ポリシー

Highlights Our "fair value" models incorporate prevailing domestic risk-free interest rates and long-term earnings, which provide an assessment on market valuation levels from a historical perspective. Hong Kong and Chinese A shares are substantially "undervalued" compared with their respective "fair values," while Taiwanese and Chinese investable stocks are roughly "fairly valued" according to our models. The PBoC will continue to enforce deleveraging in the financial sector through liquidity tightening. However, without genuine inflation pressures and any sign of economic overheating, the "deleveraging" process is likely to remain gradual, and its impact on growth will continue to be closely monitored by the authorities. Feature Investors have become increasingly concerned about the rapid expansion of U.S. equity multiples. By some measures, the market appears frothy by historical standards. The forward price-to-earnings ratio for U.S. stocks currently stands at about 18 times, and the cyclically adjusted PE (CAPE), or the Shiller PE for U.S. stocks, is over 26 times - both of which are substantially higher than historical norms (Chart 1). The red-hot performance and elevated valuation levels of the U.S. tech sector has brought back memories of the Internet mania of the late 1990s, which in part triggered a mini-meltdown in the NASDAQ last Friday. Beyond Valuation Indicators Compared with American bourses, other major markets are more reasonably valued, particularly emerging markets, including stocks in the greater China region. EM stocks are trading at about 13 times forward earnings, compared with 18 times for the U.S. (Chart 2). Similarly, forward PE ratios for Taiwan, Chinese A shares and Chinese investable stocks are all at around 13 times, and 16 times for Hong Kong. In addition, our calculations show that CAPEs for Taiwan and Chinese domestic A shares are both about 18 times, 12 times for Hong Kong stocks and a mere 8 times for investable Chinese shares, compared with over 26 times for the U.S. market. Chart 1U.S. Stocks: Valuation Looks Stretched Chart 2Greater China Markets Are Much Cheaper While these valuation indicators are useful to identify potential value plays globally, they do have limitations from a historical perspective. Stocks, as an asset class, compete with other assets, and therefore, the valuation levels of competing asset classes need to be taken into consideration. More specifically, inflation, monetary policy and interest rates determine the "risk free" discount factor for valuing equities. Historically the fed funds rate has been a defining factor for U.S. stock multiples. The famed "Fed model" argues that forward earnings yields should track 10-year Treasury yields (Chart 3). On both accounts, U.S. stocks do not look exceptionally expensive, considering exceedingly low interest rates. In fact, U.S. stocks' earnings yields have diverged with "risk free" rates since the Global Financial Crisis. This offers a glimmer of hope that U.S. stocks are not immediately vulnerable, even if interest rates continue to rise, unless higher rates tilt the U.S. economy into recession, which in turn leads to a major contraction in equity earnings. A Fair Value Assessment This week we incorporate interest rates into the valuation matrix for Greater China markets. Our "fair value" models incorporate prevailing domestic risk-free interest rates and long-term earnings, providing an assessment on market valuation levels from a historical perspective. Our models suggest that Hong Kong and Chinese A shares are substantially "undervalued" compared with their respective "fair values," while Taiwan and Chinese investable stocks are roughly "fairly valued." Hong Kong The Hong Kong market is currently standing at one standard deviation below its long-term "fair value," underscoring more upside potential in prices (Chart 4). In fact, the current reading matches that of the early 1980s, which marked the beginning of a dramatic bull market that lasted several decades, despite some sharp pullbacks. This comparison of course does not take into consideration that the Hong Kong market graduated from an electrifying developing market with excessive gains and risks into a developed one, and therefore a "fair-value" assessment based on historical norms could be misleading. Overall, Hong Kong stocks appear cheap, but a replay of a mega bull market is not realistic. Chart 3U.S. Stocks Do Not Appear Expensive ##br##Considering Interest Rate Chart 4Hong Kong Stocks Are Deeply Undervalued ##br##Compared With 'Fair Value' Taiwan Taiwanese stocks currently are almost exactly "fairly valued," according to our model (Chart 5). Our indicator has been hovering around current levels in recent years, despite price gains, due to improved earnings and more importantly, lower interest rates. Taiwanese local government bond yields are the lowest among the Greater China economies, and therefore our fair-value assessment of Taiwanese stocks' can change quickly if interest rates rise. Overall, Taiwanese stocks do not appear particularly appealing from a valuation perspective, especially compared with other bourses in the region. Chinese Investable Shares Chinese investable shares, although still deeply undervalued by most conventional valuation yardsticks, are now roughly "fairly valued" according to our model (Chart 6). In fact, this asset class was deeply undervalued in the early 2000s, followed by parabolic price moves that transformed into a feverish mania in 2007, but they have not been unduly cheap by this matrix in recent years. We suspect this is likely due to the high earnings volatility of this asset class, attributable to its heavy concentration in highly cyclical sectors such as energy and materials. Furthermore, investor sentiment on Chinese investable stocks swings dramatically, pushing their valuation indicators routinely to overshoot or undershoot extremes. Currently, investors are still skeptical on China's macro profile, and Chinese investable shares are likely under-owned by investors. We continue to expect this asset class to be positively re-rated, but the current situation does not appear too extreme compared with historical episodes. Chart 5Taiwanese Stocks Are Roughly 'Fairly Valued' Chart 6Chinese Investable Shares Are No Longer 'Undervalued' Chinese A shares Chart 7Chinese A Shares Appear Deeply Undervalued The Chinese domestic market, however, scores surprisingly high on our "fair value" assessment. The broad A-share index is well below its historical "fair value" level, and has in fact continued to improve (i.e. fall deeper into undervalued territory) since last year along with rising stock prices and a sharp spike in local bond yields (Chart 7). Although A shares historically have rarely been cheap in a global comparison, this asset class is now well below its historical average valuation levels, underscoring room for mean reversion. Moreover, Chinese local government bond yields are the highest among the Greater China economies. Any decline in bond yields will make A shares more attractive to local investors. In short, Taiwanese stocks appear to be the least attractive in our "fair value" assessment, both compared with other bourses in the region and from their own historical perspective. Hong Kong stock valuations look appealing. We continue to favor H shares over A shares to play the Chinese reflation cycle, but the tide could soon shift. A shares are still trading at a premium compared to their H-share counterparts, but the A-H premium has shrunk to 25% from 45% early last year. We will be looking for an opportunity to lift our bullish rating on A shares at the expense of H shares in the coming weeks. Stay tuned. A Word On Macro Numbers And The PBoC Most of China's macro numbers for May released on Wednesday have come in largely as expected. Taken together, the macro data confirm that the economic momentum has softened, but growth remains stable, as growth rates of capital spending, industrial production and retail sales have remained largely unchanged. A more disconcerting development is the continued decline in broad money growth, which decelerated from 10.5% in April to 9.6% in May, a new record low, underscoring continued pressure from the authorities to enforce financial deleveraging, which could further inflict downward pressure on the economy. The saving grace, however, is that bank loan growth remains stable, which means that the slowdown is mainly due to a contraction in off-balance sheet "shadow banking" activity. Meanwhile, broad money growth currently is well below the official target, which reduces the odds of further escalation in tightening measures. Furthermore, inflationary pressure is muted. While headline consumer price inflation (CPI) did pick up slightly to 1.5% in May compared with 1.2% in April, it is still exceedingly low (Chart 8). Moreover, the recent sharp decline in food prices in the wholesale market suggests that food CPI will come in much weaker next month, which will lead to a further decline in headline CPI, likely to below 1%, a further departure from the official CPI estimate (Chart 9). Chart 8Chinese Food Inflation Will Drop Sharply Chart 9Headline Inflation Is Chronically Below Official Estimate As this report goes to press, the Fed has just announced a 25 basis point rate hike, a widely anticipated move. As far as China is concerned, domestic factors are the top priority for the PBoC's decision-making considerations. On this front, there is no reason for the central bank to hasten its tightening. For now, we expect the PBoC will continue to enforce deleveraging in the financial sector through liquidity tightening. However, without genuine inflation pressures and any sign of economic overheating, the "deleveraging" process is likely to remain gradual, and its impact on growth will continue to be closely monitored by the authorities. As such, there is no case at the moment for monetary overkill that could risk major growth disappointments. We will follow up on these issues in the coming weeks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Trump's failures have helped fuel the bull market; Yet inflation and Trump legislative wins will embolden the Fed; The U.K. will have yet another election by 2019; Dodd-Frank repeal is a no go ... but small banks may get relief; The Tea Party just found its hard constraint ... in Kansas. Feature Investors in South Africa surprised us last week. The first question on everyone's mind was "Will Trump be impeached?" Our answer that impeachment is highly unlikely at least until the midterm elections was received with suspicion.1 The perspective of our South African clients is understandable. Their domestic assets have been underpinned since Trump's election by a phenomenon we like to call "the Trump put." The thesis posits that U.S. politics will remain a mess for much of the year, delaying any progress on populist economic policies that would have buoyed U.S. nominal GDP growth and given the Fed a reason to hike interest rates more aggressively. The result is a weak dollar, lower 10-year Treasury yields, and a rally in global risk assets (Chart 1). Of course, stubbornly weak inflation and disappointing Q1 GDP numbers bear responsibility as well as Trump (Chart 2). Chart 1The 'Trump Put' Chart 2Weak Inflation Fueling Bull Market For our South African clients, the fate of President Trump is irrelevant. What matters is that the American political imbroglio continues, reducing the likelihood of a hawkish mistake from the Fed, and thus keeping EM risk assets well bid. The market has generally agreed. Several assets associated with Trump's populist agenda have reversed their gains since the election. The yield curve, small caps, and high tax rate equities have all shown signs of disappointment with the Trump agenda (Chart 3). If the Trump put were to continue, we would expect U.S. bonds and stocks to rally, DXY to continue to face headwinds, and international stocks to outperform U.S. stocks. That said, the proxies for Trump's agenda in Chart 3 are starting to perk up. They may be sniffing out some positive political signs, such as the movement in the Senate on the bill repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The budget reconciliation procedure - a process by which Republicans in Congress intend to avoid the Democrat filibuster in the Senate - requires Obamacare to be resolved before the House and the Senate can take up tax reform.2 If Obamacare clears Congress's calendar by the August recess, the odds of tax reform (or merely tax cuts) being passed by the end of 2017 will rise considerably. Second, former Director of the FBI James Comey's testimony was a non-event. We refused to cover it in these pages as we expected it to be theatre. The market had already digested everything that Comey was going to say, given that he had leaked the juiciest components of his testimony weeks ahead of the event. Chart 3Consensus On Trump Policy Failure? Third, President Trump's approval rating with Republican voters remains resilient (Chart 4). If the worst has passed with the Russian collusion investigation - which we expect to be the case now that Comey's testimony has come and gone with little relevance - we could see GOP voters rally around the president. Several clients have pointed out that our measure is less relevant given the decline in voters who identify as Republicans (Chart 5). We disagree. As long as Republican voters vote in Republican primaries, they can act as a constraint on GOP members in Congress who are thinking of abandoning the president's populist agenda. This brings us to the main event: the economy. Our colleague Ryan Swift, who writes BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy, could not care less about the ongoing political drama. As Ryan has argued in a cogent report that we highly recommend to clients, the Fed's median projection for two more 25 basis point rate hikes before the end of the year, and for PCE inflation to reach 1.9% (Chart 6), is not going to happen if inflation continues to disappoint over the summer.3 The market seems to be saying that a PCE of 1.9% is unlikely. Core PCE inflation is running at only 1.54% year-over-year through April, and will probably stay low in May given that year-over-year core CPI fell from 2% in March to 1.89% in April. Chart 5Fewer People Call Themselves Republicans Chart 6Inflation Relapse Would Scratch Fed Hikes Ryan's Philips Curve model, however, disagrees with the market. The model looks to approximate Chair Yellen's own philosophy for forecasting inflation, which she outlined in a September 2015 speech.4 Specifically, BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy models core PCE as a function of: 12-month lag of core PCE; Long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters; Resource utilization; Non-oil import prices relative to overall core PCE. BCA's core PCE model is sending a strong signal that the market's inflation expectations are overly pessimistic (Chart 7). Even after stressing the model under several adverse scenarios, Ryan concludes that it is very likely that core PCE inflation will indeed approach the Fed's 1.9% forecast by year-end. The U.S. economy is quickly running out of slack, with unemployment at a 16-year low of 4.3%. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally attached workers and those in part-time employment purely for economic reasons, has dropped to its pre-recession print of 8.4% (Chart 8). Chart 7Market Too Pessimistic On Inflation Chart 8U.S. Labor Market Running Out Of Slack Wages are also rising, with the underlying trend in wage growth having accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 9). The acceleration has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 10). Chart 9Wages Heating Up Chart 10Wage Improvements Broad-Based BCA's Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, therefore expects the Fed to raise rates in line with its own expectations. In fact, the Fed could expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later in the year.5 It will be difficult for the Fed to ignore macroeconomic data, even if, from a political perspective, the Trump put continues. The analogy we use with clients in meetings is that of the U.S. economy as a camp fire around which the various market participants - bond and equity investors, foreign and domestic, etc. - are huddled. According to our sister publications that conduct macroeconomic research, that campfire is well lit. And according to our political research, "Uncle Donny" had a few too many drinks and is about to pour some bourbon on the fire to show the kids a good time. Chart 11Bond Bulls Feeding On Trump Failures For the Trump put to continue, we would have to see a combination of the following: GOP voters begin to abandon President Trump; Congress remains embroiled in Obamacare debates through FY2017, only seriously picking up on tax reform and other agenda items in FY2018. Greater doubts would undermine the recent uptick in assets tied to Trump's policy agenda (Chart 11). Impeachment concerns heat up again due to new revelations that implicate President Trump directly. So far impeachment talk has not correlated with the rally in Treasuries but it could do so if new evidence comes to light. Perhaps Robert Mueller, the former FBI director and special counsel investigating Russia's role in the election, will drop another bombshell later this year. In addition, for the Trump put to continue our colleagues Ryan and Peter would have to be wrong about the economy and inflation. For investors interested in playing the Trump put, and allocating funds to EM assets in particular, we would caution against it. However, given that BCA's bond and FX views have been challenged over the past several months by the Trump put, we understand why many of our clients are itching to chase the global asset rally. The summer months will be critical. Does Brexit Still Mean Brexit? We posited last week that the extraordinary election in the U.K. was about austerity and, more importantly, about repudiating the Conservative Party's fiscal policies.6 This remains our view. The most investment-relevant message to take from the election is that U.K. fiscal policy will become easier over the life of the coalition government, while monetary policy remains stuck in D - for dovish. This should weigh on the pound over the course of the year. That said, investors will begin to wonder about the longevity of the coalition between the U.K. Conservative Party and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). In practice the coalition will have only a five-seat majority, which would be tied for the second-smallest margin since Harold Wilson in 1964 (Chart 12). Technically it is an even smaller one-seat majority. U.K. governments with a majority of fewer than ten seats are rare and usually only last one-to-two years (Harold Wilson's four-seat 1974-79 run is an exception). This bodes ill for May's government - that is, if she survives today's brewing leadership challenge from within her party. We have no idea if the election means a softer Brexit as we have no idea - and neither does anyone else - what that means. Generally speaking, the wafer-thin majority for the Tories means the following: "No deal is better than a bad deal" is no longer going to be acceptable to the government or the public; London will end up paying a larger "exit fee" than it probably thinks it will; There will be no favorable deal for the U.K.'s financial industry. In essence, the U.K. clearly has the weaker hand in the upcoming negotiations. Cheers went up in Brussels. Does this change anything? First, we never bought the argument that the U.K. had a strong negotiating position because continental Europeans want to export BMWs to consumers in Britain. The EU is a far bigger market for the U.K. than the U.K. is for the EU (Chart 13). On this measure alone, the U.K. was always going to be the underdog in the negotiations. Chart 13The U.K. Lacks Leverage Second, the influence of Tory Euroskeptics has been reduced. That might appear counterintuitive, given that May wanted to reduce their influence by getting a bigger majority. However, it is highly unlikely that she will get the ultimate EU deal through Westminster, with a five-seat majority, without at least some votes from the opposition. Euroskeptics will therefore either remain quiet and compliant or force May to seek a deal that Labour MPs could agree to. Which brings us to the very likely scenario that the final deal will not pass Westminster without a new election. As we argued right after the referendum, the U.K. will likely have a "Brexit election" sometime in 2019.7 There is no way around it now. At very least the ruling alliance will face a contradiction in trying to soften Brexit while maintaining a strict stance on immigration. And given the weak majority, if Labour does not play ball, the Tories will have to call a new election on the basis of the deal they conclude. The good news for the Conservative Party is that the polls continue to show that a majority of U.K. voters support Brexit (Chart 14). Furthermore, the two Brexit-lite campaign promises by the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats were the least preferred policies ahead of the election (Chart 15, see next page). However, the election also saw a complete collapse in support for Euroskeptic-leaning parties, in terms of share of the overall vote (Chart 16). Could Brexit ultimately be reversed? Certainly the odds have risen. Furthermore, there does appear to be some regret amongst U.K. voters, with a recent survey showing a decline in national identification: now more Britons identify as "also European" than ever (Chart 17). Nonetheless, a full reversal of Brexit will still require an exogenous shock, such as a recession or a geopolitical calamity that convinces the U.K. that they need Europe. Investors should remain vigilant of the polls. A clear trend reversal in Chart 14 would constitute a political opportunity for the opposition parties to campaign on a new referendum. Chart 16Euroskeptics Collapsed In The U.K. Bottom Line: Odds of a softer Brexit have certainly risen as the Tories face considerable domestic constraints in their negotiating strategy with the EU. We continue to believe that the negotiations will not be acrimonious and therefore the pound will not fall below its lows on January 16. However, it may re-test that 1.2 level due to a coming mix of easy fiscal and monetary policy over the course of the year. U.S.: Doing A Number On Dodd-Frank Better put a strong fence 'round the top of the cliff, Than an ambulance down in the valley! - Joseph Malins, "The Fence or the Ambulance," 1895 The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017 by a vote of 233-186 on June 8. This is the GOP's second major attempt, after the Affordable Care Act, to rewrite a signature law of President Obama's administration. This time it is the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, known simply as "Dodd-Frank," that is on the docket. The bill's prospects in the Senate are dim. President Trump promised to "do a number" on Dodd-Frank shortly after coming into office, by which he meant dismantling the law. The so-called "CHOICE Act" put forward by Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) now goes to the Senate, where it faces a high hurdle because Democrats can filibuster it, forcing the GOP to summon 60 votes. So the question is what kind of a "number" can the GOP actually do to Dodd-Frank, and does it matter? First a little bit of background.8 Dodd-Frank cleared Congress in the wake of the subprime financial crisis, July 2010. It had both a quixotic and a more pragmatic aim: the first to reduce the likelihood of future financial crises, and the second to improve the ability of regulators to stem risks as they emerge. The law has never been fully implemented and is best understood as a work in progress. The law grants the Federal Reserve and other agencies greater powers of oversight, prevention, and crisis management. In particular it ensures that the Fed would regulate not only banks but also non-bank investment companies and other financial firms (such as the giant insurance company AIG that had to be bailed out at the height of the crisis). It also frees the Fed of the responsibility to rescue failing institutions or dismantle them, handing those duties over to others, while still enabling the Fed to act as lender of last resort. The key provisions are as follows: Impose tougher capital standards: In keeping with the international Basel III banking reforms,9 Dodd-Frank tried to ensure that banks were better fortified against liquidity shortages in future. The new standards would apply both to domestic banks and foreign banks with American subsidiaries. Orderly Liquidation Authority: The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), a major institution born amidst the Great Depression, would take over the responsibility of liquidating failing firms in the event of a crisis - assuming Treasury's go-ahead due to the systemic importance of the failing firm. Additional measures would hold the entire financial sector responsible for the bill if the FDIC made losses in the process. Each firm would have to maintain a "living will" to make the resolution process easier in the event of disaster. A new Financial Stability Oversight Council: Chaired by the Treasury Secretary and consisting of the various financial regulatory bodies, this council would identify systemically important financial companies, monitor them, and take actions to prevent crises. A new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the anti-Wall Street firebrand, the bureau would be funded by the Fed but otherwise entirely independent of it, and tasked with patrolling the banks on behalf of consumers. The Volcker Rule: The rule, named after former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, would force banks to curtail a number of short-term, high-risk trading activities on their own accounts, including derivatives, futures, and options, unless to hedge risks or serve bank customers. This was viewed as a partial reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall law, a Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking but was repealed by President Clinton in 1999. Republicans want to overturn Dodd-Frank to increase financial sector profits, credit growth, economic growth, and animal spirits. Lending has arguably suffered as a result of the new regulations (Chart 18). The share of bank loans to overall bank credit has remained subdued, reflecting bank behavior under QE and possibly also risk-aversion under tighter regulation (Chart 19). Chart 18Lending Growth Hampered By Dodd-Frank? Chart 19Banks Holding Reserves Instead Of Lending Republicans would also satisfy an ideological goal of reducing state involvement, which grew as a result of the law. In addition, the CBO estimates that the proposed rewrite would cut the budget deficit by a net $22.3 billion over a ten-year period.10 A very small amount, but again in line with GOP's political bent. The way the CHOICE Act would work is to create an "escape hatch" that would allow banks that maintain capital-to-asset ratio of over 10% to bypass Dodd-Frank regulations. Financial companies that do not meet the 10% leverage ratio could either raise funds or remain subject to Dodd-Frank oversight, including required capital ratios, stress tests, living wills, and other regulations. Critically, the 10% leverage ratio for those banks that opt out of Dodd-Frank would not be calculated using risk-weightings for different assets (whereas Dodd-Frank requires both risk-weighted and non-risk-weighted capital ratios to be maintained). Therefore, banks that opt out would be able to take on greater risk while still fulfilling minimum capital requirements. This is supposed to boost lending, earnings, and growth. About 70% of the $18 trillion in U.S. banking assets belongs to banks defined by Dodd-Frank as "systemically important." The eight U.S. banks defined as "globally systemic important banks" account for about $9 trillion in assets and are unlikely to take advantage of the Republicans' escape hatch because they would then have to raise new capital and yet would still be subject to international Basel III regulations even if exempted from Dodd-Frank. The CBO estimates that banks holding about 2% of the bank assets held by systemically important banks (i.e. $252 billion) would opt out of Dodd-Frank (Chart 20). Further, the CBO estimates that, among non-systemically important banks (30% of $18 trillion total banking assets), the banks that both meet the 10% leverage ratio and would opt out of Dodd-Frank account for about 7% of U.S. banking assets ($1.26 trillion) (see Chart 20 above). Community banks (with assets under $10 billion each) and credit unions are especially likely to do so. Therefore, if the Republican bill were to become law, banks comprising something like $1.5 trillion in U.S. banking assets would become less restricted and eligible to adopt riskier trading practices free of Dodd-Frank policing. The greatest impact will be in areas with a higher concentration of small banks and credit unions than elsewhere. These U.S. banks would also, arguably, become more likely to take excessive risks and fail at some future point. Using probabilistic models for bank failures, the CBO found that the U.S.'s Deposit Insurance Fund would only suffer an additional $600 million in losses over the next ten years as a result of this increase in risk. It is a credible estimate but the reality could be far costlier if more and more banks gain the ability to bypass regulation or if banks significantly change their behavior to take advantage of the regulatory loophole. Other aspects of the bill would: Repeal the FDIC's orderly liquidation fund: The private sector would largely take over the responsibility for managing liquidations. The CBO estimates that the federal government would save an estimated $14.5 billion in liquidation costs over ten years. Eliminate the Volcker Rule: Banks would be able to trade riskier assets on their own accounts and forge closer relationships with private equity and hedge funds. Audit the Fed: Within one year of passage, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would audit the Fed's board of governors and the Federal Reserve regional banks, including their handling of monetary policy. The Fed's open market committee (FOMC) would also have to establish a new interest rate target, based on economic parameters, which the GAO would monitor. Reshape the Consumer Financial Protection Board: The agency would have its powers neutered and funding dependent on the Congress, rather than transfers from the Fed. It would be re-branded as the Consumer Law Enforcement Agency and have its power to oversee institutions with more than $10 billion in assets taken away, making it, in effect, a monitor of small banks only. Cut penalties for violating regulations: However, outright criminality would be punished more severely. Various authorities and institutions would be tweaked, mostly in accordance with the general aim of reducing regulatory burdens on the financial sector. So, what options do the Republicans have going forward?11 Republicans either need 60 votes to defeat a Senate filibuster or they need procedural work-arounds like budget reconciliation. Chart 21Small Banks Benefit From Dodd-Frank Repeal Some Republicans claim that certain elements of the rewrite can be tucked into a reconciliation bill. However, reconciliation requires a single, concentrated policy focus. The GOP is currently undertaking an unprecedented two budget reconciliation bills in a single year: first, the FY2017 reconciliation procedure to repeal Obamacare, and second, the FY2018 procedure to cut taxes. Rewriting Dodd-Frank is a far cry from either health care or tax reform. Dodd-Frank measures crammed into either of these bills would likely be revoked under the so-called "Byrd Rule" which keeps the reconciliation process focused and excludes extraneous material.12 So it is unlikely that this method will work. The FY2018 budget resolution will be a critical signpost. Second, it is hard to see how a bipartisan rewrite of Dodd-Frank is possible. Dodd-Frank was the Democrats' signature response to the subprime mortgage debacle and broader financial crisis. They will not participate in dismantling it. We cannot see eight Democrats joining Republicans in the Senate for what Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) has called "collective amnesia." However, there is one general principle that could find its way into law: the idea of giving small, regional banks a reprieve from Dodd-Frank requirements. Even Fed Chair Janet Yellen has tentatively supported giving these banks a break.13 These banks, with under $10 billion in assets, face the most difficulty in meeting Dodd-Frank's requirements and yet tend to meet the 10% leverage ratio. Politicians could at least attempt to make a popular argument for easing the burden on small community banks and credit unions, which are often vital to local communities. The same cannot be said for the Dodd-Frank rewrite as a whole, which smacks of granting impunity to Wall Street. Still, we think that even a bill focused exclusively on helping small banks would have trouble passing on its own. The legislative agenda is too busy in 2017; while 2018 will see midterm elections, when few candidates will want to appear soft on Wall Street. Instead, a provision helping small banks could pass if tacked onto the larger budget bill or bills for FY2018, if not later. It would have to be made palatable to Democrats, or else it would be perceived as a "poison pill" and risk adding to the numerous risks of government shutdown over the budget this fall. Other than these legislative options, the Trump administration can ease regulation, or relax enforcement, through executive action, as it has already promised to do. Assuming America's financial sector will get a reprieve, investors could capitalize on it by favoring small U.S. bank equities over large bank equities. The share price of small banks relative to large banks, which rallied in the aftermath of Trump's election only to fall back in the subsequent months, has recently perked up (Chart 21). Relative earnings have been flat over the same period. If Dodd-Frank is partially watered down, these banks should see earnings improve, which should drive up their share prices. Our colleagues at BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy are positive on global bank equities, particularly European and American ones. The latter are still relatively affordable as they undertake the long trek of recovery after a once-in-a-generation crisis (Chart 22). U.S. banks have notably better fundamentals than peers in Europe and Japan - more capital, higher net interest margins, lower or equal NPL ratios. They also stand to benefit from relatively faster rising interest rates (Chart 23).14 Chart 22The Long, Hard Road Of Recovery Chart 23U.S. Banks Well Positioned Globally In addition, the FiscalNote Financial Sector Index suggests that the flow of legislative and regulatory proposals has been steadily getting less onerous on the financial sector.15 Chart 24 is an aggregation of the favorability scores - which assess whether the bill is likely to be favorable or unfavorable to the sector - for all U.S. Congressional legislation that is determined to be relevant to the financial sector since 2006. It provides a snapshot of the regulatory environment for the financial sector at any given point in time. Chart 24Financial Sector Scrutiny Softening Risks to the view? Republicans could somehow squeeze a broader Dodd-Frank rewrite through the budget reconciliation process. We think the probability of this is less than 10%. Financially, this would deliver a bigger jolt to the financial sector, and financial stocks, than currently expected. But it would still benefit small banks more than large ones. Politically, a full repeal could add to Republican woes in 2018 - particularly if it is their only legislative achievement. It may well be political suicide to contest the 2018 midterm election on two pieces of legislation: one that denies millions of Americans health insurance and another that favors Wall Street. A full rewrite would also probably increase systemic financial risks. Even deregulation just for the small banks would do so. Lawmakers, focused on restraining the "too big to fail" giants, could end up clearing the way for excesses among the pygmies. That said, excessive regulation can also fuel shadow banking, a risk in itself. And the next crisis may well emanate from somewhere other than the financial sector. Bottom Line: Repealing Dodd-Frank faces procedural hurdles and would yield few political benefits even for Republicans in an environment of populism. However, a bill focused on lightening the regulatory load on small banks has a chance of passing if tacked onto the budget process. Large banks would remain subject to closer scrutiny and stricter international standards. The Trump election rally for bank stocks has mostly fallen back. Now is an opportunity to favor small banks versus large ones on expectations of Trump getting tax cuts passed and regulatory easing of some kind. Kansas: Where Seldom Is Heard A Discouraging Word A chill went through the Tea Party's collective spine on June 6 when two-thirds of the GOP-controlled Kansas legislature overrode the veto of GOP Governor Sam Brownback to repeal a 2012 budget law that slashed taxes on income, small business, and retail sales. You heard that right: Republicans in one of America's reddest states just overrode their leader in order to increase taxes. And it was the largest tax hike in state history. We will spare our readers the nitty-gritty details of the Brownback saga. Suffice it to say that the Tea Party-friendly Kansas legislature slashed state taxes and spending under Brownback's leadership in May 2012. Brownback called it a "real live experiment" of conservative economic principles and argued that the tax cuts would pay for themselves through faster growth. Art Laffer, of "Laffer Curve" fame, allegedly consulted on these measures via the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council. The medicine proved more dangerous than the illness. Since 2012, the state has burned through a budget surplus and growth has slowed (Chart 25). Both Moody's and S&P downgraded Kansas debt. Employment gains have lagged those of neighboring states. Beginning in October 2013, Brownback began to slip in public opinion polls (Chart 26). Cuts to core government services, especially education, caused a tide of criticism. In an extraordinary development, a hundred establishment Republicans supported his Democratic opponent in the 2014 gubernatorial election. He won by a margin of 3.7% but soon afterwards fell out of favor with the public. A series of confrontations with the Kansas Supreme Court hastened his decline, mostly over education funding, which is guaranteed by the state constitution. Brownback, the legislature, and various activist groups attempted to strong-arm the courts, including by ousting four members of the Supreme Court in the 2016 elections. All four retained their posts. The new budget law raises $1.2 billion in income taxes over two years by revoking swathes of the 2012 law, particularly the income tax exemption for business owners and professionals. Brownback duly vetoed the legislation and was promptly overridden by two-thirds of a legislature that is 70% Republican. This is a remarkable event for a state as ideologically conservative as Kansas. What does it mean nationally? There are two reasons that the Kansas experiment will have a limited impact on Republican thinking nationally: Kansas has a balanced budget law (Section 75-3722), while D.C. does not ... and this helped increase the pressure on the administration; Brownback is the least popular governor of any governor in the United States (Chart 27). The blame for the whole fiasco may fall on him personally, distracting from the policy failure. Nevertheless, we think Kansas has set the high-water mark for an aggressive Tea Party agenda in the U.S. that focuses on fiscal conservativism to the exclusion of everything else. Republicans will take note that even as conservative of a state as Kansas has a limit when it comes to spending cuts. It was the cuts to education - which resulted in shorter schoolyears in some districts, and various other disruptions - that fatally wounded Brownback's public standing. Thus public demand for core services is a real constraint on the extent to which taxes can be slashed. Bottom Line: We expect the Trump administration to go forward with tax cuts. But we also think that Trump will get far less in spending cuts than his budget proposals pretend. As such, we expect the GOP tax reform agenda to blow out the budget deficit, a path that Kansas could not legally (or politically) take. This will be the path of least resistance for Congressional Republicans who want to slash taxes yet fear they may not survive the spending cuts necessary to pay for them.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Challenges For U.S. Policymakers," dated May 23, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Janet L. Yellen, "Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy," Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, September 24, 2015, available at www.federalreserve.gov. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When Doves Cry," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, and Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit - Next Steps," dated July 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We are particularly indebted to Ben S. Bernanke's account in The Courage To Act: A Memoir Of A Crisis And Its Aftermath (New York: Norton, 2015), pp. 435-66. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, "Preparing For Basel III: Who Will Win, Who Will Lose?" dated September 12, 2011, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Congressional Budget Office, "H.R. 10, Financial CHOICE Act of 2017," CBO Cost Estimate, May 18, 2017, available at www.cbo.gov. 11 The Republicans managed to repeal one aspect of Dodd-Frank with a simple majority via the Congressional Review Act, an option that is now closed. U.S. oil, gas, and mineral companies can now be somewhat less transparent about payments made to foreign governments to gain access to resources. Proponents claim U.S. resource companies will gain competitiveness; opponents claim corruption will increase, particularly in foreign countries. 12 Please see Bill Heniff Jr., "The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate's 'Byrd Rule,'" Congressional Research Service, November 22, 2016, available at fas.org. 13 Please see Yellen's February testimony to the Senate Banking Committee, e.g. "Yellen Wants To Ease Regulations For Small Banks," Associated Press, February 14, 2017, available at www.usnews.com. 14 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Girding For A Breakout," dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com, and Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy The Breakout," dated May 5, 2017, and "Wind Of Change," dated November 11, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 15 The FiscalNote Policy Index measures regulatory risk daily for sectors, industries, and individual companies from every legislative and regulatory proposal. Using proprietary machine-learning-enabled natural language processing algorithms, FiscalNote ingests and processes thousands of legislative and regulatory policy events, scoring each for relevance, favorability, and importance to affected sectors. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The current economic and profit environment supports our stance of favoring stocks over bonds. The Fed will need to see more evidence to alter its gradual path for rates. Although valuations remain elevated, they are not a great market timing tool. Margins are expanding according to the S&P 500 data, and we expect this to continue in the second half of the year. But a peak in margins next year could be the justification to scale back on overweight positions in stocks, in anticipation of slower EPS growth. Corporate balance sheets continued to deteriorate in the first quarter, but that is not enough to warrant cutting back on corporate bond positions within fixed-income portfolios. Watch real short-term rates and bank C&I lending standards, as an exit warning. Feature Environment Remains Supportive For Stocks Over Bonds Investors are wondering whether the equity and currency/bond markets are living on different planets. The dollar and Treasurys seem to be priced for sluggish economic growth, less inflation and no fiscal stimulus. Yet, the S&P 500 is stubbornly holding above the 2,400 level. Many believe that the only reason that stocks got to this level in the first place is the prospect of tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending. If true, then it is only a matter of time before equity investors capitulate. We look at it another way. Yes, equities initially received a boost following the U.S. election on hopes for tax reform. But indicators such as the ratio of small-to-large-cap stocks, or high-tax companies relative to the S&P 500, suggest that the stock market has priced out all chances of any tax reform. The overall stock market has performed well despite this because of the favorable profit backdrop. The fact that Corporate America can generate such profits despite a lackluster economy is impressive. Moreover, the recent softening in inflation has led many to believe that the Fed can proceed even more slowly than the market previously believed, leading to a bond rally. This is quite a bullish backdrop for equities. One does not have to conclude that the bond and stock markets are living on different planets. The backdrop is also positive for corporate bonds versus Treasurys, despite the fact that corporate health continues to deteriorate (see below). Turning to politics, the political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The outcome of the election does not change our core views on the U.S. dollar, equity or bond markets. The dollar has rallied, Treasury yields are higher and U.S. equity prices moved up as this report was being prepared on Friday, June 9. Looking ahead, the coalition-building process in the U.K. will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds. Nonetheless, our high conviction view is that the investment implications are in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. A key takeaway for investors is that, aside from Brexit, domestic fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Moreover, the Brexit process will continue, albeit of a potentially more "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal.1 Will They Or Won't They? A 25-basis point rate hike is likely this week, but the FOMC will need more evidence on the direction of inflation and the economy before significantly changing the timing and pace of rate hikes or economic forecasts. The market is fully pricing in the anticipated 25-basis point rate bump, but beyond that, there is not much agreement between the Fed and the market on interest rates or economic projections. Nonetheless, as the Fed prepares its June forecast and dot plots, policymakers and the market are on the same page in terms of the labor market, inflation, and the economy in the next few years. The unemployment rate (4.3% in May 2017) is below the Fed's forecasts for 2017 (4.5%) and longer run (4.7%). The consensus outlook for the unemployment rate keeps it below the Fed's path through the end of 2018 (Chart 1, panel 3). Even assuming that the 120,000 pace of job growth in the past three months persists, the unemployment rate would remain below the Fed's view of NAIRU (Chart 2). Our unemployment rate projections are based on a stable labor force participation rate and a 1% gain in the working age population. Chart 1Fed, Market And Reality##BR##Not Too Far Apart Chart 2The Unemployment Rate##BR##Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios However, a closer look at what policymakers have said about prices and the trajectory of inflation in recent years suggests that the market and the Fed are not that far apart. At +1.7% in April, the PCE deflator remains near the FOMC's projection of 1.9% for this year and 2.0% in the long run. Bloomberg consensus estimates for inflation for this year and next are above the top end of the Fed's forecast range (Chart 1, panel 2). The FOMC's May minutes state that "participants generally continued to expect that inflation would stabilize around the Committee's two percent objective over the medium run as the effects of transitory factors waned." The market is still concerned that the traditional Phillips curve model may be broken and that inflation may never accelerate even with the economy below the Fed's estimate of full employment. We will discuss the Phillips curve in a post-GFC world in an upcoming edition of The Bank Credit Analyst. As we discussed in last week's report,2 GDP growth in 2017 is on track to exceed the Fed's 2017 target (2.1%) and is already running ahead of the Fed's GDP projection (1.8%) for the long term. The consensus forecast for GDP in 2018 and 2019 is at the upper end of the Fed's range set in March (Chart 1, panel 1). Despite the general agreement between the Fed and the market on certain aspects, they diverge on the outlook for the fed funds rate in the next 18 months (Chart 3). As of June 9, the Fed sees a total of six quarter-point rate hikes by the end of 2018. The market sees just two in the same period. The Fed and market are still far apart on rates in 2019. However, the disconnect between the Fed and the market is not as large as it was in early 2015. This disagreement was a major factor in the equity market pullback in the first few months of 2016 (Chart 3). Neither the recent weakness in the economic data nor softer-than-expected inflation readings will be enough to prompt a significant shift from the Fed in terms of the 'dot plot'. The economic surprise index has been declining for 63 days since peaking in early- to mid-March, but remains consistent with slow growth, not a recession. Economic data tends to disappoint for an average of 90 days after the economic surprise index is above 40, as it was in late 2016/early 2017 in the wake of the U.S. election (Chart 4). Chart 3Disconnect Between Fed##BR##And Market On Rates Chart 4Economic Surprise Index Has Rolled Over##BR##Since Early To Mid March Bottom Line: It would take a significant deterioration in the economy and labor market and in the benign inflation environment to alter the Fed's gradual rate hike plan. A backdrop of gradual hikes and eventually, a smaller balance sheet, will continue to foster the conditions under which stocks have outperformed bonds since 2009. We believe that the recent Treasury rally is overdone because the market has gone too far in revising down the path of Fed rate hikes. A re-evaluation of the outlook could see bond yields jump, sparking a small equity correction. This is not enough of a risk to scale back on equities versus bonds. Valuations, Earnings And Margins: An Update U.S. equities remain overvalued and would be even more extended if not for low rates. However, they are attractively priced relative to competing assets, such as corporate bonds and Treasurys. Valuation is not a great tool to time market turning points and, absent a significant deterioration in the economic, profit and margin environment, we don't foresee a sustained pullback in stocks. Looking beyond our tactical 6-12 month window, above-average market multiples alone imply below-average returns for stocks across a strategic time horizon. Our BCA valuation indicator has deteriorated since we last published it in March 2017 and shows that U.S. equities remain expensive.3 Individually, two of the three components of the Valuation index remain in overvalued territory. The Earnings Group remains at a record high (aside from the tech bubble). The Balance Sheet group shows the same profile. Only the Yield Group, which compares stock prices with various nominal and real interest rates, suggests that equities are undervalued. Thus, U.S. stock prices are vulnerable to a sharp jump in rates, which supports our view that U.S. equity markets will perform well in an economic and inflation backdrop that allows the Fed to raise interest rates and unwind its balance sheet gradually (Chart 5). While tax cuts and infrastructure spending might provide the equity market with a "sugar high", it probably would not last long because fiscal stimulus would bring forward Fed rate hikes. Moreover, Chart 6 shows that U.S. stocks remain favorably priced relative to competing assets such as corporate bonds, Treasurys and residential housing. That said, equity valuation measures such as price-to-book or price-to-sales make the market vulnerable to shocks. Chart 5U.S. Stocks##BR##Are Overvalued... Chart 6Stocks Look Less Expensive##BR##Relative To Competing Assets Inflated valuations alone are not enough to trigger a bear market or even a significant correction in U.S. equities. Outside of aggressive Fed tightening, we will become more defensive when profits come under pressure. On this score, the decline in Q4 profits according to the NIPA data is concerning. We are in a period where margins based on the NIPA data are diverging from the S&P's measure. Like corporate earnings, there is more than one data source for profit margin data, and the data itself is a mix of art and science. In the long run, the S&P-based margin data and the data derived from the NIPA accounts tend to move together. Over shorter time horizons, however, these two metrics may diverge. The NIPA margins peaked in 2014 and have moved steadily lower since then, but the BEA-derived profit data are not closely watched by investors and are subject to significant revision. On the other hand, margins based on S&P data are followed closely by the markets, are not subject to revision and have been moving higher since end of 2015. In the past 55 years, the peak in NIPA margins has often led the S&P data at peaks; the caveat is that it is unclear whether the NIPA data led in real time because of the endless revision process for GDP and profit data.4 The margin series based on S&P data tends to lead heading into margin troughs, but it is not a reliable signal. During the long economic expansion in the 1960s, both indicators topped out around the same time (1966-67). The NIPA derived margins peaked in 1975 as the S&P margins troughed, and later in the decade, the zenith in NIPA margins peaked three years before the S&P version. Similar to the current decade the long expansion in the 1980s saw a mid-decade collapse in oil prices and margins. In the late 80s, NIPA and S&P measures peaked almost simultaneously, which was three years before the crest in equity prices. The 1990s saw unabated margin expansion through 1997 for NIPA margins; the expansion in S&P-based margins lasted until 1999 (Chart 7). Chart 7Margins, Like Profits Are Mix Of Art & Science History also shows that falling margins do not always mean declining EPS growth. In the past 40 years, when the U.S. economy was not in recession, corporate EPS growth was very high on average when margins rose. It was mostly a wash when margins dropped, with slightly negative EPS growth on average. There were two episodes (late-1990s and mid-2000s) when margins fell, but EPS growth was strongly positive (Chart 8). The stock market can also rise significantly even after margins peak for the cycle. Chart 8EPS Can Grow Even As Margins Contract According to S&P data we are in a phase of climbing margins and we expect EPS growth to further accelerate into year end, peaking at just under 20%, before moderating in 2018. If profit growth decelerates in 2018 and the S&P measure of margins begins to narrow again, it would send a strong signal to trim exposure, especially given lofty equity valuations (Chart 9). Chart 9Profit Growth And Margins Both Rising Bottom Line: Rich valuations in U.S. equities will be overlooked as most investors are focused on the S&P and not the NIPA margins. EPS growth will decelerate sharply when margins resume their mean reversion, which could be the catalyst for a major correction or bear market in stock prices. We do not expect this scenario to play out until 2018 at the earliest. Meanwhile, rising margins and profits trump expensive multiples for U.S. equities. Stay long. Corporate Bonds: Kindling And Sparks Last week's U.S. Flow of Funds release allows us to update BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for the first quarter (Chart 10). The level of the CHM moved slightly deeper into "deteriorating health territory." The deterioration in the Monitor over the past few years is largely reflected in the profit-related components of the CHM, including the return on capital, cash flow coverage and free cash flow-to-total debt. Chart 10Deteriorating Since 2015, But... The Monitor has been a reliable indicator for the trend in corporate bond spreads over the years. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and most reliable indicators in BCA's stable of indicators. However, spreads have trended tighter over the past year even as the CHM began to signal deteriorating health in early 2015. Why the divergence? The CHM is only one of three key items on our checklist to underweight corporate bonds versus Treasurys. The other two are tight Fed policy (i.e. real interest rates that are above the neutral level) and the direction of bank lending standards for C&I loans. On its own, balance sheet deterioration only provides the kindling for a spread blowout. A blowout requires a spark. Investors do not worry about high leverage or a profit margin squeeze, for example, until the outlook for defaults sours. The latter occurs once inflation starts to rise and the Fed actively targets slower growth via higher interest rates. Banks see trouble on the horizon and respond by tightening lending standards, thereby restricting the flow of credit to the business sector. Defaults start to rise, buttressing banks' bias to curtail lending in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. The three items on the checklist usually occurred at roughly the same time in previous cycles because a deteriorating CHM is typically a late-cycle phenomenon. But this has been a very different cycle. High stock prices and rock-bottom bond yields have encouraged the corporate sector to leverage up and repurchase stock. At the same time, the subpar, stretched-out recovery has meant that it has taken longer than usual for the economy to reach full employment. Even now, inflationary pressures are so muted that the Fed can proceed quite slowly. It will be some time before real short-term interest rates are in restrictive territory. As for banks, they tightened lending standards a little in 2015/16 due to the collapse of energy prices, but this has since reversed. As an aside, recent weakness in the growth rate of C&I loans has contributed to concerns over the health of the U.S. recovery. However, the easing in lending standards this year points to an imminent rebound in C&I loan growth (Chart 11). Our model for C&I loans, based on non-residential fixed investment, small business optimism and the speculative-grade default rate, supports this view. Chart 11C&I Loan Growth Set To Rebound The implication is that, while corporate health has deteriorated, we do not have the spark for a sustained corporate bond spread widening. Indeed, Moody's expects that the 12-month default rate will trend lower over the next year, which is consistent with constructive trends in corporate lending standards, industrial production and job cut announcements (all good indicators for defaults). Chart 12 presents a valuation metric that adjusts the HY OAS for 12-month trailing default losses (i.e. it is an ex-post measure). In the forecast period, we hold today's OAS constant, but the 12-month default losses are a shifting blend of historical losses and Moody's forecast. The endpoint suggests that the market is offering about 200 basis points of default-adjusted excess yield over the Treasury curve for the next 12 months. This is roughly in line with the mid-point of the historical data. In the past, a default-adjusted spread of around 200 basis points provided positive 12-month excess returns to high-yield bonds 74% of the time, with an average return of 82 basis points. It is also a positive sign for corporate bonds that the net transfer to shareholders, in the form of buybacks, dividends and M&A activity, has eased on a 4-quarter moving average basis (although it ticked up in Q1 on a 2-quarter basis; Chart 13). As a result, ratings migration has improved (i.e. easing net downgrades), especially for shareholder-friendly rating action, which is a better indicator for corporate spreads. The moderating appetite to "return cash to shareholders" may not last long, but for now it supports our overweight in both investment- and speculative-grade bonds versus Treasurys. That said, excess returns are likely to be limited to the carry given little room for spread compression. Chart 12Still Some Value In##BR##High-Yield Corporates Chart 13Net Transfers To Shareholders##BR##Eased In Past Two Quarters Within balanced portfolios, we recommend favoring equities to high-yield at this stage of the cycle, for reasons we outlined in the April 17, 2017 Weekly Report. In a nutshell, value is not good enough in HY relative to stocks to expect any sustained period of outperformance in the former, assuming that the bull market in risk assets continues. Bottom Line: Corporate balance sheets are still deteriorating but risk assets, including corporate bonds, should continue to outperform Treasurys and cash in the near term. We will look to downgrade risk assets when core inflation moves closer to the Fed's 2% target, which would trigger a more aggressive FOMC tightening campaign and tighter bank lending standards. Favor equities to high yield, but within fixed-income portfolios, overweight investment- and speculative-grade corporates versus Treasurys. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the Geopolitical Strategy Client Note "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken, published on June 9, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?" June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "How Expensive Are U.S. Stocks", dated March 13, 2017 available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth, Inflation and the Fed", May 8, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The ECB's meeting was in line with expectations, the governing council increased its growth forecast, decreased its inflation forecast, removed it easing bias, but maintained that easy policy was key to support its objectives. Going forward, growth will have to remain just as strong for European inflation dynamics to emerge. Financial conditions between the U.S. and the euro area are moving in favor of U.S. growth, and thus, the USD. EUR/USD momentum is stretched, but it can rise further. EUR/USD at 1.15 in the coming weeks is a risk to our view. However, EUR/USD forecasts have already been ratcheted upward, and their capacity to lift the euro is losing steam. Feature The European Central Bank hit the mark yesterday with a performance that was bang on in terms of expectations, as illustrated by the euro's muted response. The governing council increased its growth forecast by 0.1% each year and curtailed its inflation forecast by an average of 0.2% until 2019, inclusively (Table I-1). Moreover, while the ECB statement removed its future easing bias, in the press conference ECB President Mario Draghi made it crystal clear that this was because deflationary risks were evaporating, but the economy still needed extremely easy conditions in order to stay on the trajectory envisioned by the ECB. As a result, despite this adjustment in forward guidance, the ECB elected to keep its asset purchases in place, even leaving the door open for time extensions and size increases if conditions warrant. After all, in the eyes of the ECB - and it is an assessment we share - the great performance of the European economy has been and remains dependent on the continuation of a very easy policy stance. In this optic, we study the outlook for growth dynamics in Europe, especially in relation to the U.S., as this is what will determine the future path of relative policy. If European policy can move in a more hawkish fashion relative to the Federal Reserve as well as current expectations, then the euro bear market will be over. Growth And Financial Conditions For the euro to rally further, the ECB has to be able to beat market expectations and the Fed has to continue to underwhelm. So far this has not happened, but markets are forward looking and are behaving as if both central banks will follow these paths. To expect a tightening of ECB policy relative to the Fed's, European growth will have to continue outperforming U.S. growth. As we argued last week, the slack in the European jobs market is much greater than that in the U.S.1 Without outstanding growth, European inflationary dynamics will remain hampered by low wage growth. Meanwhile, the Fed is facing an environment congruent with high rates (Chart I-1), something that markets are ignoring as they are only anticipating two more hikes into June 2019, beyond the one anticipated next week. So what kind of future growth dynamics are we anticipating? World growth may not be about to plunge, but global activity is set to soften as China and the U.S. have been tightening monetary conditions in an environment replete with excess capacity. Indicators are already responding to this policy shift. Our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators has already rolled over sharply, a precursor to softening global LEIs (Chart I-2). This is a bigger problem for Europe than the U.S. Since 2010, the beta of euro area LEIs to global LEIs has been around 0.8, while for the U.S. the sensitivity is around 0.2. Thus, deteriorating growth conditions are a greater handicap for Europe, a region still much more reliant on trade and manufacturing as sources of growth. Chart I-1The Fed And Its Mandate Chart I-2Global Growth Passing Its Zenith Meanwhile, purely domestic economic conditions have been buoyant in the euro area and quite morose in the U.S., though the picture seems to be reversing. To make this judgment, we begin by evaluating a global growth factor, a global economic force that lifts or pulls down all boats, similar to a tide. Such a global growth factor should not just affect various countries through trade, but it should also impact their economies through financial linkages. In order to evaluate this phenomenon, we conducted a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the LEIs of 21 countries. We found that the combined factor 1 and factor 2 explains nearly 50% of global growth dynamics (Chart I-3). Once we estimated this global growth factor, we then proceeded to estimate how much it contributes to LEI gyrations in the U.S. and euro area, using the factor loadings of both relative to the two main components revealed by the PCA. With that information in hand, we then simply subtracted the European and U.S. impact from their respective LEIs. What is left reflects purely endogenous changes in the LEIs for the euro area and the U.S. This same procedure can be applied to any country. Through this exercise, we can see very well that European domestic conditions have been rebounding sharply since 2012. However, the pure domestic element of the U.S. LEIs has been falling steadily since late 2014, shortly after the U.S. dollar began its 27% rally (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Tide That##br## Lifts All Boats Chart I-4A Look At Purely Domestic##br## Growth Dynamics To a large degree, these differentiated dynamics make sense. 2012 marked the apex of the euro area crisis. The improvement in the domestic component of the European LEIs coincided with Mario Draghi's "whatever it takes" speech. This moment was crucial as it resulted in the normalization of private sector borrowing costs across the Eurozone. Thanks to the ensuing compression in break-up risk premia, Italian and Spanish private lending rates collapsed by 110 and 240 basis points over the following 24 months, respectively. Easy money was finally being transmitted to the private sector. Chart I-5Massive Tightening In 2014 In the U.S., the deterioration began after the dollar perked up massively, but also, after the Fed began tapering its purchases of securities, events associated with a 300 basis-point increase in the Wu-Xia shadow fed funds rate (Chart I-5). The combined effect of this monetary tightening resulted in a significant brake on economic activity, one made most evident by the deceleration in the domestic component of the LEIs. These forces seems to be reversing. Today, the dollar is trading in line with its March 2015 level, and while the fed funds rate has increased by 75 basis points, this still pales in comparison to the large increase in the shadow fed funds rates recorded between May 2014 and November 2015. Meanwhile in Europe, the lagged effects of the massive 15% decline in the trade-weighted euro between June 2014 and March 2015 is dissipating. These monetary dynamics partially explain why the domestic element of the European LEIs is rolling over while the U.S. one is improving. However, we think financial conditions play a larger role. U.S. financial conditions have greatly eased in recent months, while financial conditions in Europe have been deteriorating, suggesting domestic growth conditions will follow a similar path (Chart I-6). These crosscurrents are especially evident when looking at the relative European and U.S. domestic growth impulses vis-a-vis their relative financial conditions. Currently, the purely endogenous elements of growth in the euro area look set to roll over against those of the U.S. So if the international and domestic elements of growth in Europe are set to slow relative to the U.S., when should these dynamics begin to affect market pricing? Historically, the German Ifo survey has been one of the most reliable bellwethers of European economic activity. The same can be said of the ISM in the U.S. While the ISM rolled over three months ago, the Ifo is still at all-time highs. However, historically, one of the most reliable leading indicators of the Ifo has been none other than the ISM itself. Hence, the likelihood that the Ifo rolls over sharply by September is high, especially in the context of the observations made above (Chart I-7). With expectations that European growth will remain strong but that the U.S. is incapable of generating inflation, a weak ISM is well known, but a weak Ifo would be a surprise. Chart I-6Follow The Financial Conditions Chart I-7Where The ISM Goes, The IFO Follows When the Ifo underperforms the ISM, the euro tends to suffer (Chart I-8). This was not true in 2001, but back then the euro was trading 15% below its long-term fair value, and the U.S. was entering a recession. Today, the euro is trading at a more modest 5% discount to its long-term fair value, and BCA believes the U.S. is not on the verge of a recession. Moreover, on a short-term basis, the euro is already trading 6% above its interest rate and risk-aversion implied tactical fair value. Chart I-8If No U.S. Recession Emerges, A Falling IFO Equals A Falling Euro These dynamics also imply that the massive positive skew in economic surprises between the euro area and the U.S. should soon end, which is likely to prompt a re-think of the relative monetary policy stance between the ECB and the Fed, and therefore put an end to the recent sharp rally in the euro. Bottom Line: The ECB did not surprise markets this week. Yet, Mario Draghi made it very clear that despite an upgrade to forward guidance, the path toward achieving the central bank's inflation target continues to require very easy policy. How easy? Our view is that based on global dynamics and financial conditions, European growth could slow in the coming months, delaying the point in time when the euro area output gap closes. Meanwhile, investors are too conservative regarding the U.S.'s growth and inflation prospects, and therefore are not anticipating enough rate hikes from the Fed. What To Do With Momentum? The key issue for now is that the euro's momentum is extremely powerful and hard to fight. Indeed, the euro seems to have dissociated from fundamentals. While aggregate real rate differentials continue to move in favor of the U.S. dollar, the euro is ignoring these dynamics and instead has become overtaken by powerful flows into the euro area (Chart I-9). These dynamics may be stretched, but they could still have additional room to run. Non-commercial traders have fully purged their short bets on EUR/USD, and they have accumulated the most long-euro positions in three years. Additionally, our composite sentiment indicator, based on the positioning, sentiment, and 13-week rate-of-change in the currency, is now at elevated levels relative to the past three years (Chart I-10). The violence of these shifts highlights an improving risk-reward ratio to shorting the euro, but this could be of little solace: historically, both the composite sentiment measure and positioning in the euro have hit much higher levels. Technical indicators point to similar dilemmas. Both the EUR/USD intermediate-term technical indicator and its 13-week rate of change have hit levels congruent with a reversal (Chart I-11). However, these indicators have also displayed inertia in the past, with occasions such as in 2013, where their elevated readings did not preclude a higher EUR/USD. Chart I-9EUR/USD Is A Lone Wolf Chart I-10EUR/USD Is Overbought But...(1) Chart I-11EUR/USD Is Overbought But...(2) As a result, we are highly cognizant of the risks to our positive bet on the DXY (which due to its near 60% weighting in the euro is equivalent to a short euro bet). But the good news in the euro seems well priced in. In line with the 8% surge in the euro this year, the average analyst forecast for the euro for Q4 2017 moved from EUR/USD 1.05 to EUR/USD 1.12 (Chart I-12, top panel). Recent peaks in the euro have materialized when these forecasts hit 1.13, which we are very close to. At these levels, the optimism toward Europe seems fully discounted. Chart I-12When To Be Contrarian In FX In fact, the gap between the euro itself and the forecast is now decreasing (Chart I-12, bottom panel). This suggests that each new forecast upgrade is lifting the euro less and less, implying that buyers have already internalized these increasing forecasts and need ever better news, especially on the wage and inflation front, to lift the euro higher. Hence, while worried that the EUR/USD could move to 1.15 in a blink of an eye before reversing, we remain cautiously optimistic on our negative EUR/USD and our positive DXY stances. Bottom Line: At this point, the key problem with our view is that momentum is clearly in the euro's favor, a dangerous position for euro bears. While most indicators highlight that EUR/USD is overbought, these same metrics could in fact remain overbought for longer. However, investors have already massively upgraded their EUR/USD forecasts suggesting that much news is in the price, especially as each successive upgrade is showing diminishing returns in their capacity to lift EUR/USD spot rates. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion", dated June 2, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The soft patch in the U.S. economy continues: Unit labor costs growth has softened to 2.2%, a less-than-expected pace of 2.5%; Non-Manufacturing/Services sectors are looking weak with both PMI and ISM measures underperforming; Consumer credit also grew by USD 8.2 bn, underperforming the expected USD 15.5 bn. As a result, the dollar remains weak. While the data is worrying, we stand with the Fed's view. The Fed will hike in June, and when this soft patch proves temporary, it is likely that a September hike will materialize. With the ECB constrained in its capacity to move to a hawkish stance, it is possible for the USD to see some upside sooner rather than later. Report Links: Capacity Explosion = Inflation Implosion - June 2, 2017 Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro has witnessed a particularly strong two months due to positive surprises in data, but momentum somewhat slowed this week due to mixed data: Services PMI in Spain, Italy and France underperformed expectations, while Germany and the overall euro area outperformed; Retail sales increased at a 2.5% annual rate; German factory orders increased by 3.5% annually, which was less than expected. Even worse they contracted by 2.1% on a monthly basis; Overall GDP growth in the euro area outperformed expectations, being revised to 1.9%. Furthermore, Draghi reiterated the need for extremely easy conditions in order to stay on the path to reach the target inflation rate, especially as inflation forecasts were downgraded. If the European data cannot keep up with its current blistering pace, investors should again begin to wonder about the ECB's capacity to move away from what remain a dovish stance. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent economic data has been mixed in Japan: Consumer confidence came in at 43.6, increasing from last month. Bank lending annual growth came in at 3.2%, beating expectations. However, GDP annualized growth was greatly revised downward to 1%. Although we continue to be bullish on the yen on a short term basis, it would be preferable to play yen strength by shorting NZD/JPY rather than USD/JPY, as we believe that the correction in the U.S. dollar has run its course. Thus, we are looking to exit our short USD/JPY trade once it reaches 108. On a cyclical basis, the yield curve target implemented by the BoJ, along with a hawkish fed will weigh on Japanese real rates vis-à-vis U.S ones and consequently push the yen downward. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data has been mixed in the U.K.: Construction PMI came in at 56, blowing past expectations. Halifax house price annual growth came in at 3.3%, also outperforming expectations. However, Markit Services PMI came below expectations at 53.8. The results of the elections happening as of the date of this writing will create some volatility in the pound. A greater majority government by the conservatives would likely be a boost to the pound, as it will give Prime Minister May more leeway when negotiating the exit of the U.K. from the European Union. On the other hand, if labor wins enough seats to create a hung parliament, the pound could suffer as political uncertainty will once again reign supreme. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Last Innings Of The Dollar Correction - April 21, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The Aussie experienced an upbeat week, appreciating almost 2.5%. A few positive data was recorded: TD Securities Inflation increased at a 2.8% annual rate, more than the previous 2.6% reading; GDP growth increased 1.7% annually, beating both yearly and quarterly expectations. Chinese imports were very strong, coming in at 22% growth on an annual pace, suggesting continued intake by the Middle Kingdom of what Australia exports. The GDP was a key driver in this week's rally. However, while the headline number was great, the details were more worrisome. Inventories led GDP growth, while exports subtracted most from it. This is peculiar considering that terms of trade increased at a 24.8% annual rate. This also predates the near 40% decline in iron ore futures. The trade balance for April also missed expectations greatly, coming in at 555 million, compared to the expected 1.95 million, setting up a poor start for Australia's second quarter. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The kiwi economy continues to improve: Headline and core inflation have both surpassed the 2% threshold, reaching 2.2% and 2.3% respectively in the first quarter of 2017. Meanwhile, nominal retail sales are growing at a healthy 7.5%. Considering the continued strength in the kiwi economy, the NZD should continue to outperform the AUD on a cyclical basis, given that Australia is much more sensitive to a slowdown in Chinese economic activity, which is beginning to suffer in response to the tightening campaign by the PBoC. On the other hand the upside for the NZD against the U.S. dollar remains limited. Not only is NZD/USD overbought on a short term basis, but the tight correlation between the kiwi and commodity prices should eventually weigh on this currency. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The CAD went through a rough patch this week: The seasonally-adjusted measure of PMIs delivered a disappointing 53.8 reading compared to the expected 62; Building permits are contracting at a 0.2% monthly pace; Housing starts increased at 194,700, which was less than expected; On the plus side, house price growth was at 3.9% yoy, beating expectations of 3.3%. Oil was also a big player in the loonie's weakness. Crude oil inventories were higher than expectations by roughly 6 million barrels: a 3.464 million barrels decline in inventories was expected, while inventories increased at a 3.295 million barrels. The CAD remains oversold, but we remain bullish on it in the G10 space as investors have rarely been so short the Canadian currency as they currently are. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent economic data in Switzerland has been very positive: The unemployment rate came in at 3.2%, beating expectations. Headline inflation came in at 0.5%, higher than last month and beating expectations. Yesterday, the ECB underwehlmed bulls, as ECB president Mario Draghi stated that asset purchases will "run until the end of December 2017, or beyond, if necessary". We expect the ECB to ultimately find it very difficult to switch to a hawkish bias, especially relative to relative to other central banks, as pricing power in the euro area remains muted. On the other hand, Switzerland is slowly recovering, and a removal of the implied floor by the SNB on EUR/CHF could happen as early as the end of the year. Thus, we are already shorting this cross to take advantage of such an event. Report Links: Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 On Wednesday, oil inventories rose by 3.3 million against expectations of a 3.5 million draw. This caused oil prices to plunge by almost 4%. Nevertheless, the response of USD/NOK has been somewhat muted. This is in part due to the fact that real rate differentials matter more than oil for USD/NOK. Indeed, while oil is down almost 15% on the year, the NOK has actually appreciated slightly in the year against the dollar, given that rates in the U.S. have decreased substantially during the year. Thus, given that we expect a more hawkish Fed than the market anticipates, we are USD/NOK bulls. Additionally, we are also bullish on CAD/NOK, as the Norges Bank is likely to have a much more dovish bias than the BoC going forward. Report Links: Exploring Risks To Our DXY View - May 26, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has been depreciating this week on the back of disappointing industrial production figures, with the yearly measure increasing at a meagre 0.8% pace, much less than the anticipated 4.2%. Moreover, IP experienced a monthly contraction of 2.4%. Additionally, the recent Financial Stability Report also highlighted that "further measures need to be introduced to increase the resilience of the household sector and reduce risks", as well as vulnerabilities in the Swedish banking system. While we think USD/SEK's weakness is nearing its end, EUR/SEK will likely see some weakness in the near future, given its expensive level. Report Links: Bloody Potomac - May 19, 2017 Updating Our Intermediate Timing Models - April 28, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Dear Client, I am visiting clients in Asia. Along with a brief Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Chief Strategist of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the U.S. is vulnerable to serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election, as a result of the widening gulf between elites and the rest. Trump, thus far, seems unlikely to bridge this gap. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights The United States has produced too many elites, while popular well-being has fallen; Elite-controlled institutions have failed to protect households from the negatives of globalization and technological change; Tribalism, polarization, and money politics are preventing political compromise; Trump won by assaulting the "elites" but neither his policies, Congress, nor the economy look to improve well-being; With recession likely by 2019, the U.S. will see a revolt of some kind by the 2020 election. Feature Crime is increasing Trigger happy policing Panic is spreading God knows where We're heading Oh, make me wanna holler They don't understand Make me wanna holler They don't understand - Marvin Gaye, "Inner City Blues," 1971 If we had to explain the election of Donald Trump and the decision by U.K. voters to exit the EU with one chart it would be Chart 1. It depicts the relationship between high income inequality and low generational mobility and suggests that highly unequal societies develop structures that perpetuate unequal income through generations.1 The U.S. and the U.K. stand at the extreme of the relationship, with Italy close behind. Not surprisingly, the common people, "the plebs," in all three countries are dissatisfied with the arrangement. Low social mobility perpetuates unequal economic outcomes, throwing middle- and low-income voters into a sense of desperation. They fear that both their children's lot in life and their own is already decided, i.e. cannot and will not improve. A pre-election Gallup study of 125,000 American adults confirms that President Trump's support was strongest among voters in communities with poor health and low generational mobility.2 Of no relevance was whether respondents came from areas supposed to suffer most heavily from the ills that Trump opposed, i.e. communities exposed to global competition via trade, or those with high levels of immigration, or areas with relatively high unemployment and low incomes. America is supposed to be immune to income inequality because of social mobility. Equality of opportunity matters more than equality of outcome. This is the trade-off that has existed at the heart of America since its founding. For decades this trade-off has atrophied. Donald Trump was then elected to bring the U.S. back to its default setting. In this report, we explain why it may be too late and what will happen if he fails. If BCA's House View is correct, that a recession will occur by the end of 2019 (if not earlier), then the economic and political conditions are ripe for serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election.3 The Dynamic Of Elite Overproduction In Why Nations Fail, economist Daron Acemoglu and political scientist James Robinson tell a story of "How Venice Became A Museum."4 From the eleventh to fourteenth century, Venice was one of the richest places in the world. Behind its rapid economic expansion was the commenda, an early form of a joint-stock company formed for the duration of a single trading mission. It spurred Venice's ambitious entrepreneurs to find new trading routes by allowing them to share in the profits with the owners of capital who funded the risky journeys. As new families enriched themselves, political institutions grew more inclusive to accommodate them: in 1032, for instance, Venice held elections for its doge, or leader. An independent judiciary, private contracts, and bankruptcy laws followed. By 1330, Venice was a wealthy and strikingly modern republic with a population as large as that of Paris. The commenda system, however, had a dark side: creative destruction. Each new wave of young, enterprising explorers reduced the political privileges and profits of the established elites. In the late thirteenth century, these elites began to restrict membership in the Great Council, or legislature. Such efforts culminated in La Serrata ("The Closure") in 1297, which severely restricted access to the Great Council for new members but expanded it for families of established elites. An economic serrata quickly followed the political one, and the commenda system that underpinned Venice's wealth was replaced by a state monopoly on trade in 1314. The rest is, as they say, history. Venice rapidly declined as the newly closed economic and political institutions failed to deal with the rise of Portugal and Spain, the revolution in navigation and discovery of new trade routes to the East, and various regional attempts to encroach on its wealth and power. After the seventeenth century this decline accelerated. Today, its only source of income is tourism, which parlays the pre-Serrata wonders - such as the Doge's Palace and St. Mark's Cathedral - for cash that the city desperately needs to keep itself afloat.5 Acemoglu and Robinson make the case in their research that societies with both politically and economically inclusive institutions are rare. They cite a number of reasons for this, but the one that is most relevant to this report is "elite overproduction." Elites have a perfectly human and rational desire to perpetuate their political and economic privileges and pass them on to their children. A society that truly promotes equality of opportunity is one that leaves its elites to the fates. The elite desire to pass on privileges to future generations is a constant, but human conflict and state collapse are cyclical. Peter Turchin, a biologist who studies human conflict, has noted that periods of intense conflict in societies tend to recur within 40-to-60-year cycles. He posits that elite overproduction - and its counterpart, low societal well-being - is to blame.6 In post-industrial societies, low and falling labor costs are one of the principal conditions for elite multiplication. International trade, immigration, technological advancements, and investment in human and physical capital all suppress labor costs, benefiting the consumers of labor, i.e. the elites. Globalization has played a particularly important role in suppressing wages in the modern developed world. It expanded the global supply of labor by opening up new populations to capitalism (Chart 2), leading to suppressed wage growth for the middle classes in advanced economies (Chart 3). This process has been reinforced by technological change, particularly innovation that is biased in favor of capital (i.e. saving on labor costs) (Chart 4). Chart 2Globalization Expanded ##br##The Global Supply Of Labor... As elites capture an ever-greater share of the economic pie (even a growing economic pie), they become accustomed to ever greater levels of consumption, which drives inter-elite competition for social status. Everyone tries to "keep up with the Joneses," which for many is only achievable by supplementing wages with debt (Chart 5).7 The demand for elite goods - say homes in the "right" zip codes - exhibits runaway growth as the cost of elite membership rises and as sub-elites with rising income levels compete for access (Chart 6). Chart 5Credit Supplanted Income Chart 6Middle Class Incomes Don't ##br##Buy Middle Class Goods Focusing on the U.S., Turchin shows that Americans are today living in the second "Gilded Age." His research shows that "elite overproduction" has not been this high, and "population well-being" this low, since the early twentieth century (Chart 7). He calculates population well-being as a combination of general health, family formation, and wage and employment prospects. All indicators are currently in decline relative to history, save for health. But even life expectancy is taking a hit, albeit for select demographic groups most negatively impacted by poor job and wage prospects (Chart 8). For elite overproduction, Turchin relies on standard measures: wealth inequality, university education cost, and political polarization. This makes intuitive sense, since major policies aimed at reversing entrenched inequality can only be enacted after polarization has fallen due to events that subdued elites, such as major economic calamities or geopolitical challenges - e.g. the New Deal following the Great Depression, or the Great Society following World War II and amidst the Cold War. The danger of extreme polarization between elite prosperity and general well-being is that it is theoretically and empirically associated with political polarization, social unrest, and war. Acemoglu and Robinson detail case after case - from ancient Mayans and Romans to modern French and Japanese - in which the competition for resources between elites and the general population led to civil strife or all-out warfare. Meanwhile Turchin's research shows that politically motivated violence in the U.S. (Chart 9), which last peaked 50 years ago in the late 1960s, is associated with large gaps in well-being between elites and the masses (Chart 10).8 Bottom Line: Elite overproduction has been identified by academic research as a constant source of social instability throughout human history. Elites subvert inclusive political and economic institutions in order to stifle creative destruction, which would enrich new entrepreneurs but dilute elite privileges. As such, societies that prevent elite overproduction and promote equality of opportunity (and creative destruction) are successful in perpetuating themselves over the long term. Repatrimonialization In The U.S. Chart 11Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s A sure sign that a society is in decline? When elites strive to hold onto their status and create barriers to entry for others. In the case of Venice, these barriers were overtly political. Le Serrata was followed by the introduction of Libro d'Oro (the "Golden Book"), which created an official registry of Venetian families that would be allowed to share in the deliberations of the Great Council. As the population revolted against such measures, Venice introduced a police force in 1310, with other coercive methods to follow. Today, the U.S. exhibits similar signs of institutional capture by the elites, albeit updated for the twenty-first century. Political theorist Francis Fukuyama calls this process "repatrimonialization." It occurs amidst long periods of economic prosperity and peace, as elites lose sight of their symbiotic relationship with fellow citizens and begin to serve their own "tribal" interests.9 Note in the above Chart 7 that elite overproduction, as defined by Turchin, reaches its peak after long periods of peace: the first high point came in 1902, 37 years after the Civil War, and the second came in 2007, 62 years after World War II. The latter case in particular suggests that as threats dissipate, elites lose sight of personal sacrifices - military service, income redistribution, public service, public works - that are required for geopolitical competition with peer challengers. At the height of the Cold War (1949 to 1962), for example, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 92% (Chart 11).10 The point is not the tax rate, but that elites were far more acquiescent to fiscal sacrifices on behalf of the public. Fukuyama points to the U.K. and the U.S. as the two countries that have been the least politically responsive to the challenges of globalization and technological change in the developed world. In the case of the U.S., this is because interest groups are capable of steering policy towards further globalization and technological change. Both processes have also empowered elites, which have steered policy towards less redistribution and more austerity for the middle classes. The data is clear on this point. Despite Europe's being as exposed to globalization and technological advances as the U.S., European median wage growth has kept pace with GDP growth since 2000, whereas in the U.S. it not only failed to keep up but declined over the same time period (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe Shielded ##br##Households From Global Winds What are some of the mechanisms of repatrimonialization in the U.S. and can they be reversed? The good news is that elite capture of state institutions is now out in the open and easy to identify. Both Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned explicitly against it. The bad news is that it is unlikely to be reversed endogenously, at least not without a catalyst. What follows is a short description of the most salient problems facing the country as a result of elite entrenchment. Campaign Financing The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave rise to political action committees, also known as Super PACs. These groups are allowed to receive unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations as long as they do not cooperate, coordinate, or directly contribute funding to actual candidates. This supposed firewall, however, is a fig leaf. The elimination of caps on this type of campaign financing allows single-issue groups and even single individuals with deep pockets to fund fringe candidates or support single-issue ballot measures that would otherwise lack sources of funding. This is especially important in primary elections where turnout is very low. In response, incumbent legislators have to tread carefully and avoid angering individual donors or Super PACs that could single-handedly fund a campaign against them in the primary elections, especially since the average cost of a congressional election campaign is relatively low at $1.4 million (a small amount compared to the funds that can be brought to bear by activist donors). In 2012, more than 40% of the campaign donations used in all federal elections was contributed by 0.01% of the voting-age population. That means that about 24,000 people were responsible for a near-majority of all contributions.11 Two other findings reported in the academic literature provide insight on how (and if) that money might steer policy. First, a study confirmed the general belief that the wealthiest Americans are much more conservative than the general public when it comes to tax policy and economic regulation.12 Second, another study found that when the policy preferences of the top 10% of income earners diverge from the preferences of the bottom 50%, the policy outcome is more likely to reflect the intentions of the former group.13 Polarization Political polarization benefits elites by impeding the democratic process and locking in rules that are beneficial to the status quo. Chart 13 shows that income inequality and political polarization in the sphere of economic policy are correlated.14 The simple reason the two are so highly correlated is because the right-of-center Republican Party increasingly opposes redistribution, while the left-of-center Democratic Party favors it. As the two parties diverge on matters of economic principle, compromises become virtually impossible, locking redistributive efforts at the current levels favored by the elites. Polarization is subsequently reinforced by electoral-district "gerrymandering" and an extremely bifurcated and increasingly distrusted news media. Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter due to their superior position at the state level) have redrawn administrative boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart 14). Chart 13Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 14Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Tribalization Elite overproduction often leads to the tribalization of society. Elites, to ensure that they are not torn asunder by the plebs, mobilize the population behind various causes that divert attention away from themselves, i.e. away from the real cause of social malaise. These causes are "wedge issues," in today's parlance. They can include identity politics, religious issues, as well as foreign policy. The Democratic Party has often relied on identity issues to mobilize support, but the effort kicked into high gear as it evolved from a redistributive "Old Left" party to the more centrist, "Third Way," neo-liberal orientation of Bill Clinton's presidency. Senator Bernie Sanders attempted to reverse this trend and overtly downplayed identity politics during his presidential campaign. He saw his party's neo-liberal turn as an elite-driven effort to distract from the real problems affecting low-income households. Hillary Clinton, the neo-liberal Democrat, by contrast, suffered as a result of the perception that she was an elite. The problem is that these wedge issues have begun to ossify into actual identities. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on a list of 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats, as opposed to other elements of identity. This has not always been the case, as Chart 15 shows. We suspect that this data will grow even starker after the divisive, borderline hysterical 2016 campaign. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become almost tribal in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Bottom Line: America's repatrimonialization is advanced. The democratic process, which is supposed to adjudicate between interest groups and regulate elite economic and political privileges, has been drawn to a halt by polarization, the political influence of big money, and emerging tribalism between non-elites. It is extremely difficult to see how these hurdles can be overcome via America's regular political process. As such, they will be resolved only after some kind of crisis, whether endogenous or exogenous. Will Trump Fix It? President Donald Trump famously said in his nomination speech at the Republican Convention, "I alone can fix it." In a way, he may be correct. Although he is very much part of the American economic elite, he has no links to the D.C. establishment and owes no favors to special interest groups.15 His entire campaign personified the conclusions of this report: that the U.S. economy has been captured by economic and political elites and that the well-being of regular citizens is in the doldrums. It is unfair to judge President Trump's record and legacy based on a little over four months in office. However, we lean heavily towards the conclusion that his efforts to undermine American patricians will ultimately fail. Here is why: Policy President Trump does not have much of a legislative record. Nonetheless, his first major piece of legislation - the Obamacare repeal and replace bill - would, in its current form, leave 14 million people without health care - and an estimated 24 million by 2026. If not substantially revised, the bill is likely to impose a roughly $445 billion burden on U.S. households in order to pay for the "hyuge" tax cuts that Trump has promised (Chart 16). Further throwing Trump's plebeian credentials into doubt is his second signature legislative act: tax reform. His campaign proposal fell largely in line with previous Republican efforts, which, it should be noted, have contributed greatly to elite overproduction in the U.S. (Chart 17). Trump's original proposal would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of middle-class Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.16 We expect that his White House team will adjust this original plan to offer middle-class tax cuts, but the main thrust of the effort is still to eliminate estate taxes and lower the top marginal rates significantly. Chart 17Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites On trade and immigration, Trump has little record to show. His meeting with President Xi Jinping of China revealed that he is like previous presidents in talking tough about Chinese trade on the campaign trail yet lacking the desire to take aggressive action once in office. We expect that Trump will eventually pivot towards greater protectionism, but it is not clear that it will be executed in a way that actually improves household well-being.17 Congress So far Trump has shown that he is more interested in getting legislation passed than shaping it in a populist way. For example, he has urged Congress to pass the Obamacare replacement even though many conservative Senators are wary of its negative impact on households. If he adopts the same strategy with tax reform, we would suspect that he will err on the side of "getting things done," rather than fulfilling his campaign pledges to blue-collar workers. The problem for Trump is the same problem President Obama had: polarization. Trump would be far more successful in passing populist legislation if he developed a working relationship with Democrats, who ostensibly have discarded the elitism of the Clinton years. Yet to do so he would have to "betray" his only friends, leaving himself vulnerable should the Democrats refuse to play ball. He is thus stuck with partisan Republican policies, which means voters are stuck with a lack of compromise. Macroeconomics Populists everywhere have one overarching goal when they come to power: boosting nominal GDP growth (Chart 18). We suspect that Trump will ultimately get tax reform through Congress and that it will be moderately stimulative.18 The problem is that the U.S. economic recovery is already far advanced. As such, even moderate stimulus could hasten the timing of an economic recession. Given the lack of major economic imbalances, it is unlikely that such a recession would freeze the financial system and be as painful as that of 2008-9. Nonetheless, the trade-off between moderate stimulus and a quicker recession is unlikely to benefit Trump's voters. Bottom Line: Donald Trump has tapped into the deep social malaise in the U.S. and responded to the populace's demands that elite overproduction be curbed. Unfortunately, his track record during the campaign and as president gives little evidence that he will be successful in restraining America's elites. Especially because he is forced to cooperate with them through Congress, and in a way that does not encourage broad compromise. Investment Implications We suspect that polarization will grow throughout Trump's term and that he will largely be unsuccessful in pursuing an agenda that genuinely increases opportunity or well-being. In fact, we would bet that most of his policies will contribute to, not reduce, elite overproduction in the U.S. What happens when Donald Trump fails to reform America and resolve its elite overproduction problem? If a recession occurs by 2019 - our House View at BCA - then the economic and political conditions suggest that a serious revolt is in the cards by the time of the 2020 election. By this we mean not just an electoral revolt, like Trump's election, but also a concrete increase in social tension and unrest. A repeat of the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, yet more violent, could be in cards. By the 2020 election, we would also suspect that our clients may look back fondly, with nostalgia, for Senator Bernie Sander's campaign platform, which by that point may look downright centrist. Investors should prepare for an increase in economic populist policy proposals, from both the left and the right. If economic policy begins to steer towards populism, investors should bet on higher inflation and thus higher nominal - but potentially lower real - Treasury yields. The independence of the Fed could also suffer, putting considerable downward pressure on the USD. In this environment, equities will outperform bonds, but global assets should outperform those of the U.S. Gold, which has failed as a safe-haven asset in the contemporary deflationary era, should become attractive once again.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Miles Corak, "Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility," Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Discussion paper no. 7520, July 2013, available at iza.org. 2 Please see Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell, "Explaining Nationalist Political Views: The Case Of Donald Trump," Gallup, dated November 2, 2016, available at papers.ssrn.com. 3 Please see BCA's The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Daren Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Publishers, 2012). 5 Literally. 6 Please see Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov, Secular Cycles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). 7 Please see Neal Fligstein et al, "Keeping up with the Joneses: Inequality and Indebtedness, in the Era of the Housing Price Bubble, 1999-2007," presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, August 2015. 8 Please see Peter Turchin, "Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780-2010," Journal of Peace Research 49:4 (2012), pp. 577-91. 9 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2014). 10 Today's dispersed terrorist threat does not even come close to approximating the threat that the Soviet Union during the Cold War presented to the U.S., and as such we do not consider it seriously as an existential threat to either the U.S. or the West. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Adam Bonica et al., "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 27:3 (Summer 2013), pp. 103-24. 12 Please see Benjamin Page et al., "Democracy And The Policy Preferences Of Wealthy Americans," Perspectives On Politics 11:1 (March 2013), pp. 51-73. 13 Please see Martin Gilens, "Inequality And Democratic Responsiveness," Public Opinion Quarterly 69:5 (2005), pp. 778-796. 14 The latter measure of polarization is one of Turchin's factors in elite overproduction. 15 Save for the Kremlin! We jest, we jest. At least, we think we jest ... 16 Several groups would have seen no substantial tax cuts under his original campaign plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would have seen their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would have seen their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would have seen their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. For our original discussion, see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Highlights The United States has produced too many elites, while popular well-being has fallen; Elite-controlled institutions have failed to protect households from the negatives of globalization and technological change; Tribalism, polarization, and money politics are preventing political compromise; Trump won by assaulting the "elites" but neither his policies, Congress, nor the economy look to improve well-being; With recession likely by 2019, the U.S. will see a revolt of some kind by the 2020 election. Feature Crime is increasing Trigger happy policing Panic is spreading God knows where We're heading Oh, make me wanna holler They don't understand Make me wanna holler They don't understand - Marvin Gaye, "Inner City Blues," 1971 If we had to explain the election of Donald Trump and the decision by U.K. voters to exit the EU with one chart it would be Chart 1. It depicts the relationship between high income inequality and low generational mobility and suggests that highly unequal societies develop structures that perpetuate unequal income through generations.1 The U.S. and the U.K. stand at the extreme of the relationship, with Italy close behind. Not surprisingly, the common people, "the plebs," in all three countries are dissatisfied with the arrangement. Low social mobility perpetuates unequal economic outcomes, throwing middle- and low-income voters into a sense of desperation. They fear that both their children's lot in life and their own is already decided, i.e. cannot and will not improve. A pre-election Gallup study of 125,000 American adults confirms that President Trump's support was strongest among voters in communities with poor health and low generational mobility.2 Of no relevance was whether respondents came from areas supposed to suffer most heavily from the ills that Trump opposed, i.e. communities exposed to global competition via trade, or those with high levels of immigration, or areas with relatively high unemployment and low incomes. America is supposed to be immune to income inequality because of social mobility. Equality of opportunity matters more than equality of outcome. This is the trade-off that has existed at the heart of America since its founding. For decades this trade-off has atrophied. Donald Trump was then elected to bring the U.S. back to its default setting. In this report, we explain why it may be too late and what will happen if he fails. If BCA's House View is correct, that a recession will occur by the end of 2019 (if not earlier), then the economic and political conditions are ripe for serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election.3 The Dynamic Of Elite Overproduction In Why Nations Fail, economist Daron Acemoglu and political scientist James Robinson tell a story of "How Venice Became A Museum."4 From the eleventh to fourteenth century, Venice was one of the richest places in the world. Behind its rapid economic expansion was the commenda, an early form of a joint-stock company formed for the duration of a single trading mission. It spurred Venice's ambitious entrepreneurs to find new trading routes by allowing them to share in the profits with the owners of capital who funded the risky journeys. As new families enriched themselves, political institutions grew more inclusive to accommodate them: in 1032, for instance, Venice held elections for its doge, or leader. An independent judiciary, private contracts, and bankruptcy laws followed. By 1330, Venice was a wealthy and strikingly modern republic with a population as large as that of Paris. The commenda system, however, had a dark side: creative destruction. Each new wave of young, enterprising explorers reduced the political privileges and profits of the established elites. In the late thirteenth century, these elites began to restrict membership in the Great Council, or legislature. Such efforts culminated in La Serrata ("The Closure") in 1297, which severely restricted access to the Great Council for new members but expanded it for families of established elites. An economic serrata quickly followed the political one, and the commenda system that underpinned Venice's wealth was replaced by a state monopoly on trade in 1314. The rest is, as they say, history. Venice rapidly declined as the newly closed economic and political institutions failed to deal with the rise of Portugal and Spain, the revolution in navigation and discovery of new trade routes to the East, and various regional attempts to encroach on its wealth and power. After the seventeenth century this decline accelerated. Today, its only source of income is tourism, which parlays the pre-Serrata wonders - such as the Doge's Palace and St. Mark's Cathedral - for cash that the city desperately needs to keep itself afloat.5 Acemoglu and Robinson make the case in their research that societies with both politically and economically inclusive institutions are rare. They cite a number of reasons for this, but the one that is most relevant to this report is "elite overproduction." Elites have a perfectly human and rational desire to perpetuate their political and economic privileges and pass them on to their children. A society that truly promotes equality of opportunity is one that leaves its elites to the fates. The elite desire to pass on privileges to future generations is a constant, but human conflict and state collapse are cyclical. Peter Turchin, a biologist who studies human conflict, has noted that periods of intense conflict in societies tend to recur within 40-to-60-year cycles. He posits that elite overproduction - and its counterpart, low societal well-being - is to blame.6 In post-industrial societies, low and falling labor costs are one of the principal conditions for elite multiplication. International trade, immigration, technological advancements, and investment in human and physical capital all suppress labor costs, benefiting the consumers of labor, i.e. the elites. Globalization has played a particularly important role in suppressing wages in the modern developed world. It expanded the global supply of labor by opening up new populations to capitalism (Chart 2), leading to suppressed wage growth for the middle classes in advanced economies (Chart 3). This process has been reinforced by technological change, particularly innovation that is biased in favor of capital (i.e. saving on labor costs) (Chart 4). Chart 2Globalization Expanded ##br##The Global Supply Of Labor... As elites capture an ever-greater share of the economic pie (even a growing economic pie), they become accustomed to ever greater levels of consumption, which drives inter-elite competition for social status. Everyone tries to "keep up with the Joneses," which for many is only achievable by supplementing wages with debt (Chart 5).7 The demand for elite goods - say homes in the "right" zip codes - exhibits runaway growth as the cost of elite membership rises and as sub-elites with rising income levels compete for access (Chart 6). Chart 5Credit Supplanted Income Chart 6Middle Class Incomes Don't ##br##Buy Middle Class Goods Focusing on the U.S., Turchin shows that Americans are today living in the second "Gilded Age." His research shows that "elite overproduction" has not been this high, and "population well-being" this low, since the early twentieth century (Chart 7). He calculates population well-being as a combination of general health, family formation, and wage and employment prospects. All indicators are currently in decline relative to history, save for health. But even life expectancy is taking a hit, albeit for select demographic groups most negatively impacted by poor job and wage prospects (Chart 8). For elite overproduction, Turchin relies on standard measures: wealth inequality, university education cost, and political polarization. This makes intuitive sense, since major policies aimed at reversing entrenched inequality can only be enacted after polarization has fallen due to events that subdued elites, such as major economic calamities or geopolitical challenges - e.g. the New Deal following the Great Depression, or the Great Society following World War II and amidst the Cold War. The danger of extreme polarization between elite prosperity and general well-being is that it is theoretically and empirically associated with political polarization, social unrest, and war. Acemoglu and Robinson detail case after case - from ancient Mayans and Romans to modern French and Japanese - in which the competition for resources between elites and the general population led to civil strife or all-out warfare. Meanwhile Turchin's research shows that politically motivated violence in the U.S. (Chart 9), which last peaked 50 years ago in the late 1960s, is associated with large gaps in well-being between elites and the masses (Chart 10).8 Bottom Line: Elite overproduction has been identified by academic research as a constant source of social instability throughout human history. Elites subvert inclusive political and economic institutions in order to stifle creative destruction, which would enrich new entrepreneurs but dilute elite privileges. As such, societies that prevent elite overproduction and promote equality of opportunity (and creative destruction) are successful in perpetuating themselves over the long term. Repatrimonialization In The U.S. Chart 11Tax Rates Were High In The Roaring '50s A sure sign that a society is in decline? When elites strive to hold onto their status and create barriers to entry for others. In the case of Venice, these barriers were overtly political. Le Serrata was followed by the introduction of Libro d'Oro (the "Golden Book"), which created an official registry of Venetian families that would be allowed to share in the deliberations of the Great Council. As the population revolted against such measures, Venice introduced a police force in 1310, with other coercive methods to follow. Today, the U.S. exhibits similar signs of institutional capture by the elites, albeit updated for the twenty-first century. Political theorist Francis Fukuyama calls this process "repatrimonialization." It occurs amidst long periods of economic prosperity and peace, as elites lose sight of their symbiotic relationship with fellow citizens and begin to serve their own "tribal" interests.9 Note in the above Chart 7 that elite overproduction, as defined by Turchin, reaches its peak after long periods of peace: the first high point came in 1902, 37 years after the Civil War, and the second came in 2007, 62 years after World War II. The latter case in particular suggests that as threats dissipate, elites lose sight of personal sacrifices - military service, income redistribution, public service, public works - that are required for geopolitical competition with peer challengers. At the height of the Cold War (1949 to 1962), for example, the top marginal tax rate in the U.S. was 92% (Chart 11).10 The point is not the tax rate, but that elites were far more acquiescent to fiscal sacrifices on behalf of the public. Fukuyama points to the U.K. and the U.S. as the two countries that have been the least politically responsive to the challenges of globalization and technological change in the developed world. In the case of the U.S., this is because interest groups are capable of steering policy towards further globalization and technological change. Both processes have also empowered elites, which have steered policy towards less redistribution and more austerity for the middle classes. The data is clear on this point. Despite Europe's being as exposed to globalization and technological advances as the U.S., European median wage growth has kept pace with GDP growth since 2000, whereas in the U.S. it not only failed to keep up but declined over the same time period (Chart 12). Chart 12Europe Shielded ##br##Households From Global Winds What are some of the mechanisms of repatrimonialization in the U.S. and can they be reversed? The good news is that elite capture of state institutions is now out in the open and easy to identify. Both Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Senator Bernie Sanders campaigned explicitly against it. The bad news is that it is unlikely to be reversed endogenously, at least not without a catalyst. What follows is a short description of the most salient problems facing the country as a result of elite entrenchment. Campaign Financing The 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission gave rise to political action committees, also known as Super PACs. These groups are allowed to receive unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations as long as they do not cooperate, coordinate, or directly contribute funding to actual candidates. This supposed firewall, however, is a fig leaf. The elimination of caps on this type of campaign financing allows single-issue groups and even single individuals with deep pockets to fund fringe candidates or support single-issue ballot measures that would otherwise lack sources of funding. This is especially important in primary elections where turnout is very low. In response, incumbent legislators have to tread carefully and avoid angering individual donors or Super PACs that could single-handedly fund a campaign against them in the primary elections, especially since the average cost of a congressional election campaign is relatively low at $1.4 million (a small amount compared to the funds that can be brought to bear by activist donors). In 2012, more than 40% of the campaign donations used in all federal elections was contributed by 0.01% of the voting-age population. That means that about 24,000 people were responsible for a near-majority of all contributions.11 Two other findings reported in the academic literature provide insight on how (and if) that money might steer policy. First, a study confirmed the general belief that the wealthiest Americans are much more conservative than the general public when it comes to tax policy and economic regulation.12 Second, another study found that when the policy preferences of the top 10% of income earners diverge from the preferences of the bottom 50%, the policy outcome is more likely to reflect the intentions of the former group.13 Polarization Political polarization benefits elites by impeding the democratic process and locking in rules that are beneficial to the status quo. Chart 13 shows that income inequality and political polarization in the sphere of economic policy are correlated.14 The simple reason the two are so highly correlated is because the right-of-center Republican Party increasingly opposes redistribution, while the left-of-center Democratic Party favors it. As the two parties diverge on matters of economic principle, compromises become virtually impossible, locking redistributive efforts at the current levels favored by the elites. Polarization is subsequently reinforced by electoral-district "gerrymandering" and an extremely bifurcated and increasingly distrusted news media. Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter due to their superior position at the state level) have redrawn administrative boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart 14). Chart 13Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 14Few Congressional Seats Truly Competitive Tribalization Elite overproduction often leads to the tribalization of society. Elites, to ensure that they are not torn asunder by the plebs, mobilize the population behind various causes that divert attention away from themselves, i.e. away from the real cause of social malaise. These causes are "wedge issues," in today's parlance. They can include identity politics, religious issues, as well as foreign policy. The Democratic Party has often relied on identity issues to mobilize support, but the effort kicked into high gear as it evolved from a redistributive "Old Left" party to the more centrist, "Third Way," neo-liberal orientation of Bill Clinton's presidency. Senator Bernie Sanders attempted to reverse this trend and overtly downplayed identity politics during his presidential campaign. He saw his party's neo-liberal turn as an elite-driven effort to distract from the real problems affecting low-income households. Hillary Clinton, the neo-liberal Democrat, by contrast, suffered as a result of the perception that she was an elite. The problem is that these wedge issues have begun to ossify into actual identities. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on a list of 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats, as opposed to other elements of identity. This has not always been the case, as Chart 15 shows. We suspect that this data will grow even starker after the divisive, borderline hysterical 2016 campaign. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become almost tribal in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Bottom Line: America's repatrimonialization is advanced. The democratic process, which is supposed to adjudicate between interest groups and regulate elite economic and political privileges, has been drawn to a halt by polarization, the political influence of big money, and emerging tribalism between non-elites. It is extremely difficult to see how these hurdles can be overcome via America's regular political process. As such, they will be resolved only after some kind of crisis, whether endogenous or exogenous. Will Trump Fix It? President Donald Trump famously said in his nomination speech at the Republican Convention, "I alone can fix it." In a way, he may be correct. Although he is very much part of the American economic elite, he has no links to the D.C. establishment and owes no favors to special interest groups.15 His entire campaign personified the conclusions of this report: that the U.S. economy has been captured by economic and political elites and that the well-being of regular citizens is in the doldrums. It is unfair to judge President Trump's record and legacy based on a little over four months in office. However, we lean heavily towards the conclusion that his efforts to undermine American patricians will ultimately fail. Here is why: Policy President Trump does not have much of a legislative record. Nonetheless, his first major piece of legislation - the Obamacare repeal and replace bill - would, in its current form, leave 14 million people without health care - and an estimated 24 million by 2026. If not substantially revised, the bill is likely to impose a roughly $445 billion burden on U.S. households in order to pay for the "hyuge" tax cuts that Trump has promised (Chart 16). Further throwing Trump's plebeian credentials into doubt is his second signature legislative act: tax reform. His campaign proposal fell largely in line with previous Republican efforts, which, it should be noted, have contributed greatly to elite overproduction in the U.S. (Chart 17). Trump's original proposal would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of middle-class Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.16 We expect that his White House team will adjust this original plan to offer middle-class tax cuts, but the main thrust of the effort is still to eliminate estate taxes and lower the top marginal rates significantly. Chart 17Tax Reform Always Benefits Elites On trade and immigration, Trump has little record to show. His meeting with President Xi Jinping of China revealed that he is like previous presidents in talking tough about Chinese trade on the campaign trail yet lacking the desire to take aggressive action once in office. We expect that Trump will eventually pivot towards greater protectionism, but it is not clear that it will be executed in a way that actually improves household well-being.17 Congress So far Trump has shown that he is more interested in getting legislation passed than shaping it in a populist way. For example, he has urged Congress to pass the Obamacare replacement even though many conservative Senators are wary of its negative impact on households. If he adopts the same strategy with tax reform, we would suspect that he will err on the side of "getting things done," rather than fulfilling his campaign pledges to blue-collar workers. The problem for Trump is the same problem President Obama had: polarization. Trump would be far more successful in passing populist legislation if he developed a working relationship with Democrats, who ostensibly have discarded the elitism of the Clinton years. Yet to do so he would have to "betray" his only friends, leaving himself vulnerable should the Democrats refuse to play ball. He is thus stuck with partisan Republican policies, which means voters are stuck with a lack of compromise. Macroeconomics Populists everywhere have one overarching goal when they come to power: boosting nominal GDP growth (Chart 18). We suspect that Trump will ultimately get tax reform through Congress and that it will be moderately stimulative.18 The problem is that the U.S. economic recovery is already far advanced. As such, even moderate stimulus could hasten the timing of an economic recession. Given the lack of major economic imbalances, it is unlikely that such a recession would freeze the financial system and be as painful as that of 2008-9. Nonetheless, the trade-off between moderate stimulus and a quicker recession is unlikely to benefit Trump's voters. Bottom Line: Donald Trump has tapped into the deep social malaise in the U.S. and responded to the populace's demands that elite overproduction be curbed. Unfortunately, his track record during the campaign and as president gives little evidence that he will be successful in restraining America's elites. Especially because he is forced to cooperate with them through Congress, and in a way that does not encourage broad compromise. Investment Implications We suspect that polarization will grow throughout Trump's term and that he will largely be unsuccessful in pursuing an agenda that genuinely increases opportunity or well-being. In fact, we would bet that most of his policies will contribute to, not reduce, elite overproduction in the U.S. What happens when Donald Trump fails to reform America and resolve its elite overproduction problem? If a recession occurs by 2019 - our House View at BCA - then the economic and political conditions suggest that a serious revolt is in the cards by the time of the 2020 election. By this we mean not just an electoral revolt, like Trump's election, but also a concrete increase in social tension and unrest. A repeat of the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, yet more violent, could be in cards. By the 2020 election, we would also suspect that our clients may look back fondly, with nostalgia, for Senator Bernie Sander's campaign platform, which by that point may look downright centrist. Investors should prepare for an increase in economic populist policy proposals, from both the left and the right. If economic policy begins to steer towards populism, investors should bet on higher inflation and thus higher nominal - but potentially lower real - Treasury yields. The independence of the Fed could also suffer, putting considerable downward pressure on the USD. In this environment, equities will outperform bonds, but global assets should outperform those of the U.S. Gold, which has failed as a safe-haven asset in the contemporary deflationary era, should become attractive once again.19 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Miles Corak, "Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility," Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Discussion paper no. 7520, July 2013, available at iza.org. 2 Please see Jonathan Rothwell and Pablo Diego-Rosell, "Explaining Nationalist Political Views: The Case Of Donald Trump," Gallup, dated November 2, 2016, available at papers.ssrn.com. 3 Please see BCA's The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Daren Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, Why Nations Fail (New York: Crown Publishers, 2012). 5 Literally. 6 Please see Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov, Secular Cycles (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009). 7 Please see Neal Fligstein et al, "Keeping up with the Joneses: Inequality and Indebtedness, in the Era of the Housing Price Bubble, 1999-2007," presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, August 2015. 8 Please see Peter Turchin, "Dynamics of political instability in the United States, 1780-2010," Journal of Peace Research 49:4 (2012), pp. 577-91. 9 Please see Francis Fukuyama, Political Order And Political Decay (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2014). 10 Today's dispersed terrorist threat does not even come close to approximating the threat that the Soviet Union during the Cold War presented to the U.S., and as such we do not consider it seriously as an existential threat to either the U.S. or the West. Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Adam Bonica et al., "Why Hasn't Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 27:3 (Summer 2013), pp. 103-24. 12 Please see Benjamin Page et al., "Democracy And The Policy Preferences Of Wealthy Americans," Perspectives On Politics 11:1 (March 2013), pp. 51-73. 13 Please see Martin Gilens, "Inequality And Democratic Responsiveness," Public Opinion Quarterly 69:5 (2005), pp. 778-796. 14 The latter measure of polarization is one of Turchin's factors in elite overproduction. 15 Save for the Kremlin! We jest, we jest. At least, we think we jest ... 16 Several groups would have seen no substantial tax cuts under his original campaign plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would have seen their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would have seen their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would have seen their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. For our original discussion, see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Highlights The U.K. election was about austerity, not Brexit; The median voter in the U.K. and the U.S. has moved to the left; Nationalism will not satisfy the popular revolt in these countries; The pound is not likely to fall much below GBP/USD 1.2. Feature The political consequences of the extraordinary U.K. general election are still not clear. The coalition-building process will take time as the horse-trading between parties proceeds over the weekend. Our high-conviction view, however, is that the investment implications were in fact already self-evident and do not require foresight into the eventual make-up of the U.K. government. How can that be? Last year, in anticipation of unorthodox electoral results, we introduced the "Median Voter Theory."1 This theory in political science posits that policymakers are not price-makers but price takers in the political marketplace. The price maker is the median voter. Policymakers, of all stripes and colors, will attempt to approximate the policy demands of the median voter in order to win over as many voters as they can in the marketplace. Further, we argued that the median voter in the two most laissez-faire economies, the U.S. and the U.K., had moved to the left of the economic spectrum.2 The U.K. election confirms this argument. It also confirms our suspicion that the plebian revolts in these two bastions of free-market capitalism will not be extinguished merely by rallying the public around the flag and promoting nationalist themes of de-globalization.3 As such, the two trends we believe will emerge from this election, regardless of the ultimate political outcome, are: The Brexit process will continue, albeit toward a "softer" variety and with a somewhat higher probability of eventual reversal; Fiscal austerity is dead in Britain and investors should expect its economic policy - under whatever leadership ultimately gains power - to swing firmly to the left on fiscal, trade, and regulatory policy. Because of this mix of policy outcomes, we expect the GBP to suffer little in the post-election environment, though heading back towards its January lows versus the USD later this year. The market will have to price in much looser fiscal policy out of the U.K. over the course of the next government, with expectations that the BoE will continue to stand pat. This Election Was About Austerity And Globalization, Not Brexit It is absolutely crucial for investors to understand that the Labour Party did not, in any way whatsoever, focus its campaign on the results of the Brexit referendum. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's strategy was not only to accept Brexit as a done deal, but ostensibly even to accept the "hard Brexit" of keeping the U.K. out of the Common Market, which PM Theresa May announced in a major policy speech on January 17. The three policy positions of the Labour Party on Brexit during the campaign were: Gain "tariff-free access" to the EU single market, while accepting that Common Market membership was off the table; Keep the option of negotiating a customs union - which would prohibit the U.K. from negotiating its own trade deals - on the table; Refuse the mantra that "no deal" is better than a "bad deal." Overall, these points are not too far from Tory strategy, although they are devoid of nationalist rhetoric. More importantly, the key difference between the Labour and Tory approach to Brexit was that Labour was not trying to entice blue-collar voters, battered by the winds of globalization, with promises of free-trade agreements with India and China. If last year's Brexit voters did not want a free-trade tie-up with Europe, why on earth would they support a Tory vision of free trade deals with China and India?! Jeremy Corbyn's Labour has, in other words, a much better handle on what the Brexit referendum was all about. As we concluded in our net assessment ahead of the referendum in March of last year, the vote would ultimately be about globalization and its impact on the economic wellbeing of the median voter in the U.K. (Chart 1), not the angst over the EU's technocratic elites and bureaucratic overreach.4 Yes, the latter also mattered, but not to the blue-collar voters who crossed the aisle to support the Tory/UKIP vision on Brexit. For them, Brexit was a vote against elites that have profited from globalization. Election polls gave investors a hint that blue-collar Brexit voters would shift back to Labour. Tories began to see a drop in support almost immediately after they called the election on April 18 - i.e. before May's various mistakes (Chart 2). All the subsequent gaffes by May reinforced the trend, but the trend started on the first day of campaigning. This suggested that traditional Labour voters were turning back to their bread-and-butter economic demands immediately as the campaign began. Chart 1Brits Exposed To Harsher Change Chart 2Labour Rally Began When Election Called Corbyn, who has been underestimated by the media for over a year, was quick to press the gas pedal on left-wing economic issues, steering clear of Brexit. In fact, if one was unfamiliar with British politics, and only focused on the Labour campaign rhetoric, one would hardly know that a referendum on EU membership had even taken place. Corbyn's campaign was straight out of the Labour playbook of the 1980s. He gambled that the median voter had swung to the left. In particular, the Labour campaign pounced on three policy issues that isolated Tory tone-deafness on the unpopularity of austerity: "Dementia tax" - May's quip that the elderly would be means-tested by including the value of their homes in assessing government support for social care ultimately proved to be profoundly self-harming. At the moment when she made the gaffe, Tories were up 11% on Labour in the polls. "Triple Lock" - May hesitated and waffled over the triple lock pension system - which was introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic coalition from 2010-15. It guaranteed that government pension payouts would rise annually at the highest rate of inflation, 2.5% per year, or wage growth. She did so even as inflationary pressures built up as a result of Brexit, which similarly fell flat with voters. This is unsurprising, given that it was the Euroskeptic Tories and UKIP plan to exit the EU that caused inflationary pressures in the economy in the first place. That they then asked low-income elderly to shoulder the costs of Brexit also illustrates a profound misunderstanding of what the Brexit referendum was about. Police funding - May thought that the Manchester and London Bridge terrorist attacks would swing the vote towards the center-right, security-conscious party. She went so far as to announce that human rights concerns would not stand in the way of Britain's fight against terrorism, doubling down on nationalist rhetoric.5 Corbyn stuck to the strategy of tying everything to austerity: he condemned the attacks but criticized the Tories for significant cuts to police forces under May's watch as Home Secretary, claiming that these imperiled law enforcement's ability to keep U.K. citizens safe. Following Brexit, May did try to shift policy to the left. For example, her October 2016 speech - her first major address as the U.K. Prime Minister - blamed "globalized elites" for the pain incurred by Britain's low and medium income households. However, Tories could not help to subsequently promise corporate tax cuts and budget-saving measures. And her gaffes during the election convinced voters - many of whom may have voted for Brexit - that Tories were stereotypical Tories; i.e., not concerned for the plight of the common man. All that said, the Conservative Party will still win around 57 seats more than the Labour Party. In any previous election, that would be considered a decent, if not commanding, result. What we want to stress to clients is that the Conservative Party in fact only won 22 more seats than the combined result of the most left-wing Labour Party in half a century and an extremely left-leaning Scottish National Party. When seen from that perspective, and when we consider the Tories' 22% lead in polls at the onset of the electoral campaign, the result on June 8 is an unmitigated disaster for the party and a wake-up call: the economic preferences of the U.K.'s median voter are as left wing as they have been since the mid-1920s. Bottom Line: The U.K. election was not contested solely on Brexit. As such, investors should not overthink the implications of the election on the Brexit process and hence the implications for the pound and U.K. assets. Labour gained around 29 more seats despite firmly accepting the Brexit referendum. This is not to say that the Labour Party, were it to cobble together a governing coalition with the SNP and others, would not be quick to reverse the Brexit process and call a second referendum if the economic costs of Brexit were to rise over the course of its mandate. That is a possible scenario. But the bigger picture is that Labour's opposition to austerity politics is what made all the difference in this election. Likely Government Formation Scenarios At the time of publication of this Client Note, May's comments and the distribution of seats favor a Tory minority government (or perhaps a formal coalition) supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland. As we discussed in our just-published Weekly Report, the Northern Irish have not exercised real power in Westminster in a century, literally.6 The party won ten seats, which makes for a majority with the Tories, and thus could provide just enough support to accomplish the single goal of a Tory-led Brexit. Tories and the DUP have already been in an informal coalition due to the Tories' attempts to increase their earlier majority of only 17 seats. Nonetheless, such a coalition will be controversial and will lead to uncertainties about parliament's ability to pass a final Brexit deal in 2019. Currently, such an arrangement would see a Tory government depend on the slimmest of majorities, around two seats over the 326 needed for a nominal majority. However, because the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein MPs (who gained seven seats this time around) normally do not sit in the parliament, and because the speaker and deputy speakers do not vote, Tory's would have some buffer. (And yet the extraordinary circumstances suggest that one should not rule out Sinn Fein taking up their seats!) How much political capital would a May-led government have? Extremely little. First of all, not only did the Tories squander an extraordinary lead in the polls, but their ultimate share of the total population's vote is merely 2.4% above Labour's haul (Chart 3). In fact, the only thing that saved the Tories from opposition is the U.K.'s first-past-the-post electoral system, which allowed them to win more seats merely by being the only right-of-center option for British voters. In addition, it is now clear that May failed to get all of the UKIP voters to swing to the center-right, establishment party. The UKIP vote declined by over 11% in the election, but the Tory net gain in percentage terms from the last election is only half that figure. This supports our view from above that many blue-collar voters, who voted for Brexit, swung back to the Labour party the minute the election was announced, reflecting deep distrust of the Tory Party on bread-and-butter, non-Brexit issues. A slim government majority made possible by a Euroskeptic Northern Irish Party will ensure that the Brexit process continues. Would Euroskeptic Tories have a bigger say in such a government, forcing May to swing further to the nationalist right and leading to acrimony with Europe? Normally we would say "yes." However, it was May's turn to the nationalist right at the expense of nurturing left-leaning economic policies that cost her a majority. As such, we doubt that she, or her potential replacement in the wake of the disastrous result, would double-down on more Euroskepticism. That would be a profound error following a clear signal from the electorate that nationalist rhetoric and Brexit chest-beating is insufficient to bolster the Conservative Party in the post-Brexit environment. As May herself said, Brexit means Brexit. The median voter appears to agree and now wants the government to move on by turning the U.K. away from austere economic policies. We suspect the Tories understand this now. As for a potential Labour coalition with the SNP and Liberal Democratic Party, the numbers do not add up at the moment. Nonetheless, if we combine all the left-of-center parties in the U.K., their share of total vote is 52%. As such, we expect the Tories, assuming they govern, to tilt to the left on the economic front. Bottom Line: Tories are likely to produce a government in some kind of coalition with Northern Irish DUP. We highly doubt that they will double down on Euroskepticism after that strategy proved so disastrous in the election. The U.K. voters have moved on from Brexit and are not interested in re-litigating the reasons for it. They are, however, interested in seeing a definitive end to austerity. Investment Implications Another reason this election is not a game changer on anything other than domestic economic policy is that the Scottish National Party sustained serious losses of 21 seats. Former banner-bearing member Alex Salmond even lost his seat. Voters are simply not interested in the constitutional struggles within the U.K. or the EU at this point. The key takeaway for investors is that fiscal policy is the driving issue in British politics. Brexit was not only a vote about sovereignty and immigration, it was also a demand from the lower and middle classes for an end to second-class status. That is why May highlighted the need for government to moderate the forces of globalization and capitalism and make the economy "work for everyone" in her October 2016 speech at the Conservative Party conference and in her rhetoric since then. She lost sight of her own message and squandered her massive lead. The Tories had started to ease fiscal policy ahead of the election. In his first Autumn Statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond abandoned his predecessor George Osborne's promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2019, pushing the timeline beyond 2022 (Chart 4). The latest budget projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility show that the current government is projecting more spending than its predecessor (Chart 5). Thus monetary and fiscal conditions are both accommodative in the short and medium term. Given that we do not expect the European Union to exact crippling measures on the Brits for leaving, as we have outlined in previous reports, the result is a relatively benign environment for the U.K., at least until the business cycle turns, the effects of Brexit begin to bite, and/or global growth slows down. The combination of fiscal stimulus and easy monetary policy, however, should weigh on the pound regardless of the election outcome. We do not expect the GBP to retest its January 16, 2016 lows against the USD in the near term, but the large amount of uncertainty injected into the British political sphere will nonetheless result in a few more days of cable weakness that can be exploited by short-term traders. The competing crosswinds confusing investors in the immediacy of the election are as follow: Jeremy Corbyn's Labour is as left-wing as any major center-left party has become in the West. Yet it just won over 40% of the vote in the U.K.; Brexit remains the likely outcome of U.K.-EU negotiations, but the chances of a "super hard Brexit" or some sort of a "Brexit cliff" have been reduced as voters have repudiated May's hard right turn; The pound has already fallen on every gaffe and misstep by the Tories, suggesting that the current disappointing result, although not fully priced, was partly anticipated by the FX markets. In the long term, however, a reversal of austerity and a relatively dovish monetary policy from the BoE should be negative for the pound. While less austerity is a big plus for the economy, the inflationary momentum experienced in recent months should increase further and dampen the fiscal dividend as higher prices hurt real spending (Chart 6). This puts the BoE in a bind, in which it will be hard to move away from its super-accommodative stance even if inflation is becoming dangerous. Thanks to these dynamics, the leftward tilt for one of the previously most laissez-faire economies in the world could see the GBP ultimately retest its January 16 lows over the medium term as the recent surge in FDI could peter off, increasing the cost of financing the U.K.'s large current-account deficit. Moreover, BCA's House View calls for a higher dollar by year's end, another negative for cable. Yet a fall much below GBP/USD 1.2 is unlikely, given that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations with the EU were overstated to begin with and likely to be resolved towards a "softer Brexit" outcome over the life of the next government. Additionally, the pound is now cheap, and another pullback would result in a more than 1-sigma undervaluation relative to long-term fundamentals (Chart 7). Chart 6The BOE's Dilemma Chart 7The Pound Enjoys A Valuation Cushion Is there a message for the rest of the world from the U.K. election? Absolutely. It signals that the voters who did not benefit from globalization are singularly focused on economic issues and that distracting them with nationalism will only go so far. This is a message that the Trump administration in the U.S. will either heed over the next three years or ignore and suffer a left-wing backlash in the 2020 election that will unsettle the markets in a fundamental way.7 The bastions of laissez-faire economics - the U.K. and the U.S. - are swinging to the left. We continue to believe that investors are unprepared for the consequences of this reality. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 The failure of May's tough rhetoric on terrorism to help her in the polls suggests, along with other evidence, that Europeans are becoming desensitized to terror attacks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "A Bull Market For Terror," dated August 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Has Europe Switched From Reward To Risk?" dated June 7, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, Along with this brief Weekly Report, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, Chief Strategist of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service. Marko argues that the U.S. is vulnerable to serious socio-political instability by the 2020 election, as a result of the widening gulf between elites and the rest. Trump, thus far, seems unlikely to bridge this gap. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlight U.S. growth will accelerate over the remainder of the year, thanks to easier financial conditions. This will force the Federal Reserve to raise rates more than the market is currently discounting. In contrast, the BoJ and the ECB will remain on hold. The net result would be a stronger dollar. Solid Chinese growth will support commodity prices. Stay overweight global equities over a cyclical horizon of 12 months. Feature U.S. Growth Will Surprise On The Upside I have been meeting clients in Asia over the past week. The ongoing decline in Treasury yields - the 10-year yield hit a 7-month low of 2.14% this week - was a frequent topic of conversation. Investors are becoming increasingly convinced that the U.S. economy is running out of steam. The OIS curve is pricing in only 48 basis points of rate hikes over the next 12 months. Since a June rate increase is now largely seen as a done deal, the market is essentially saying the Fed will abandon its tightening cycle later this year. We think that's too early. The U.S. economy may not be on fire, but it is hardly floundering. The Blue Chip consensus estimate for Q2 growth stands at 3.1%. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 3.4%. There is little reason to think that growth will slow substantially later this year. Financial conditions have eased significantly over the past few months thanks to a weaker dollar, falling bond yields, narrower credit spreads, and higher equity prices (Chart 1). Our research has shown that GDP growth tends to react to changes in financial conditions with a lag of around 6-to-9 months (Chart 2). This means demand growth is likely to strengthen, not weaken, over the remainder of the year. Chart 1Financial Conditions Have Been Easing... Chart 2...Which Bodes Well For Growth Running Out Of Slack If demand growth does accelerate, does the U.S. economy have the supply capacity to fully accommodate it? We do not think so. The headline unemployment rate fell to a 16-year low of 4.3% in May. It is now half a percentage point below the Fed's estimate of full employment. The broader U-6 rate, which includes marginally-attached workers and those working part-time purely for economic reasons, dropped to 8.4%, essentially completing the roundtrip to where it was before the recession (Chart 3). Chart 3A Tight Labor Market Chart 4Wage Growth Is In An Uptrend Chart 5Wage Gains Are Broad Based Contrary to popular perception, wages are rising. Looking across the various official wage indices that are published on a regular basis, the underlying trend in wage growth has accelerated from 1.2% in 2010 to 2.4% (Chart 4). The acceleration in wage growth has been broad-based, occurring across most industries, regions, and worker characteristics (Chart 5). Wage Growth: No Mystery Here Granted, wage growth is still about a percentage point lower than it was before the recession, but that can be explained by slower productivity growth and lower long-term inflation expectations (Chart 6). Real unit labor costs, which take both factors into account, are rising at a faster pace than in 2007 and close to the pace in 2000 (Chart 7). Chart 6A Secular Downtrend In Productivity Growth ##br##And Inflation Expectations Chart 7Rising Real Unit Labor Costs: ##br##A Case Of Deja-Vu Looking out, wage growth is likely to accelerate further. The evidence strongly suggests that the Phillips curve has a "kink" at an unemployment rate of around 5% (Chart 8). In plain English, this means that a drop in the unemployment rate from 10% to 8% tends to have little effect on inflation, while a drop from 6% to 4% does. The Cost Of Waiting One might argue that the Fed can afford to take a "wait and see" approach to raising rates. There is some merit to this view, but it can be taken too far. If the Fed is to have any hope of achieving a soft landing for the economy, it needs to stabilize the unemployment rate at a level close to NAIRU. This may be possible if the unemployment rate is near 4%, but it would be difficult to pull off if the rate slips much below that level. Trying to stabilize the unemployment rate when it has already fallen well below its full employment level means accepting a permanently overheated economy. A standard "expectations-augmented" Phillips curve says that this is not possible to accomplish without accepting persistently rising inflation. If the Fed did find itself in a situation where the economy were overheating, it would have no choice but to jack up rates in order push the unemployment rate to a higher level. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that once the unemployment rate starts rising, it keeps rising. Indeed, there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than one-third of a percentage point without a recession ensuing (Chart 9). Chart 9Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle The inescapable fact is that modern economies contain numerous feedback loops. When unemployment is falling, this generates a virtuous cycle where rising employment boosts income and confidence, leading to more spending and even lower unemployment. The exact opposite happens when unemployment starts rising. History suggests that trying to raise the unemployment rate by just a little bit is like trying to get a little bit pregnant. It's simply impossible to pull off. The implication is that the Fed will not only raise rates in line with the dots, but could actually expedite the pace of rate hikes if aggregate demand accelerates later this year, as we expect. Remember, it wasn't that long ago that a typical tightening cycle entailed eight rate hikes per year. In this context, the market's expectation of less than two hikes over the next 12 months seems implausibly low. No Tightening In Japan Or Europe Chart 10Inflation Is Way Below The BoJ's Target Could other major central banks follow in the Fed's footsteps and tighten monetary policy more aggressively than what the market is currently discounting? We doubt it. Japanese inflation is nowhere close to the BOJ's 2% target (Chart 10). And even if Japanese growth surprises significantly to the upside, the first step the authorities will take is to tighten fiscal policy by raising the sales tax. Monetary tightening remains some ways off. Likewise, while the ECB might remove a few of its emergency measures, it is nowhere close to embarking on a full-fledged tightening cycle. The ECB's own research department recently put out a paper documenting that the combined unemployment and underemployment rate currently stands at 18% of the labor force across the euro area (Chart 11). This is 3.5 points above where it was in 2008. If one excludes Germany from the picture, the level of unemployment and underemployment is seven points higher than it was in 2008. This is not the stuff of which tightening cycles are made. Meanwhile, on the other side of the English Channel, the BoE must contend with the fact that growth remains underwhelming, partly due to ongoing angst about Brexit negotiations (Chart 12). Chart 12U.K. Is Lagging Its Peers EM Outlook Chart 13Positive Signs For The Chinese Housing Market... The outlook for EM currencies is a tougher call. On the one hand, a more hawkish Fed and broad-based dollar strength have usually been bad news for emerging markets, given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in U.S. dollars. On the other hand, stronger global growth should support commodity prices, even if the dollar is strengthening. Our energy strategists remain particularly convinced that oil prices will rise over the remainder of this year due to robust demand growth for crude and continued OPEC discipline. Strong Chinese growth should also boost metals demand, while limiting the need for further RMB weakness. Chart 13 shows that property developers have been snapping up new land at an accelerating pace. The percentage of households who intend to buy a new home has also surged to record high levels. This bodes well for construction, and by extension, commodity demand. The strong pace of growth in excavator sales - a leading indicator for capex - confirms this trend. Meanwhile, real-time measures of Chinese industrial activity such as rail freight traffic and electricity generation remain buoyant (Chart 14). This is helping to lift producer prices, which, in turn, is fueling a rebound in industrial company profits (Chart 15). And for all the talk about the government's crackdown on credit growth, the reality is that medium-to-long term lending to nonfinancial companies has actually picked up (Chart 16). Chart 14... And Positive Signs For Chinese Capex Chart 15Higher Producer Prices Boosting Profits Chart 16A Positive In China's Credit Picture Stick With Stocks... For Now In terms of global asset allocation, we continue to recommend a cyclical (12-month) overweight in equities relative to bonds. We have a slight preference for DM over EM stocks, although given some of the positive factors supporting EM economies noted above, we do not regard this as a high-conviction view. Within the DM universe, we favour higher-beta equity markets such Japan and the euro area over the U.S. (currency hedged). In the government bond space, we would underweight U.S. Treasurys, given the likelihood that the Fed will deliver more rate hikes over the coming months than the market is currently discounting. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The latest reading from all the indicators confirms that the growth improvement in the manufacturing sector since early last year has moderated, while the sharp recovery in producer prices has stalled. However, it is premature to be overly alarmed by a pending Chinese growth relapse. Betting on a material Chinese slowdown solely based on some sort of credit "impulse" estimate misses the big picture. The dramatic decline in real interest rates rather than an increase in new lending is what played a pivotal role in Chinese reflation since last year. Strategically we lean against being overly bearish. The Chinese economy will likely continue to moderate, but the downside risk appears low at the moment and overall business activity will remain buoyant. Feature Investors have become less sanguine on China's growth outlook in recent weeks, as the latest macro numbers are no longer unanimously positive. Concerns about a significant relapse in the Chinese economy are re-emerging, and the authorities' recent policy tightening has further heightened investors' anxiety levels. Judging from our recent conversations with clients, "China risk" is now clearly back on the radar. China's growth recovery since early last year played a major role in boosting some global risk assets such as commodities prices and emerging market equities. By the same token, will a China slowdown end the global reflation trade? The Divergence In Manufacturing PMIs Chart 1The Divergences In PMIs Investors' anxiety over China's cyclical trend has been amplified by the recent divergence between the official manufacturing Purchasing Manager Index (PMI) and the one compiled by Caixin Media group, a private source. The official survey for May still showed expansion, while the private PMI dropped slightly below the critical 50 threshold (Chart 1, top panel). Historically such divergences are not uncommon, and the private PMI appears to show sharper swings than its official counterpart, probably due to its smaller sample size and its focus on smaller private firms. Meanwhile, there were some commonalities: the sub-indices of output and new orders for both surveys remained above the expansionary threshold, while input costs and output prices for both dropped into contractionary territory. Taken together, the latest reading from all the indicators confirms that the growth improvement in the manufacturing sector since early last year has moderated, while the sharp recovery in producer prices has stalled - consistent with other recent macro variables. Meanwhile, the service industry is still showing solid expansion, according to both surveys, underpinning overall business activity (Chart 1, bottom panel). In short, it is premature to be overly alarmed by a pending Chinese growth relapse. Credit "Price" Versus "Volume": What Matters More? A common narrative to describe the reason behind China's ongoing growth moderation is policy tightening on both the monetary and fiscal fronts. As the argument goes, last year's growth recovery was driven by a massive increase in credit and fiscal spending, which has since been scaled back. As this credit and fiscal "impulse" fades away, the Chinese economy will tumble, sending shockwaves across the world. In our view, betting on a material Chinese slowdown solely based on some sort of credit "impulse" estimate misses the big picture, and is dangerously misguided. At BCA, we have long paid close attention to credit cycles and their impact on the growth outlook. However, there is no evidence that China's growth recovery since early last year was due to a massive increase in credit expansion and fiscal spending. In fact, total new credit provided by commercial banks and the "shadow banking sector" has been largely stable in recent years, and last year's credit "impulse," measured as the annual change in credit flows, was fairly modest - especially compared with previous bouts of sharp spikes (Chart 2). Similarly, Chinese fiscal spending actually decelerated sharply throughout last year, and dropped by over 10% in December, compared with a year earlier. Even if last year's fiscal retrenchment impacts the economy with a time lag, it is important to note that fiscal spending has already rebounded in recent months, which will become a tailwind for growth down the road. In our view, China's growth recovery since last year has a lot more to do with the "price" of credit rather than "volume." (Chart 3) Real interest rates dropped from double-digit levels that prevailed between 2012 and early 2016 to negative, thanks to a sharp increase in producer prices, while credit growth remained in a broad downtrend. In other words, the dramatic decline in real interest rates rather than an increase in new lending is what played a pivotal role in Chinese reflation. Chart 2Not Much 'Impulse' Chart 3Credit: 'Price' Matters More Than 'Volume' China's PPI has rolled over, which together with the authorities' attempts to tighten has begun to lift real interest rates. This will likely continue to generate some growth headwinds - a risk that clearly warrants close attention. However, monetary conditions currently are still very accommodative, and there is no reason to expect an overkill to choke off the economy. Why Growth Will Not Falter? Moreover, the bearish argument on China's cyclical outlook is fundamentally rooted in the assumption that the country's economy is dangerously imbalanced1 - a shaky house of cards propped up by policy stimulus that will immediately fall down once the policy pump-priming stops. While the structural profile of the Chinese economy will remain a major global macro issue subject to heated debates going forward, the bearish argument underestimates the economy's resilience, and therefore exaggerates the downside risks. First, it is important to note that China's growth challenges in previous years were to a large extent due to excessively tight monetary conditions, a costly policy mistake that amplified deflationary pressures. Real interest rates were kept at double digits for 5 consecutive years between 2012 and early 2016 while other major central banks were all trying desperately to lower borrowing costs within their respective economies. Furthermore, the trade-weighted RMB appreciated by 20% between 2012 and 2015. In fact, the RMB was the only major currency that appreciated in trade-weighted terms during this period (Chart 4), essentially shouldered deflationary stress for the rest of the world. In addition, Chinese regulators tried hard to block credit flows in an ill-conceived attempt to de-lever - which only prolonged credit intermediation channels and pushed loan demand to even costlier "shadow" institutions.2 All of these factors inflicted dramatic deflationary pain on Chinese manufacturers. Indeed, that the Chinese economy did not implode under the double-whammy of weak global demand and draconian domestic policy tightening - and staged a quick turnaround when monetary conditions eased - underscores the surprising resilience of the Chinese corporate sector. Second, the growth recovery since early last year has significantly improved financial conditions within the corporate sector and eased its balance sheet stress. Overall, companies have increased earnings, reduced inventories and beefed up cash positions (Chart 5). The situation can certainly deteriorate, but the sector is also better prepared for deflationary shocks than in previous years. Chart 4The RMB Shift Chart 5Inventory Is Still Very Low Third, even if China's corporate sector, especially industrial enterprises, are indeed as fragile as some bearish analysts claim, Chinese households and the service sector have much healthier fundamentals and therefore are less vulnerable. Consumer confidence has improved significantly in recent months following the growth acceleration, which should further help household consumption. The service sector now accounts for 52% of Chinese GDP, 30% larger than manufacturing. Household consumption and the service sector will provide an important anchor for business activity and prevent a major relapse in economic growth, even if the industrial sector slows more than we currently expect. Finally, the global growth environment is also largely supportive for the Chinese economy. The European economy has been showing some remarkable strength of late, and U.S. growth is likely to pick up after the recent soft patch, as per our U.S. specialists - both of which should bode well for Chinese exports. It is worth noting the recent weaker macro numbers out of China have followed growth disappointments in the U.S. (Chart 6). In fact, the ebbs and flows of "growth surprises" in the world's two largest economies in recent years have been largely in sync, albeit with China experiencing more pronounced volatility. In addition, the risk of an immediate escalation of protectionist backlash between the U.S. and China has also been lowered following President Xi's state visit to the U.S. in April.3 Overall, the Chinese economy is unlikely to slow materially, if the U.S. economy does reasonably well. Chart 6U.S. And China: Synchronized 'Surprises' All in all, we expect the Chinese economy will likely continue to moderate, but the downside risk appears low at the moment. In a reported titled "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead," dated April 6th, we warned that "growth figures coming out of China in the coming months may be viewed as less market friendly."4 Recent Chinese data and investor reactions confirm this judgment. Nonetheless, we maintain the view that the Chinese economy's growth improvement remains largely intact, which will reinforce the upturn in the global business cycle and support global risk assets. Strategically we lean against being overly bearish, and we remain cyclically positive on Chinese equities, particularly H shares. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Reports, "The Great Debate: Does China Have Too Much Debt Or Too Much Savings?" dated March 23, 2017, and "More On The Chinese Debt Debate," dated April 20, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Reports, "Reflecting On The Trump-Xi Summit," dated April 13, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead," dated April 6, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations