound they become both (i) a more important driver of nominal yields - as evidenced by the lower TIPS beta - and (ii) more sensitive to swings in commodity prices. For this reason, the oil price will continue to be an important driver of inflation expectations and nominal bond yields for the next few months, but will decrease in importance as TIPS breakevens move back to their 2.4% to 2.5% range. Once inflation expectations are re-anchored, nominal bond yields will once again be predominantly driven by the real component and swings in the price of oil will be less important for bond markets. The dynamics described above are not merely theoretical. Consider the evidence from five developed countries presented in Charts 9 & 10. Chart 9 shows that the oil price is tightly correlated with inflation expectations in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan, but also that inflation expectations in the U.K. and Australia did not respond to the recent increase in oil prices. The reason is that core inflation in the U.K. and Australia is already relatively close to the central bank's target (Chart 10). It is only where core inflation is far below target (in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan) that the oil price remains an important driver of bond yields. Chart 9Oil & Inflation Expectations Highly Correlated... Chart 10...But Only When Inflation Is Low The U.K. in particular presents an interesting case study. U.K. core inflation was quite far below target throughout 2015 and 2016, and during this time period U.K. inflation expectations were tightly linked with the oil price. It is only in the past few months that U.K. core inflation has moved back above target, and not surprisingly the correlation between the U.K. 10-year CPI swap rate and the price of oil has started to break down. Bottom Line: At present, the cost of inflation compensation is an important driver of bond yields and the oil price is an important driver of the cost of inflation compensation. Both of these dynamics will continue to be true for the next few months, but will decline in importance as TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise. When long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, then the oil price will become a less important driver of bond yields. The Fed In 2018: Contemplating A Major Change? As was alluded to in the prior section, the biggest potential change for bond markets in 2018 would be if the Fed changed its monetary policy framework to one that tolerated higher levels of inflation. For example, let's imagine that the Fed suddenly lifted its inflation target from 2% to 3%. This would likewise shift the upper-bound range for long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to approximately 3.4% to 3.5%. It would mean that nominal bond yields have further upside over the course of the cycle, and also that oil and commodity prices would play an important role in bond markets for much longer. It would also lengthen the period where spread product can outperform Treasuries since the Fed would not be so quick to choke off the recovery. We still think it is unlikely that such a change will be implemented this year, but recent weeks have seen a marked increase in the number of Fed policymakers either advocating for a different policy framework or saying that the Fed should start researching alternative frameworks. What's crucial to remember is that the reason policymakers are unsatisfied with the current 2% inflation target is that it brings the zero-lower bound on interest rates into play too often. So any potential change in policy framework would be to one that tolerates higher inflation rates. Bernanke's Idea Chart 11The Implications Of A Price Level Target One potential new policy approach was put forward by ex-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in a recent blog post.2 Bernanke made the case for "Temporary Price Level Targeting", a policy where the Fed continues to use a 2% inflation target when the fed funds rate is sufficiently far from zero, but then switches to a price-level target when the fed funds rate is close to the zero bound. In his own words, the strategy would be communicated as follows: The Committee therefore agrees that, in future situations in which the funds rate is at or near zero, a necessary condition for raising the funds rate will be that average inflation since the date at which the federal funds rate first hit zero be at least 2 percent. Chart 11 provides an illustration of this example. Under the current framework the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation and forecasts that it will achieve this target sometime in 2019. In Bernanke's proposed framework the Fed would not target 2% inflation, but rather a price level that is consistent with 2% trend growth in prices since the zero-lower bound was hit in December 2008. In order to achieve this goal by the end of 2019 the Fed would need to tolerate a significant overshoot of inflation during the next two years (bottom panel). Who's On Board? The Appendix to this report is a list of all Fed Governors and Regional Fed Presidents. It also shows our own assessment of each committee member's policy bias. We noted from the most recent Summary of Economic Projections that 6 FOMC participants expect three rate hikes in 2018, 6 expect fewer than three rate hikes and 4 expect more than three hikes. From recent speeches we attempted to discern which member owns which forecast and then we attributed a "dovish" policy bias to those with a forecast for fewer than three hikes, a "neutral" bias to those expecting three hikes, and a "hawkish" bias to those expecting more than three hikes. We also show which FOMC participants are voters in 2018, although we do not think that distinction carries much practical importance. The Committee tends to arrive at decisions by consensus anyways, and all participants voice their opinions at every meeting whether or not it is their turn to vote. But it is the "notes" column of the Appendix that is most striking. There we highlighted all the FOMC participants who have recently made comments regarding the exploration of alternative policy frameworks. A general consensus seems to be forming that alternative frameworks should be studied this year, and a few policymakers (San Francisco Fed President John Williams, in particular) have strongly made the case that the Fed should switch to some sort of price level targeting regime. The Appendix also identifies the biggest source of uncertainty for the Fed this year. Namely that there are four vacant Governor positions that need to be filled. The New York Fed will also need a new President when William Dudley retires later this year. Who is nominated to fill those vacant positions will go a long way toward determining how aggressively the Fed pursues alternative policy frameworks. Bottom Line: The Fed will start actively discussing alternative monetary policy frameworks in 2018. While we think the Fed will eventually adopt a policy framework that tolerates higher inflation, this shift probably won't occur this year. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!", dated January 12, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/10/12/temporary-price-level-targeting-an-alternative-framework-for-monetary-policy/ Appendix Table 2Composition Of The FOMC Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

ハイライト コンセンサスは2017年第4四半期の1株当たり利益（EPS）が前年同期比で12%の増加、2018年は14%を見込んでいる。税制改正法案が2018年の営業環境に与える影響は、2017年第4四半期の決算を議論する際に企業経営陣や投資家の注目点となるだろう。 12月の小売売上高とコアCPIの数値は、FRBの3月利上げの理論を後押ししている。 我々は来たる2月のFOMC議長交代は円滑に進むと予想しており、それは金融政策の段階的正常化を確実にするだろう。ただし、連邦準備制度理事会（FRB）の空席、タカ派/ハト派のシフトおよび反対票は懸念事項である。 特集 米国株式は先週も上昇を続け、投資家は世界成長と2018年のS&P 500収益に対する期待を切り上げた。本レポートの次節では2017年第4四半期の決算シーズンのプレビューを提供する。12月のコアCPIが前年比で予想より強い1.8%上昇したことから、インフレの気配も見られた。多くのFRB関係者の発言が相次いだが、市場の見方──次回の利上げは3月会合で行われる──を変えるほどではなかった。今週のレポートの最終節ではFOMCの構成について論じる。10年物米国債利回りは約10ベーシスポイント上昇し、週末は2.56%で終えた。BCAの米国ボンド・ストラテジストは10年物の公正価値を2.94%と見積もっている。1 さらに、2年物米国債利回りは先週金曜日に2008年以来初めて2%に到達した。 S&P 500の業績：2017年第4四半期 コンセンサスは2017年第4四半期のEPSが2016年第4四半期比で12%増加、2018年は15%増を見込んでいる。エネルギー、資本財・素材、そしてテクノロジー株が収益成長を牽引する一方、通信および不動産セクターの収益は伸び悩むだろう。エネルギーセクターを除くと、コンセンサスは2017年第4四半期のEPSが前年比で10%上昇すると見ている。 過去四半期と2018年に関する楽観的な利益見通しは、原油価格の回復を反映しており、原油高は2017年第4四半期のエネルギーセクターEPSを印象的な138%押し上げると予想される（チャート1）。エネルギー関連の設備投資とS&P 500全体の収益は密接に関連している（チャート1、パネル2）。世界成長環境の改善と抑制された労働コストは、2017年第4四半期および2018年初めに利益率のカウンタ―サイクリカルな上昇を引き続き促した。さらに、昨年末に成立したTax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017の直接的効果は、2018年の米国実質GDP成長率を0.2〜0.3ポイント押し上げる可能性が高い。ハリケーン復興支出と連邦裁量的支出の上限引き上げに関する議会の合意が得られれば、今年の成長率にさらに0.2ポイント程度上乗せされる可能性がある。しかし、税制変更や即時の資本償却が企業部門のセンチメントをさらに高め、投資支出を前倒しさせる能力に大きく依存する。 税制改正法案が2018年の営業環境に与える影響は、2017年第4四半期の決算を議論する際に企業経営陣や投資家の関心事となるだろう。具体的には、企業が低い税率の恩恵や海外からの資金還流を通じて現金をどのように活用するかが前面に出るだろう。チャート2は2017年第3四半期までのデータで、株式買戻しと配当が過去の景気循環をやや上回る一方、設備投資はほぼ平均的であったことを示している。BCAはこのミックスを引き続き注視する。欧州と新興市場（EM）での経済状況の改善、米ドル、マージンの持続可能性、そしてハリケーン・ハーベイやイルマの影響は、決算説明会で厳しく検証されるだろう。 Chart 1 S&P 500 Sensitive To Oil Prices##BR##And Oil Driven Capex S&P 500は原油価格および原油主導の設備投資に敏感 S&P 500は原油価格および原油主導の設備投資に敏感 Chart 2 Comparison Of Corporate Outlays##BR##Across Four Economic Expansion Phases 円滑な移行？ 円滑な移行？ アナリストはまた、金利上昇とイールドカーブの形状にも注目するだろう。1月12日に10年物米国債利回りは3月以来の高水準となる2.56%に達した。さらに、2017年第4四半期の10年物利回りは第3四半期比で16ベーシスポイント高く、2016年第4四半期比では26ベーシスポイント高かった。BCAは2年物と10年物のイールドカーブが今後6か月で急勾配化（steepen）し、その後年後半にフラット化すると予想している。カーブと上昇する金利はS&P 500の金融セクターに追い風を与える。BCAのU.S. エクイティ・ストラテジーチームは2017年5月以来、金融セクターをオーバーウェイトで継続している。2 いつものように、2018年第1四半期以降のトレンドに関する経営陣のガイダンスは、実際の第4四半期結果よりも重要である（チャート3）。投資家は経営陣の過度な楽観に警戒すべきだ。というのも収益成長の予想は時間とともに下方修正されることが多いからである。 2017年第4四半期も2017年前3四半期と同様に、海外売上が高い企業は欧州、日本および新興市場での成長改善の恩恵を受けるはずだ。チャート4は高いISM数値が2018年の収益と売上にとって好ましい背景を提供していることを示している。さらに、チャート5はS&P 500の売上の代替指標である鉱工業生産（IP）が2018年に加速し企業収益を押し上げる態勢にあることを示している。今年および来年の世界GDP成長予測は着実に上向いており、過去に予想が容赦なく下方修正され続けた年とは対照的である（チャート6）。 Chart 3 2018 Estimates Turned Higher After Tax Law Passed; '19 Likely To Move Lower 税制改正法が可決された後、2018年の見積もりは上方に転じた；2019年は下方に動く可能性が高い。 税制改正法が可決された後、2018年の見積もりは上方に転じた；2019年は下方に動く可能性が高い。 Chart 4 Favorable Macro Backdrop For Earnings And Sales 利益および売上高にとって好ましいマクロ環境 利益および売上高にとって好ましいマクロ環境 加えて、BCAのU.S. エクイティ・ストラテジーサービスは3、2015年の谷の後、売上高のポジティブな改定数が収益のポジティブ改定数を着実に上回っていることを指摘している。これは実際の収益成長が売上成長を大きく上回っているにもかかわらず起きている現象である。最近の売上高に対する非常にポジティブな改定の一因として、企業が税制改革の最大の恩恵を受けるために一部の利益を2017年から2018年に移している可能性が考えられる。 Chart 5 ISM Components Suggest IP##BR##Poised To Accelerate ISMの構成要素は鉱工業生産（IP）の加速を示唆 ISMの構成要素は鉱工業生産（IP）の加速を示唆 Chart 6 Global Growth Estimates##BR##Still Accelerating 世界の成長見通しはなお加速している 世界の成長見通しはなお加速している 米ドルは最近数四半期ではEPSに対して小幅な悪影響にとどまってきたが、第4四半期はややプラスに転じる見込みだ。米ドルは広範な通貨バスケットに対して1年前より3%下落している。さらに、最新のベージュブック（11月29日）では「強いドル」に関する言及が1年前と比べて8件減少した。これは強い通貨がここ数か月で経営陣の主要な懸念事項として薄れてきたことを示している（チャート7）。 それでもBCAの見解は、米ドルは今後12か月で5%上昇するとしている。ドル高はEPS成長を概ね1〜2ポイント押し下げるが、その大部分はラグのため来年に生じるだろう。単独でのドル上昇は株式市場にとって大きな逆風にはならないはずだ。実際にドルが上昇するのは、米国の堅調な経済成長と企業の売上拡大という文脈においてのみである。米国におけるインフラ投資パッケージの立法進展や米国の企業設備投資の改善は、ドルの見通しを高めるだろう。 昨秋の大規模ハリケーンが第4四半期の決算に与える影響は、S&P 500およびほとんどのセクターにとって限定的だろう。天候に敏感な複数の産業（保険、航空、化学、精製、レジャー等）は第3四半期の結果に大きな混乱を受けた。これらの産業は第4四半期にいくばくかの反動増が見られる可能性が高い。 投資家は2017年第4四半期にマージンが6四半期連続で改善することに懐疑的だ。BCAの見解では、我々はマージンにとって一時的な「甘いスポット」にあり、これは今後数四半期続くはずだが、賃金上昇圧力が表面化するにつれてその後はマージンの長期的な平均回帰が再開するだろう。 結論として、我々は2017年第4四半期および2018年初頭にかけて収益環境は株価を下支えすると予想する。その先では、EPS成長は2018年後半に減速を始め、2019年に入ると株価にとってより逆風となるだろう（チャート8）。株式を債券に対してオーバーウェイトのまま維持せよ。 Chart 7 The Dollar Should Not Be##BR##A Factor In Q4 Earnings Season 第4四半期の決算シーズンにおいて、ドルは要因とならないはずだ 第4四半期の決算シーズンにおいて、ドルは要因とならないはずだ Chart 8 Strong S&P Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon S&Pは今後強い成長が見込まれるが、まもなく減速し始めるだろう S&Pは今後強い成長が見込まれるが、まもなく減速し始めるだろう FRB議長交代：順風満帆か？ Chart 9 December's CPI Data Will Be Met##BR##With A Sigh Of Relief From The Fed 12月のCPIデータはFRBに安堵のため息をもたらすだろう 12月のCPIデータはFRBに安堵のため息をもたらすだろう 11月の月次で0.1%と期待外れだった伸びの後、12月のコアCPIは月次で0.3%の反発を示した（チャート9）。歓迎すべきニュースだが、いくつか留意点がある。第一に、伸びは住宅と医療ケアの2つのサブコンポーネントに集中していた。住宅はコアCPIの40%以上を占め、我々のモデルは今後の緩和を示唆している。第二に、コアサービス（住居と医療を除く）インフレは依然として2%未満と弱く、コア財の価格はなおデフレ傾向にある。第三に、年率のコアインフレ率はわずか1.8%である。コアCPIの2.4〜2.5%はコアPCEデフレーターに対するFRBの2%目標と整合的である。 12月の小売売上高のリポートは、2018年末時点での景気の明るいトーンを補強した。アトランタ連銀のGDPNowによる2017年第4四半期の推定は1月12日時点で3.3%と、1月5日の2.7%から上方修正された。 米国のインフレは年末までに徐々に目標に戻るはずである。米国のフィクスト・インカム・ポートフォリオでは、投資家はベンチマークを下回るデュレーションを維持し、名目国債に対してTIPSをオーバーウェイトにすべきだ。インフレ・ブレークイーブンの上昇はイールドカーブをスティーピングさせるバイアスも生むだろう。コアCPIの反発は確かに心強いが、FRBがインフレが本当に目標に向かっていると一層自信を持つには、さらに確かな数値が必要だ。3月のFOMC会合までにあと2件のCPI公表があるため、FRBはその時までに利上げを決断するための証拠を得るかもしれない。 我々は来たる2月のFOMC議長就任に関して、パウエル氏への移行は円滑に進むと予想しており、それにより金融政策の段階的正常化が確実となるだろう。パウエル氏はFF金利を推定の終点である2.75%に徐々に近づける過程で波風を立てたくないはずだ。4 我々がFOMC指導部の移行が円滑に行われると断言する理由はいくつかある： FRB議長の前例：過去のFOMC指導部交代において、平均すると金融政策の軌道は約13か月間継続してから方向転換した（チャート10）。例えば、グリーンスパン退任（2006年2月）の後、バーナンキ前議長はさらに4回の利上げを続け、引き締めサイクルは2006年6月にピークに達した。イエレン前議長は2014年初めにバーナンキが去った後、ほぼ2年間ゼロ金利政策（ZIRP）を維持した。グリーンスパン議長はボルカーが始めた引き締めの軌道を維持したが、1987年の株式市場クラッシュ後にクレジットクランチを回避するため一時的に中断した。その後グリーンスパン議長は1年以上にわたり利上げを再開した。コンフォーミングな中道派として知られるパウエル議長も先人の流れに従うだろう。米国の金融政策は、世界成長に対する予期せぬショックやインフレの想定外の軌道の逸脱がない限り、イエレン前議長の政策から大きく変わらないだろう。 Chart 10 Fed Chair Precedents: Continuous Monetary Policy Path FRB議長の先例：継続的な金融政策の道筋 FRB議長の先例：継続的な金融政策の道筋 FOMCの構成変化：地域連銀総裁のローテーションに伴い、毎年FOMCの投票メンバーは異なる顔ぶれになる。今年は複数の地域総裁の退任と理事会の空席で不確実性が高まっている。2018年の投票FOMCメンバーの構成は2017年に比べややタカ寄りになるだろう（チャート11）。金融政策の連続性と有効性は、先物市場で既に織り込まれている今後の追加利上げ（少なくとも2回）や2018年に期待されるさらに3回の利上げ見込みによりさらに促進されるだろう。ミネアポリス連銀総裁カシュカリとシカゴ連銀総裁エバンスは今年、投票権のないメンバーとして退任する。カシュカリは最もハト派と見なされ、2020年に投票権を持つメンバーとして戻る予定であり、エバンスは2019年に復帰するだろう。 Chart 11 Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 円滑な移行？ 円滑な移行？ 対照的に、クリーブランドのメスター、サンフランシスコのウィリアムズ、リッチモンドのバーキンの到着は政策をややタイト寄りに傾ける。最も重要なのは、ニューヨーク連銀のダドリー（中道派）がイエレンの任期が来月満了してから約5か月後に退任することである。オバマ政権時代に任命された理事のレール・ブレイナードは、現存する2人のハト派のうち最もハト派の投票者として残るだろう。FOMCのタカ派寄りの傾向はもはや認識の問題ではなく現実のものになる。トランプ大統領によるマーウィン・グッドフレンドの理事指名は中立化に向けた動きを促すはずだ（グッドフレンドは必ずしも明確なタカ派ではなく、デフレ対策にも慎重である）とともに、2018年に少なくとも4人の理事でFRBが運営されることを確実にするだろう。グッドフレンドの承認が成功すれば、副議長と残る2名の理事の合計3つの空席だけが残ることになる。限界的には、2018年のFOMC投票メンバーは若干タカ派寄りに傾くが、歴史は新議長が急激な政策転換よりも段階的な移行を好むことを示唆している。 FRBの空席：理事会の3つの未埋めの空席は、来月のイエレンからパウエルへの円滑な指導権移行を妨げるべきではない。近年、FRBの空席の継続期間は過去の年と比べて長くなっている。超党派政策センターの最近の報告によれば5、長期にわたる空席は13の独立金融規制機関の中でFRBに最も顕著に見られる。1986年以降のFRBの空席率67%は、1947年〜1986年の21%を大きく上回っている（チャート12）。同センターはまた、2000年1月1日以降、連邦準備理事会に少なくとも1つの空席がある期間が80%以上であったと計算しており、「満員のFRB理事会はかつての空席ほど珍しい」という点を強調している。FOMCは1947年〜1986年の間は大部分（79%）で満員であったが、過去30年ではその割合は3分の1（33%）に過ぎなかった（チャート13）。したがって、FOMC構成の構造的変化でさえ、2015年12月のゼロ金利政策からの離陸（2006年6月以来の初の利上げ）や昨年9月のFRBバランスシート正常化の開始を妨げることはなかった。投資家への示唆は、FOMCはかなり前から高い空席率の下で運営しており、そのような状況に慣れているため、空席は今年のFRBの政策軌道やイエレンからパウエルへの移行において大きな役割を果たすべきではないということである。 Chart 12 Vacancies Are Now The Norm スムーズな移行？ スムーズな移行？ Chart 13 More Than One Vacancy Is Not Uncommon Too スムーズな移行ですか？ スムーズな移行ですか？ FOMCにおける反対意見：FRB理事会の定員未満であっても、2005年以降理事による反対はなかった（チャート14）。我々は過去のサイクルと同程度の頻度の反対があると予想している。2017年の4件の反対はいずれも地域連銀総裁によるものであった。イエレン議長は理事会のメンバー時代にも、サンフランシスコ連銀総裁時代にも意見の不一致を表明したことはない。注目すべきは、パウエル次期議長は2012年に理事会に加わって以来、反対票を投じたことがないことである。さらに、理事会メンバーによる反対表明は通常より緩和的な政策を求めるものであった（78%が緩和志向で、28%が引き締め志向）。例えば、2015年秋のサイクル最初の利上げ前に、2人のハト派のFRB理事がイエレン議長に反対した。ブレイナード理事とタルーロ理事は、インフレが依然として低すぎると考え、利上げを2016年に先送りすべきだと主張した。彼らは先行きリスクが下振れ要因として残るため、早まって行動するより「待って様子を見る」方がリスクが低いと考えた。この意見の相違の一因は、市場ベースのインフレ期待に関する見解の相違にあった。原油価格と密接に関連して、市場ベースの長期インフレ期待は低下していた。同様に2017年にはミネアポリス連銀総裁カシュカリとシカゴ連銀総裁エバンスが懸念を示して意見を異にした。彼らは、低インフレの持続がFOMCが述べたような純粋に「一時的な要因」によるものとは限らないと主張した。 Chart 14 Dissent By Reserve Bank Presidents And Fed Governors スムーズな移行？ スムーズな移行？ 結論：2018年にFRB政策に最も重大な影響を与えるのは、FRBの構成ではなく経済とインフレの軌跡だ。2017年12月のFOMC会合ではインフレや名目GDPターゲティングの採用を検討する支持が一部にあったが、FRBは現行の政策にコミットし続けるだろう。一方、パウエル新議長は前任者と同様に利上げに対して段階的なアプローチを維持する可能性が高いが、FOMC投票メンバーの構成はわずかにタカ寄りである。2018年初めの理事会の空席はリスクではあるが、過去の空席が劇的な政策変更を引き起こしたことはない。BCAは今年3〜4回の利上げを予想しているが、ポートフォリオのリスクを軽減するにはまだ時期尚早である。株式を債券に対してオーバーウェイトで維持せよ。 John Canally, CFA, シニア・バイス・プレジデント 米国インベストメント・ストラテジー johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, シニア・アナリスト jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 BCAリサーチのU.S. ボンド・ストラテジー ウィークリー・レポート「January Effect」、2018年1月9日掲載を参照のこと。usbs.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 2 BCAリサーチのU.S. エクイティ・ストラテジー ウィークリー・レポート「Girding For A Breakout」、2017年5月1日掲載を参照のこと。uses.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 3 BCAリサーチのU.S. エクイティ・ストラテジー インサイト「What's Up With SPX Revenue Vs. Profit Revisions」、2018年1月12日掲載を参照のこと。uses.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20171213.pdf 5 "Financial Regulators Struggling With Longer Vacancies At The Top", Schardin, Justin and Sheth, Ashmi, Bipartisan Policy Center, March 2017.